Next Article in Journal
Global Research Progress and Trends on Critical Metals: A Bibliometric Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Temperature Induced Flowering Phenology of Olea ferruginea Royle: A Climate Change Effect
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Biochar as a Soil Conditioner to Improve the Soil Properties of Saline Soil and Productivity of Tomato
Previous Article in Special Issue
Carbon Stock Mapping Utilizing Accumulated Volume of Sequestrated Carbon at Bangladesh Agricultural University, Bangladesh
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15064833
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Collaborative Adaptive Stewardship for Invasive Alien Plants Management in South Africa

by
Yashwant S. Rawat
1,*,
Vikram S. Negi
2,
Shreekar Pant
3 and
Rakesh Kumar Bachheti
4
1
Department of Wood Technology Management, Faculty of Civil Technology, Technical and Vocational Training Institute (TVTI), Addis Ababa P.O. Box 190310, Ethiopia
2
G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment (NIHE), Kosi-Katarmal, Almora 263643, Uttarakhand, India
3
Centre for Biodiversity Studies, Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah University, Rajouri 185234, Jammu and Kashmir, India
4
Nanotechnology Centre of Excellence, Addis Ababa Science and Technology University, Addis Ababa P.O. Box 16417, Ethiopia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 4833; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064833
Submission received: 27 January 2023 / Revised: 25 February 2023 / Accepted: 6 March 2023 / Published: 8 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Forest Management and Environmental Sustainability: Challenges and Management Implications)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examined the knowledge of Collaborative Adaptive Stewardship (CASt) to advance Invasive Alien Plants (IAPs) management in South Africa. This concept promotes the involvement of private landowners and other stakeholders in the management and action processes, hence promoting social inclusivity, job creation, and sustainable biodiversity stewardship. It demonstrates that landowners are major stakeholders in IAPs management, thereby practising biodiversity stewardship in the 80% of privately owned lands of the country. The involvement of landowners in the management process aids in the prevention of further expansion of IAPs, the mitigation of risks (such as fire and flooding), and the maintenance of ecosystem functionality and landscape-scale connectivity. CASt fosters synergy among many stakeholders for the management of IAPs and long-term sustainable biodiversity stewardship. In South Africa, a number of landowners have entered into stewardship agreements as a result of incentives and subsidies for IAPs management. The benefits should be contingent on private landowner actions to IAPs management; this will support biodiversity stewardship. This study serves as a foundation for collaborative IAPs management and will be crucial in achieving long-term sustainability goals (e.g., economy, society and environment) to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services.

1. Introduction

Invasive Alien Plants (IAPs) have a threat to the natural ecosystem and global biodiversity. Hence, it is considered one of the drivers of biodiversity and alters the ecosystem services and socio-economic conditions of an ecosystem [1,2,3,4]. The actors and information are a diverse and scattered, necessitating collaboration with regard to IAPs management. In doing so, Collaborative Adaptive Stewardship (CASt) is critical for IAPs management because 80% of land in South Africa is privately owned. However, incentive mechanisms (e.g., fiscal and motivational) are being developed to encourage private landowners to enter into stewardship agreements for IAPs management and soil and water conservation [5]. Additionally, it is also critical to develop collaboration and coordination for environmental protection, landscape-level connectivity, and ecosystem functionality [1,2,6,7]. The ecosystems are dire due to the destruction and suppression of native species (e.g., flora and fauna), which further increased the risks (such as fire and flood risks), affected ecosystem services (e.g., water) and nature conservation [8,9,10,11,12]. The surveys were conducted in the different provinces of South Africa (such as KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Eastern Cape and Western Cape); during the surveys, the information on the status and extent of the spread of IAPs were recorded and observed. It was found that the abundance of IAPs has even increased in previously cleared locations [7]. As a result, the CASt idea encourages a wide range of actors, disciplines, and stakeholders, including private landowners, to participate in the integrated IAPs management. These species have an impact on many ecosystems, ecosystem services (e.g., water), native species (e.g., flora and fauna), and risks from fire and flood [1,2,3,5,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Many international agreements (e.g., the Convention on Biological Diversity) have been signed by the country, and it has met the Aichi Biodiversity Target 9 for the control and management of IAPs [15].
IAPs management is critical on a global scale as invasive species have threatened native biodiversity and adversely impacted water resources and ecosystem services [1,3,4,6,9,10,11,12,14,16,17,18,19,20,21]. The Working for Water Programme in South Africa (1995) aimed to manage IAPs in order to achieve environmental (e.g., soil and water conservation, biodiversity conservation) and social (e.g., green job creation, skills and capacity building, and inclusion of marginalised and disadvantaged communities) sustainability goals [7,22,23]. However, despite having spent a significant amount of money on IAPs control and management, the expected results have yet to be achieved [4,24,25,26]. This is due to a lack of collaboration and transformative principles; thus, the concept of Collaborative Adaptive Stewardship (CASt) is identified, enablers and motivation, opportunities and challenges are ascertained, and described with the following objectives: (i) the history of IAPs management and the WfW Programme, (ii) Challenges in IAPs Management, (iii) the CASt and a framework to advance IAPs management while operationalising CASt.

2. Methodology

The methodological approach was categorised as study design, search strategy, literature review process, inclusion criteria and data analysis. The study was designed to examine the knowledge base on Collaborative Adaptive Stewardship (CASt) to advance IAPs management in South Africa. The themes of the study were set up, such as the history of IAPs management and the WfW Programme, challenges in IAPs management, the CASt and a framework to advance IAPs management. The potential knowledge gaps identified that evidence-based studies address helped support the theoretical foundation of the study. The present study is a review that resulted in the development and integration of a framework for IAPs management while operationalising collaborative adaptive stewardship in South Africa. The geographical demarcation of the research area was within South Africa [5].
The search strategy analysed and reviewed the available literature on collaborative adaptive stewardship for IAPs management in South Africa and internationally. In searching the literature, keywords such as invasive alien plant management, invasive alien plants, invasive species, biological invasion, participatory management, private landowners, Working for Water Programme, legislation, biodiversity conservation, monitoring and evaluation, control methods, South Africa, stakeholder participation, criteria and indicators, learning and adaptive management, and co-management were prepared and used for literature search. The literature was reviewed across disciplines in order to examine the pillars of collaborative adaptive stewardship for IAPs management in South Africa. Grey literature (archived from government and private office repositories) and publication databases were employed as sources of information. Among the literature sources that are routinely searched through Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and SpringerLink are academic papers, government reports, books, book chapters, and proceedings.
The review process included examining the knowledge base, identifying the gaps, trends and patterns on the subject, gathering empirical findings and perspectives to support evidence-based practice, and identifying topics requiring more investigation. In the literature review process, keywords and abstracts from the database’s literature were matched. A total of 319 full-text publications were downloaded; the relevant research papers and reports were screened for the analysis and purpose of the study. In inclusion criteria, the full-text publications (e.g., empirical studies or conceptual papers) relevant to the current investigation were downloaded for those keywords that had a better match. Visually scanned, extensively reviewed, analysed, synthesised, and integrated into this review were documents from grey literature and publishing databases. Out of 319, merely 193 articles met the criteria, and their data were extracted manually into a database. A decision was made about the scientific quality and suitability of the selected literature to be considered in the review. The literature review was supported by first-hand experience of IAPs management and sustainable biodiversity stewardship practices gained from personal observations, stakeholder engagement and consultations. The data were extracted, analysed and synthesised. Valid information was extracted from each selected study to advance the knowledge and facilitate the theory developed for the present study. The types of data used primarily depend on the objectives of the study, the research design and methods, and qualitative and quantitative results, respectively. Finally, in the analysing and synthesising process, the empirical findings and perspectives were collated, reviewed, interpreted, organised and compared with the evidence extracted from each selected study. The extracted data were presented in a meaningful manner, thereby contributing to the management of IAPs in South Africa.

3. The History of Invasive Alien Plants (IAPs) and the Working for Water (WfW) Programme

3.1. The History of Invasive Alien Plants

During the colonial period, many invasive alien plants (i.e., Acacia, Eucalyptus and Pines) were introduced purposely and accidentally by European settlers into South Africa for various purposes [2,6,26,27,28,29]. At that point in time, the cultivation of IAPs was promoted, and many of them provided financial benefits and livelihood options to society. Many of these contributed to so many unforeseen problems that the ecosystem and society are facing today. They escaped and outcompeted native species, making the situation uncontrolled today [2,6,30]. The few IAPs control programme that was tried in the Cape Floristic Region previously (in the 1940s) failed due to a lack of systematic strategy and methodology [7]. In addition, some attempts to manage it were attempted again (in the 1960s and 1980s), but a lack of coordination and determination led to the invasion of critical ecosystems [26,30].
In the mid-1990s, it was discovered that roughly 10 million ha, or 8% of South Africa’s land, was under the threat of IAPs, which had more than doubled by 2012 [26,28,31]. As a result of global climate change, previously unfavourable locations are now being invaded by IAPs [3,4,32,33,34]. Hence, new toolkits (like CASt) must be operationalised for IAPs management in South Africa. However, the success of such a programme depends on the allocation of human resources, finances, institutional capability and governance, prioritisation of institutions and stakeholders, time and other logistics.

3.2. The Working for Water Programme

The Working for Water (WfW) Programme began in 1995 to achieve social and ecological goals (Table 1), securing and increasing water resources, addressing socio-economic challenges [7,22,23], and encouraging inclusive development in sustainable biodiversity stewardship [5,35]. For the past 18 years, the WfW Programme has invested around ZAR 2 billion (USD 142 million) every year and created about 8000 jobs annually [7,26]. Although socio-economic development and biodiversity conservation (e.g., IAPs management) have progressed, there are still gaps that have put significant pressure on the programme’s aims to be met [22].

4. Challenges in Invasive Alien Plants Management

4.1. Lacks of Resources and Governance Challenges

Another difficulty is that the WfW Programme must solve the availability of resources and governance. According to Forsyth et al. [19], priorities in IAPs management are poorly defined, with low-priority catchments receiving funds while high-priority catchments are ignored. Managers have observed that a lack of resources, fragmentation, and poor management are to blame for the programme’s poor implementation, which has resulted in poor results. Managers should be clear on the programme’s objectives, target species, and priority locations and prompt follow-up work on clearing areas [7].
After clearance, there must also be a focus on restoring working landscapes. So that IAPs management is applied in a broader framework of landscape restoration to promote well-being or social resilience, productive landscapes must become the focus of action. This implies that more outcome-oriented management is necessary, which can lead to increased private-sector investment incentives. Identifying potential concerns about thresholds (e.g., threshold densities, threshold rates of spread, threshold benefits to substantially enhance livelihoods) could be a good strategy to establish targets and measure progress instead of hectares of land cleared or people employed. Conversely, managers are overburdened owing to the extent of their work (e.g., budget, expenditure, and employment figures), making resource constraints and administrative duties a difficult task for them [36]. As a result, managers must improve their capacity and talents [37]. Workers are insecure about their livelihood because of the programme’s payment delays and on-and-off employment system [7,36].
The WfW Programme was supposed to bring the invasion under control in 20 years, but it could take 83 years or more [20,38,39]. As a result, it requires a more strategic strategy that focuses on efficiency, species and region prioritising, collaborative adaptive stewardship, and control measures [7,14,20,25,33,37,40,41]. Little attention has been given to the potential of collaborative management, adaptive management, and stewardship as approaches to transformation [42]. Hence, CASt can bring together various stakeholders, including private landowners and experts from a variety of fields, to manage IAPs. However, to make this strategy operational, a mechanism such as the Joint Forest Management (JFM) of India is needed. Joint Forest Management was a collaborative and coordinated approach among different stakeholders (e.g., state forest departments and local communities) for sustainable forest management, soil and water conservation, rehabilitation of degraded lands, safeguarding biodiversity and forest ecosystem management, and livelihood enhancement [43].

4.2. Awareness and Knowledge Challenges

Science, awareness, and understanding are the key problems that stakeholders, particularly private landowners, confront in IAPs management. Many landowners, for example, are unaware of the advantages of biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and fire risks. Furthermore, management is primarily focused on priority locations, but other areas and ecosystems are being neglected, resulting in a major infestation in the near future. Many stakeholders, such as private landowners, are unfamiliar with scientific and policy terms in the documents. Managers are also responsible for improving private landowners’ awareness of IAPs management [44,45,46]. Extension services, awareness campaigns, skill development, and capacity-building programme could provide all aid in improving their science and knowledge of IAPs management. It is necessary to operationalise evidence-based strategies, and better science and techniques, either collaboratively or independently [3,7].
Obtaining clearance areas in a timely manner in a Geographic Information System (GIS), density estimation, demarcating the trees or areas to be cleared, and communication challenges within the clearing team or stakeholders are all areas where science, research and expertise could be enhanced [36]. Cordial engagement with private landowners and other stakeholders is critical to the programme’s effectiveness [47]. Knowledge (e.g., science, information) is scattered and needs to be made available to all stakeholders in a suitable form and action process. Finally, the effectiveness of such a programme lies in governance, feedback, iterative process, knowledge, communication, understanding and relationship development among the stakeholders.

5. Collaborative Adaptive Stewardship (CASt)

CASt entails the participation of various stakeholders, including private landowners and a range of disciplines, to achieve the social and ecological goals of IAPs management through an organised and rigorous process [48,49]. It promotes the sustainable and responsible use of natural resources, biodiversity stewardship and inclusive development [5,35,42]. Hence, this notion has become a cornerstone for CASt [50], contributing to biodiversity stewardship, improved quality of life, and environmental sustainability (Figure 1).
This is defined as “collaborative adaptive stewardship is a systematic management process to be applied in sustainable biodiversity stewardship (e.g., IAPs management) thereby contributes to inclusive development that foster synergies among a wide range of stakeholders (including private landowners), across disciplines and ecosystems to promote social and environmental inclusiveness, access and equitable sharing of benefits”. This also demonstrates that the government and its agencies, as well as private landowners and other actors, bear responsibility for water resource management, biodiversity and ecosystem services, job creation, poverty alleviation, social cohesion, and inclusiveness, all of which contribute to inclusive development in sustainable biodiversity stewardship [5]. A better quality of life and environmental sustainability are rarely recorded in parallel, especially in developing nations, but always in reversible directions, which are linked directly and indirectly, favourably and adversely, or strongly and weekly. Transformative governance (i.e., collaboration, adaptive management, inclusive development, pluralist, combination, coordination and integration) principles also support the CASt for IAPs management, thereby contributing to biodiversity stewardship [5,51].
This concept supports a strategic approach to forester synergy among private landowners, civil society, government, scientists, managers, and ecosystems [7], as well as the flexibility to adapt strategies in response to monitoring results [52]. For example, identifying criteria and indicators, stakeholder validation of priorities, stakeholder facilitation, and priority ecosystems are those areas which increase IAPs management efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, prioritisation of efforts, conserved areas, collaboration, communication, motives, skills and capacity building, institutional and legal consequences, data management, and monitoring are all required. Hence, CASt is seen as a valuable toolkit for managing IAPs outside of protected regions to deliver updates or new knowledge on IAPs management. The WfW programme has largely taken a top-down approach but CASt believes that a bottom-up method should be investigated with new knowledge and updates. As a result, CASt provides a canvas to aid in the support and connectivity of such approaches to IAPs management. This serves as the foundation for increasing the programme’s efficacy, efficiency, operational rate, and motivation to meet its objectives.

6. A Framework to Advance IAPs Management While Operationalising the CASt

6.1. Stakeholders’ Participation, Facilitation and Priorities

Participation of stakeholders is critical for effective IAPs management, but their roles and responsibilities must be prioritised [5,20,32,47]. At this point, the government must play a key role in facilitating stakeholder participation to achieve the programme’s social and environmental objectives (Table 1). Hence, CASt suggests a common ground for sharing IAPs management tasks and duties. However, positive energy and commitment are required. The necessity for the programme to build a matrix of essential actions and stakeholders, with the capacities, roles, and responsibilities of all stakeholders negotiated and agreed upon, could be a beneficial tool (and obviously within legal obligations and incentives). This emphasises the importance of collaborative adaptive stewardship in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of IAPs management for biodiversity stewardship. Due to the difficulty in involvement, connection development, and the country’s complicated socio-cultural set up [47], this strategy has received little attention to date due to the difficulty in measuring the social and ecological impacts [53]. However, currently, several private landowners have entered into stewardship agreements [7]. Effective legislation and policy interventions are needed in order to make land users more responsible for the management of IAPs in South Africa.
According to Urgenson et al. [30], the majority of private landowners believe that IAPs management should be a collaborative effort (between government and private landowners) because a heavy infestation limits their ability to control it effectively. The advantages should be contingent on private landowner contributions [5]. For example, if a landowner provides 100% service, he or she should receive larger advantages than if he or she only provides 5% service. Urgenson et al. [30] identified a relationship between biophysical and land-use characteristics that affect landowners’ attitudes toward IAPs management. While private landowners must be aware of the features of the area in which they live as well as the resources they manage. In addition, conventional approaches to IAPs management, such as indigenous knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge, and citizen science, can be applied. Alternatively, it is necessary to raise public knowledge and encourage people to value biodiversity and ecosystem management [44,46,47]. The participation of private landowners is also influenced by the size of municipalities and the resources available to them.

6.2. Prioritise Responsibility, Areas, Ecosystems, Methods and Species

Each stakeholder’s responsibilities and management must be identified in the programme [7,25]. Priority IAPs management areas (e.g., catchment), species, ecosystem services (e.g., water), and projects must also be identified as a part of the programme. To prioritise conservation areas and ecosystems, specific criteria and indicators must be devised [4]. It is necessary to identify the species that significantly impact the environment [37] and control measures for each species accordingly. It aids the management of IAPs in meeting their objectives within the time span allotted. Furthermore, the programme’s 2014 evaluation emphasised priority areas, finance, and project selection based on priority to meet the programme’s objectives [7,25]. It is also suggested that an effective monitoring and evaluation protocol is essential to establish the success of indicators and determine the programme’s genuine impacts [54]. Other tools, such as the catchment priority model, institutional efficiency model, value-added selection model, enterprise growth model, early restoration benefits model, and so on, could be employed to advance the CASt in integrated IAPs management. Other industries (e.g., energy and furniture) must be allowed to participate in IAPs-cleared biomass use. Scaling up biomass beneficiation and identifying potential areas for beneficiation (e.g., bio-energy, furniture) and other value-added products are lowering the risk of fire and flood [5].

6.3. Institutional Arrangements and Governance

6.3.1. The Role of Canopy Government Organizations

Stakeholder participation, project plans, criteria and indicators, and priority areas to be monitored are all things that canopy organisations must ensure. They must also guarantee that an appropriate IAPs management strategy is established, taking into account species and priority [4]. Additionally, they serve as a facilitator, motivating, supporting, and training stakeholders as needed. While operationalising the CASt in IAPs management, institutions’ capability must be improved. The industries′ and institutions′ links are needed for the use of biomass from IAPs clearing projects, identifying potential areas for beneficiation and other value-added products.
Institutional arrangements, such as incentives, legal regulations, and motivational instruments (for example, extension services, education, and information), could improve service delivery in the management of IAPs on private properties [5,30] despite the programme’s significant lags in administering the allocation of funding and reporting [7,25]. It also needs to promote and encourage private landowners to produce IAPs management plans under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM: BA). This statute states that IAPs management is a landowner’s responsibility while employing the best management methods that encourage landowners to be long-term custodians of their lands [32,46]. It must also prioritise the management of species and ecosystems. Conservancies are identified as possible stakeholders in order to place them in a regional context and to provide support while visiting conservancies to build project plans, and control methods, identify problem areas, and bring them to the attention of conservancies for IAPs management. A new institutional architecture is needed to deal with IAPs management in a proactive manner that encourages more learning and adaptation of tactics.

6.3.2. Stewardship Options

For landowners to participate in and collaboratively address the IAP’s concerns, conservancies are essential. Although most private landowners are a member of conservancies, their active role and participation are required to ensure long-term biodiversity conservation [30]. A conservancy is a non-profit group that works together to manage an area in order to promote environmental sustainability. The conservancies, on the other hand, have their own goals and objectives for biodiversity conservation and other forms of sustainability activities. In South Africa, approximately 496 conservancies are currently protecting over 3,000,000 ha of land [55]. Private landowners asserted that there is a need to be a common understanding and remedies for the conservancy to succeed in sustainable biodiversity stewardship and ecosystem services management. It is also necessary to share knowledge and experiences in order to improve IAPs management. Finally, conservancies have been acknowledged as an important instrument for biodiversity conservation stewardship.
According to the WfW Programme’s standards, landowners are obligated to manage the IAPs on their lands under contracts and agreements. The land should be managed in accordance with the WfW-approved management plan [30]. The Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA), 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983) and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM: BA) (No. 10 of 2004) have given the government extensive power to hold private landowners accountable for IAPs management on their holdings. The removal of IAPs from their lands is required by law [29,36]. In the event of a fire, if the fire spreads from one landowner’s property to another, the first landowner will be held liable for damages. Furthermore, they will be constrained by environmental authorisation and land-use appropriations if there is any land-use change in the buffer zone and spreading of IAPs from landowners’ property in protected regions and ecologically sensitive areas. If landowners have a new development plan (for example, resorts or dams) on their property, they must seek advice from a relevant authority and map out an assessment for future development. Before ownership is transferred, landowners can receive a certificate stating that the property is totally cleared. The effectiveness of the programme is improved through a certification and validation system.

6.3.3. Motivational Tools

The WfW Programme currently offers landowners incentives and technical assistance. There are financial (e.g., income tax deductions, property rates exclusions and rate rebates) and motivational (e.g., extension services, education, awareness, information, skill development and capacity building programme) incentives to enter into biodiversity stewardship agreements (e.g., for IAPs management, soil and water conservation) [5,30]. Alternatively, it is mandatory by law to manage the IAPs on their property. Subsequently, the landowner who does not comply with the law may be required to manage IAPs without the incentives provided by the WfW Programme. Fiscal and motivational incentives are seen as important possible motivators for IAPs management [5]. According to Garcìa-Llorente et al. [53], a higher percentage of educated respondents in Spain had a strong understanding of the IAPs management programme. In South Africa, however, the majority of landowners agreed that IAPs management should be governed by regulatory, motivational, and fiscal incentives [30]. For example, the Southern Cape Fire Protection Association (SCFPA) is a good example of how to collaborate for fire management. By becoming a member of this working association, landowners are able to comply with some legal fire management duties. Landowners can benefit from this platform in various ways (e.g., effective education, information exchange, awareness, and commitment). Hence, it might be used for IAPs management as part of a biodiversity stewardship programme.

6.3.4. Learning and Adaptive Management

It reports that stewardship programmes are greatly influenced by learning and adaptive management [5]. Supporting CASt and becoming a learning “community of practice” requires institutional learning and adaptability. Continuous learning, contemplation, and the willingness to change regulations, techniques, and principles as a result of lessons learned are linked to capacity development and monitoring. Learning is an important aspect of management since it helps stakeholders improve their skills and capacity. Adaptive management entails continuous learning and improvement by everyone, including managers and workers, with the fundamental idea of meeting the demands of private landowners. Training programmes (for example, capacity and skills) improve the efficiency of stakeholders, which results in the effectiveness of IAPs management (Ibid).
Working with private landowners to understand the relationship between motives, satisfaction, and commitment is critical for the success of such a conservation programme [56] and helps to ensure biodiversity stewardship. As a result, all stakeholders must conduct self-assessments to promote adaptive management in managing IAPs. Correctness and remedial steps taken at the appropriate times assist the programme in achieving its objectives [21,44,57]. Improving it requires a strong communication strategy, diplomatic dialogues [56], shared understanding, and timely feedback [52,58,59]. Because some organisations aim only to work within the confines of protected zones, working outside of those bounds is difficult and unusual for them. Hence, CASt provides a framework to work in collaboration with various stakeholders for integrated IAPs management in South Africa.
The stakeholders’ trust and relationship could help promote IAPs management on private property [47]. More effective techniques for dealing with private landowners must be found so that they can maintain the land after it has been cleared of IAPs [40]. The scale of quality criteria in clearing operations of IAPs is essential prior to returning land to landowners. This is a long-term programme in South Africa for sustainable biodiversity stewardship and inclusive development [7], which requires a solid, long-term partnership for IAPs management. To meet the objectives, the stakeholders must be aware of each other’s needs and obligations. According to Selinske et al. [56], contentment is based on a deliberate interaction between landowners and managers. Hence, a fruitful partnership depends on service delivery and an awareness of the programme’s biodiversity stewardship benefits [47,60].

6.3.5. Grazing Spaces for Livestock

The removal of IAPs from the property also makes room for animal grazing [28,41]; otherwise, it occupies the grazing spaces [6]. The open grazing spaces created by the removal of IAPs have increased the carrying capacity of the pasture, and landowners can profit more from livestock production. As a result, both landowners and the ecosystem can be benefitted and prosper. Additionally, it would reduce overgrazing and keep predators out of their lands. Once the area has been cleared and managed, predators cannot find a hiding place on the property.

6.3.6. Employment Generation

On private lands, initiatives such as biodiversity stewardship and the WfW Programme offer jobs and rural development, especially for poor or marginalised populations [5,7]. Working for Water (WfW) Programme has supported, empowered, and improved the capacity and abilities of staff, workers, and contractors so that they may find work once the IAPs have been cleared [61,62,63]. The initiative has improved societal cohesion, allowing for a better understanding and stewardship of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
The programme’s efficacy and effectiveness have improved as a result of the capacity and skills development [5]. The biomass generated by the WfW Projects is used to make a variety of value-added items (such as furniture), as well as to improve rural well-being and create jobs. This programme has resulted in the creation of a huge number of jobs (8000 jobs per year for 18 years) as well as the conservation of biodiversity [7]. Implementing the CASt in IAPs management will encourage productive employment and translate economic growth along with social inclusion [64] and biodiversity stewardship.

6.4. Monitoring and Evaluation

Data management, updates, available resources, and information on clearings are all lacking in the programme [25]. Furthermore, the Water Information Management System (WIMS) database is inaccurate and ineffective due to a lack of data and accuracy, skills and training, data capture and quality assurance, reporting and data supply. The heterogeneous distribution and complex processing of the data are other problems [65]. In terms of clearing aspects, several IAPs projects are not meeting their goals [7]. There has been a lot of variation in the success of the WfW Programme’s activities in terms of execution. There is insufficient oversight of the regions that have already been cleared.
Information on collection and management needs to be improved for monitoring and evaluation purposes [4,14,25,66]. The GIS data collection that can be used to make decisions is incomplete. Information varies in terms of quality, freshness, and accessibility. All of these concerns indicate the necessity for a more uniform monitoring system, as well as increased sharing and systemic evaluation. Furthermore, diverse stakeholders’ experiences indicate the need for more learning and adaptive management opportunities for landowners and other stakeholders (such as government officials) to learn from one another. The adaptive management needs to be strengthened in the regional to national activities of IAPs management by operationalising CASt [42], which has been depicted in Figure 1.
A monitoring and evaluation protocol is essential to establish success indicators and determine the programme’s genuine impact [14,66]. Hence, develop monitoring guidelines and procedures to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the programme [4,5]. Furthermore, in order to meet the programme’s objectives, it must be rigorously monitored and evaluated.

7. Conclusions

In South Africa, the actors and information are immense in IAPs management but scattered. Collaborative adaptive stewardship (CASt) encourages participation and provides advantages to landowners for sustainable biodiversity stewardship and inclusive development. Alternatively, this paper recognises that IAPs management requires the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders, including private land owners, as well as a wide range of sectors, to contribute to long-term biodiversity stewardship and inclusive development. It must encourage adaptive management, the sharing of best practices, and cutting-edge collaborative adaptive stewardship initiatives. In order to prioritise biodiversity conservation (e.g., species, method, ecosystem, catchment, project), local institutions, conservation agencies, research, and academic organisations must improve their capabilities in IAPs management. The productivity index of the stakeholders and institutions needs to be developed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the programme. A monitoring and evaluation protocol is required to improve the working and management capacities of stakeholders in the IAPs management programme. Mechanisms (e.g., criteria and indicators) are needed to measure the success of the programme from time to time.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.S.R.; methodology, Y.S.R. and V.S.N.; software, S.P.; validation, Y.S.R., V.S.N., S.P. and R.K.B.; formal analysis, Y.S.R.; investigation, Y.S.R.; resources, Y.S.R.; data curation, V.S.N., S.P. and R.K.B.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.S.R.; writing—review and editing, Y.S.R., V.S.N., S.P. and R.K.B.; visualization, Y.S.R.; supervision, Y.S.R.; project administration, Y.S.R.; funding acquisition, Y.S.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Sustainability Research Unit, Nelson Mandela University, South Africa, for the provision of research facilities and the Technical and Vocational Training Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, while finalising the MS. The authors also wish to express their sincere thanks to Nicolas Cole, Christo Fabricius and Maretha Alant for their useful inputs, suggestions and comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. The help and support provided during the study by the various sources and people are also gratefully acknowledged and thanked.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rai, P.K.; Singh, J.S. Invasive Alien Plant Species: Their Impact on Environment, Ecosystem Services and Human Health. Ecol Indic. 2020, 111, 106020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Richardson, D.M.; Foxcroft, F.C.; Latombe, G.; Le Maitre, D.C.; Rouget, M.; Wilson, J.R.U. The Biogeography of South African Terrestrial Plant Invasions. In Biological Invasions in South Africa; van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T.A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 67–96. [Google Scholar]
  3. van Wilgen, N.J.; Faulkner, K.T.; Robinson, T.B.; South, J.; Beckett, H.; Janion-Scheepers, C.; Measey, J.; Midgley, G.F.; Richardson, D.M. Climate Change and Biological Invasions in South Africa. In Invasive Species and Global Change; CAB International: Oxfordshire, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. van Wilgen, B.W.; Zengeya, T.A.; Richardson, D.M. A Review of the Impacts of Biological Invasions in South Africa. Biol. Invasions 2022, 24, 27–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rawat, Y.S. Sustainable Biodiversity Stewardship and Inclusive Development in South Africa: A Novel Package for a Sustainable Future. Cur. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 24, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ruwanza, S.; Thondhlana, G. People’s perceptions and uses of invasive plant Psidium guajava in Vhembe Biosphere Reserve, Limpopo Province of South Africa. Ecosyst. People 2022, 18, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. van Wilgen, B.W.; Wannenburgh, A. Co-facilitating Invasive Species Control, Water Conservation and Poverty Relief: Achievements and Challenges in South Africa’s Working for Water Programme. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 19, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. de Wit, M.P.; Crookes, D.J.; van Wilgen, B.W. Conflicts of Interest in Environmental Management: Estimating the Costs and Benefits of a Tree Invasion. Biol. Invasions 2001, 3, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis; Island Press: Washington DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pimentel, D.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. Update on the Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Alien-Invasive Species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52, 273–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bremner, A.; Park, K. Public Attitudes to the Management of Invasive Non-Native Species in Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 306–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Negrea, B.-M.; Stoilov-Linu, V.; Pop, C.-E.; Deák, G.; Crăciun, N.; Făgăraș, M.M. Expansion of the Invasive Plant Species Reynoutria japonica Houtt in the Upper Bistrița Mountain River Basin with a Calculus on the Productive Potential of a Mountain Meadow. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Le Maitre, D.C.; Blignaut, J.N.; Clulow, A.; Dzikiti, S.; Everson, C.S.; André, H.M.; Görgens, A.H.M.; Gush, M.B. Impacts of Plant Invasions on Terrestrial Water Flows in South Africa. In Biological Invasions in South Africa. Invading Nature Springer Series in Invasion Ecology; van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T.A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 14, pp. 431–457. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cuthbert, R.N.; Diagne, C.; Haubrock, P.J.; Turbelin, A.J.; Courchamp, F. Are the ‘‘100 of the World’s Worst’’ Invasive Species also the Costliest? Biol. Invasions 2022, 24, 1895–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Faulkner, K.T.; Burness, A.; Byrne, M.J.; Kumschick, S.; Peters, K.; Robertson, M.P.; Saccaggi, D.L.; Weyl, O.L.F.; Williams, V.L. South Africa’s Pathways of Introduction and Dispersal and How They Have Changed Over Time. In Biological Invasions in South Africa. Invading Nature Springer Series in Invasion Ecology; van Wilgen, B.W., Measey, J., Richardson, D.M., Wilson, J.R., Zengeya, T.A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 14, pp. 313–354. [Google Scholar]
  16. Holmes, P.M.; Cowling, R.M. The Effects of Invasion by Acacia saligna on the Guild Structure and Regeneration Capabilities of South African Fynbos Shrub Lands. J. Appld. Ecol. 1997, 34, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sala, O.; Chapin, S.; Armesto, J.; Berlow, E.; Bloomfield, J.; Dirzo, R.; Huber-Sanwald, E.; Huenneke, L.; Jackson, R.; Kinzig, A.; et al. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science 2000, 287, 1770–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. McGeoch, M.A.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Spear, D.; Marais, E.; Kleynhans, E.J.; Symes, A.; Chanson, J.; Hoffmann, M. Global Indicators of Biological Invasion: Species, Numbers, Biodiversity Impact and Policy Responses. Div. Distrib. 2010, 16, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Forsyth, G.G.; Le Maitre, D.C.; O’Farrell, P.J.; van Wilgen, B.W. The Prioritization of Invasive Alien Plant Control Projects Using a Multi-Criteria Decision Model Informed by Stakeholder Input and Spatial Data. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 103, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. van Wilgen, B.W.; Forsyth, G.G.; Le Maitre, D.C.; Wannenburgh, A.; Kotzé, J.D.F.; van den Berg, E.; Henderson, L. An assessment of the Effectiveness of a Large, National-Scale Invasive Alien Plant Control Strategy in South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 148, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Huiskes, A.H.L.; Gremmen, N.J.M.; Bergstrom, D.M.; Frenot, Y.; Hughes, K.A.; Imura, S.; Kiefer, K.; Lebouvier, M.; Lee, J.E.; Tsujimoto, M.; et al. Aliens in Antarctica: Assessing Transfer of Plant Propagules by Human Visitors to Reduce Invasion Risk. Biol. Conerv. 2014, 171, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Common Ground. Working for Water External Evaluation Synthesis Report; Common Ground: Cape Town, South Africa, 2003. Available online: https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/commonground_externalevaluation.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  23. Hobbs, R.J. The Working for Water Programme in South Africa: The Science Behind the Success. Div. Distrib. 2004, 10, 501–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pyšek, P.; Richardson, D.M. Invasive Species, Environmental Change and Management and Health. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2010, 35, 25–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. van Wilgen, B.W.; Wilson, J.R. (Eds.) Kirstenbosch and DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology. In The Status of Biological Invasions and Their Management in South Africa in 2017; South African National Biodiversity Institute: Cape Town, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  26. van Wilgen, B.W.; Measey, J.; Richardson, D.M.; Wilson, J.R.; Zengeya, T.A. (Eds.) Biological Invasions in South Africa: An Overview. In Biological Invasions in South Africa. Invading Nature Springer Series in Invasion Ecology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 14, pp. 3–32. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pyšek, P.; Richardson, D.M. Invasive Plants. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 3, 2011–2020. [Google Scholar]
  28. van Wilgen, B.W.; Richardson, D.M.; Le Maitre, D.C.; Marais, C.; Magadlela, D. The Economic Consequences of Alien Plant Invasions: Examples of Impacts and Approaches to Sustainable Management in South Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2001, 3, 145–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. vanWilgen, B.W.; Richardson, D.M. Three Centuries of Managing Introduced Conifers in South Africa: Benefits, Impacts, Changing Perceptions and Conflict Resolution. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 106, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Urgenson, L.S.; Prozesky, H.E.; Esler, K.J. Stakeholder Perceptions of an Ecosystem Services Approach to Clearing Invasive Alien Plants on Private Land. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Driver, A.; Sink, K.J.; Nel, J.; Holness, S.; van Niekerk, L.; Daniels, F.; Jonas, Z.; Majiedt, P.; Harris, L.; Maze, K. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An Assessment of South Africa’s Biodiversity and Ecosystems; Synthesis Report; South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs: Pretoria, South African, 2012; Available online: http://catalog.ipbes.net/system/assessment/195/references/files/570/original/NBA_2011_Synthesis_Report_%28low_resolution%29.pdf?1364385861 (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  32. Bardsley, D.; Edwards-Jones, G. Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Impacts of Invasive Exotic Plant Species in the Mediterranean Region. Geo J. 2006, 65, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Richardson, D.M.; van Willgen, B.W. Invasive Alien Plants in South Africa: How Well Do We Understand the Ecological Impacts? S. Afr. J. Sci. 2004, 100, 45–52. [Google Scholar]
  34. Walther, G.R.; Roques, A.; Hulme, P.E.; Sykes, M.T.; Pyšek, P.; Kühn, I.; Zobel, M.; Bacher, S.; Botta-dukát, Z.; Bugmann, H.; et al. Alien Species in a Warmer World: Risks and Opportunities (Online). Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 686–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Gupta, J.; Pouw, N.R.M.; Ros-Tonenb, M.A.F. Towards an Elaborated Theory of Inclusive Development. Eur. J. Devel. Res. 2015, 27, 541–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Loftus, W.J. Strategic Adaptive Management and the Efficiency of Invasive Alien Plant Management in South African National Parks. Master’s Thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Gqeberha, South Africa, 2013; 109p. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gaertner, M.; Biggs, R.; TeBeest, M.; Hui, C.; Molofsky, J.; Richardson, D.M. Invasive Plants as Drivers of Regime Shifts: Identifying High Priority Invaders That Alter Feedback Relationships. Div. Distrib. 2014, 20, 733–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Marais, R.; van Willgen, B.; Stevens, D. Clearing of Invasive Alien Plants in South Africa: A Preliminary Assessment of Costs and Progress. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2004, 100, 97–103. [Google Scholar]
  39. Levendal, M.; Le Maitre, D.C.; van Wilgen, B.W.; Ntshotso, P. The Development of Protocols for the Monitoring and Evaluation of Benefits Arising from the Working for Water Programme; Report CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2008/0066/C; Council for Scientific and Industrial Research: Pretoria, South Africa, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  40. McConnachie, M.M.; Cowling, R.M.; van Wilgen, B.W.; McConnachie, D.A. Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Invasive Alien Plant Clearing: A Case Study from South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 155, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. vanWilgen, B.W.; Cowling, R.M.; Marais, C.; Esler, K.J.; McConnachie, M.; Sharp, D. Challenges in Invasive Alien Plant Control in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2012, 108, 11–12. [Google Scholar]
  42. Curtin, C.G. Resilience Design: Toward a Synthesis of Cognition, Learning and Collaboration for Adaptive Problem Solving in Conservation and Natural Resource Stewardship. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Rawat, Y.S.; Sharma, C.M. Sustainable Development and Management of Forest Resources: A Case Study of Site Specific Microplan Preparation and Joint Forest Management (JFM) Implementation in District Rudraprayag, Central Indian Himalaya. Environ. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2010, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  44. Daab, M.T.; Flint, C.G. Public Reaction to Invasive Plant Species in a Disturbed Colorado Landscape. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2010, 3, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sharp, R.L.; Larson, L.R.; Green, G.T. Factors Influencing Public Preferences for Invasive Alien Species Management. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2097–2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fonseca, C.R.; Guadagnin, D.L.; Emer, C.; Masciadri, S.; Germain, P.; Zalba, S.M. Invasive Alien Plants in the Pampas Grasslands: A Tri-National Cooperation Challenge. Biol. Invasions 2013, 15, 1751–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kamal, S.; Grodzinska-Jurczak, M.; Kaszynska, A.P. Challenges and Opportunities in Biodiversity Conservation on Private Land: An Institutional Perspective from Central Europe and North America. Biodivers. Conserv. 2015, 24, 1271–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Holling, C.S. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1978; ISBN 0-471-99632-7. [Google Scholar]
  49. Walters, C. Challenges in Adaptive Management of Riparian and Coastal Ecosystems. Conserv. Ecol. 1997, 1, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.-L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al. Ten Principles for a Landscape Approach to Reconciling Agriculture, Conservation and Other Competing Land Uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8349–8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Visseren-Hamakers, I.J.; Razzaque, J.; McElwee, P.; Turnhout, E.; Kelemen, E.; Rusch, G.M.; Fernández-Llamazares, Á.; Chan, I.; Lim, M.; Islar, M.; et al. Transformative Governance of Biodiversity: Insights for Sustainable Development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 53, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Roux, D.J.; Foxcroft, L.C. The Development and Application of Strategic Adaptive Management within South African National Parks. Koedoe 2011, 53, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Garcìa-Llorente, M.; Martìn-López, B.; González, J.A.; Alcarlo, P.; Montes, C. Social Perceptions of the Impacts and Benefits of Invasive Alien Species: Implications for Management. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2969–2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Chapman, S. A Framework for Monitoring Social Process and Outcomes in Environmental Programs. Eval. Progr. Plan. 2014, 47, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Barendse, J.; Roux, D.; Currie, B.; Wilson, N.; Fabricius, C. A Broader View of Stewardship to Achieve Conservation and Sustainability Goals in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2016, 112, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Selinske, M.J.; Coetzee, J.; Purnell, K.; Knight, A.T. Understanding the Motivations, Satisfaction and Retention of Landowners in Private Land Conservation Programs. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 30, 282–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Larson, D.L.; Phillips-Mao, L.; Quiram, G.; Sharpe, L.; Stark, R.; Sugita, S.; Weiler, A. A framework for Sustainable Invasive Species Management. Environmental, Social, and Economic Objectives. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Genovesi, P.; Monaco, A. Guidelines for Addressing Invasive Species in Protected Areas. In Plant Invasions in Protected Areas: Patterns, Problems and Challenges; Foxcroft, L., Pyšek, P., Richardson, D.M., Genovesi, P., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 487–506. [Google Scholar]
  59. Foxcroft, L.C.; McGeoch, M. Implementing Invasive Species Management in an Adaptive Management Framework. Koedoe 2011, 53, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Andreu, J.; Vila, M.; Hulme, P.E. An Assessment of Stakeholder Perceptions and Management of Noxious Alien Plants in Spain. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 43, 1244–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sadan, M. Gendered Analysis of the Working for Water Programme: A Case Study of the Tsitsikama Working for Water Project; IDASA Occasional Paper; IDASA: Barcelona, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  62. Woodworth, P. Working for Water in South Africa: Saving the World on a Single Budget? World Policy 2006, 23, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. The Working for Water. Emerging Contractor Development in the Working for Water Program (Online). 2014. Available online: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/Docs (accessed on 26 June 2022).
  64. Samans, R.; Blanke, J.; Corrigan, G.; Drzeniek, M. The Inclusive Growth and Development Report. The World Economic Forum. 2015. 54p. Available online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Media/WEF_Inclusive_Growth.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2022).
  65. Wang, F. Water Resources Information Management System Based on Agent Model. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 2066, 012036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Casey, F.; Vickerman, S.; Hummon, C.; Taylor, B. Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation: An Ecological and Economic Assessment; Defenders of Wildlife: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; 94p, Available online: http://www.defenders.org/publications/incentives_for_biodiversity_conservation.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2022).
Sustainability 15 04833 g001 550
Figure 1. A framework for collaborative adaptive stewardship for invasive alien plants management and sustainable biodiversity stewardship in South Africa thereby contributing to sustainability and ecosystem services.
Figure 1. A framework for collaborative adaptive stewardship for invasive alien plants management and sustainable biodiversity stewardship in South Africa thereby contributing to sustainability and ecosystem services.
Sustainability 15 04833 g001
Table
Table 1. Enablers and benefits for collaborative adaptive stewardship in IAPs management to advance biodiversity stewardship and ecosystem services management in private lands.
Table 1. Enablers and benefits for collaborative adaptive stewardship in IAPs management to advance biodiversity stewardship and ecosystem services management in private lands.
Conservation Thresholds and BenefitsDescription
1. Environmental benefits
  • Management
A long-term management plan is required for IAPs management to promote sustainable biodiversity stewardship and ecosystem services management in private lands with long-term finances to sustain the programme.
  • Prioritization
A responsibility and management in the programme, identify priority IAPs management areas (e.g., catchment), species, ecosystem services, projects [7], institutions, actors and role players.
  • Methods
Selection of standardized and appropriate methods for IAPs management. Promote collaborative adaptive management protocols for IAPs management [5].
  • Soil and water
Soil and water conservation; increase and maintain the available water resources for a wide range of purposes.
  • Biodiversity
Sustainable biodiversity stewardship and management that contributes to sustainability are needed.
  • Ecosystem services
A sustainable supply of ecosystem services for human well-being and environmental sustainability is required.
  • Biomass
Scaling up the beneficiation of biomass for bio-energy and other value-added products, thereby reducing the fire and flood risks.
  • Monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation guidelines are needed to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the programme [5].
2. Social and economic benefits
  • Participation
Participation of public and private sector, including stakeholders, a wide range of disciplines and private landowners (e.g., agriculture, forestry, conservation, municipalities and parastatal) for IAPs management, sustainable biodiversity stewardship and ecosystem services management [5].
  • Productive employment
Create jobs, rural development, poverty alleviation, social cohesion and inclusion, particularly in disadvantaged or marginalized communities or individuals.
  • Capacity building and skills development
Increase the learning, efficiency and capacity of staff, workers and contractors involved in the programme, particularly in disadvantaged or marginalized communities.
  • Incentives
Fiscal and motivational incentives to buy in the landowners and other stakeholders in the programme [5].
  • Awareness
A social moment for IAPs management, unlocking challenges for collaborative adaptive stewardship and remedial measures for shortfalls.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rawat, Y.S.; Negi, V.S.; Pant, S.; Bachheti, R.K. Collaborative Adaptive Stewardship for Invasive Alien Plants Management in South Africa. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064833

AMA Style

Rawat YS, Negi VS, Pant S, Bachheti RK. Collaborative Adaptive Stewardship for Invasive Alien Plants Management in South Africa. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):4833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064833

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rawat, Yashwant S., Vikram S. Negi, Shreekar Pant, and Rakesh Kumar Bachheti. 2023. "Collaborative Adaptive Stewardship for Invasive Alien Plants Management in South Africa" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 4833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064833

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop