i Impact of the invasive alien plant species clearing programme on socio-economic benefits and plant biodiversity along the northern Drakensberg, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa Nthambeleni Bologo Student number: 2020914830 A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science: Botany (BOTA8900) in the Department of Plant Sciences, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of the Free State, Qwaqwa December 2023 Supervisor: Dr Grant Martin Co-supervisor: Prof Sandy-Lynn Steenhuisen ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank the University of Free State, Department of Plant Sciences for the opportunity to study in one of the most respected institutions of higher education in South Africa. I would also like to thank the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment for the funding they have provided for this research. Furthermore, Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) for the permit to collect plant specimens for the purpose of this research and the Mpumalanga Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment for granting me permission to use DFFE-WfW historical data from the Mpu Blyde River and Robbers Pass project, interviewing WfW contractors and participants (workers) as well as landowners along the northern Drakensberg. To my supervisor, Dr Grant Martin, it has been an absolute pleasure working under you and learning all about an academic field I knew very little about, even though I have been with the WfW programme for more than a decade. The knowledge I have gained from working under you goes far beyond the scope of this project. Thank you always for your unwavering support and showing deep interest in my research. I wish to express my deepest appreciation for all your efforts. To my co-supervisor, Professor Sandy-Lynn Steenhuisen, thank you so much for guidance, encouragement, and gracious support for this project. Thank you for all the guidance, support, and everything you have taught me. Thank for encouraging me to pursue a master’s degree in a very interesting field. Without your advice and encouragement, this would have not been possible. I am so grateful for the steadfast support you have provided throughout the research period. I would also like to thank people who assisted me in other ways, their contributions made it possible for me to compile this thesis. Special mention must go to Dr. Gerald Chikowore for assistance with vegetation analysis, Mr Obed Mugane for field assistance and Mr Walter Sondane for assistance offered as and when required during this project. Finally, I would like to acknowledge all the support that I received from my family and friends for the moral support and advice. It is a great honour to be encouraged by people as yourselves. iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. iii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... vi ETHICAL CONSIDERATION ......................................................................................................... viii DECLARATION.................................................................................................................................. ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................. x Chapter 1: General introduction and literature review .................................................................... 1 1.1 Invasive alien species ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Invasive alien plants in South Africa ................................................................................... 3 1.3 Legislative frameworks governing invasive alien plants in South Africa .................................. 7 1.4 Background of the South African Expanded Public Works Programme and alignment with Working for Water Programme .......................................................................................................... 9 1.5 The South African Working for Water Programme ................................................................. 11 1.6 History of the Working for Water programme .......................................................................... 11 1.7 Control methods implemented by Working for Water to manage invasive alien plants ....... 14 1.7.1 Mechanical control method ....................................................................................................... 15 1.7.3 Biological control method .......................................................................................................... 16 1.7.4 Integrated control method......................................................................................................... 17 1.8 Implementation of the clearing of invasive alien plants project by the Working for Water programme .......................................................................................................................................... 18 1.9 Working for Water programme success ..................................................................................... 19 1.10 Socio-economic benefits .............................................................................................................. 20 1.11 Study area .................................................................................................................................... 21 1.11.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 21 1.11.2 Land use .................................................................................................................................... 22 1.11.3 Climate ...................................................................................................................................... 23 1.11.4 Population ................................................................................................................................. 24 iv 1.11.5 Water catchment area ............................................................................................................. 24 1.11.6 Invasive species ......................................................................................................................... 26 1.12 Aim of the study .......................................................................................................................... 27 1.13 Objectives..................................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 2: Socio-economic benefits and effectiveness of the Working for Wateprogamme as perceived by communities in the northern Drakensberg escarpment ........................................... 29 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 29 2.2 Material and Methods .................................................................................................................. 30 2.2.1 Study sites ................................................................................................................................... 30 2.3 Data collection and Ethics ............................................................................................................ 31 2.4 Data analysis .................................................................................................................................. 33 2.5 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 33 2.5.1 Working for Water participant questionnaires ...................................................................... 33 2.5.1.1 Level of knowledge of invasive alien plants .......................................................................... 34 2.5.1.2 Knowledge of legislations that govern invasive alien vegetation and control .................... 35 2.5.1.3 International studies on invasive alien plants ....................................................................... 35 2.5.1.4 Major threats of invasive alien plants along the northern Drakensberg ........................... 37 2.5.1.5 Ecological benefits along the northern Drakensberg escarpment due to clearing of invasive alien plants by Working for Water ................................................................................................... 38 2.5.1.6 Advantages of invasive alien plants ....................................................................................... 39 2.5.1.7 Involvement of respondents in the Working for Water programme ................................. 40 2.5.1.8 Socio-economic benefits of the Working for Water programme by communities living in the northern Drakensberg escarpment ............................................................................................. 41 2.5.2 Landowner questionnaires ........................................................................................................ 44 2.5.2.1 General knowledge of invasive alien plants by landowners ................................................ 44 2.5.2.2 Type of land use, hectares cleared, experience with Working for Water and level of satisfaction about the work that the Working for Water programme has done on landowners properties ............................................................................................................................................. 45 2.5.2.3 Competence of Working for Water clearing teams ............................................................. 47 v 2.5.2.4 Status of invasive alien plants as a result of the Working for Water clearing programme .............................................................................................................................................................. 48 2.5.2.5 Impact of clearing of invasive alien plants by WfW programme on restoration and/or preservation of ecosystem functions and services ............................................................................ 48 2.5.2.6 Working for Water Programme implemetations and future improvements .................... 49 2.6 Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 49 2.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 53 Chapter 3: Responses of plant communities to invasive alien plan-tremoval on the northern Drakensberg escarpment, South Africa ............................................................................................ 55 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 55 3.2 Material and Methods .................................................................................................................. 57 3.2.1 Study sites ................................................................................................................................... 57 3.2.2 Selection of study sites ............................................................................................................... 57 3.2.3 Site characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 61 3.2.3.1 Graskop (B60B102957 & B60B102959) ................................................................................ 61 3.2.3.2 Robbers Pass (B60F100066) ................................................................................................... 64 3.2.3.3 Pilgrim’s Rest site (B60F100180) ........................................................................................... 65 3.2.3.4 Blyde river catchment B60B102383 ...................................................................................... 66 3.2.4 Vegetation community assembly .............................................................................................. 66 3.3 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 68 3.4 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 68 3.5 Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 76 Chapter 4: General discussion, recommendations, and conclusions .............................................. 79 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 79 4.2 The impacts of intermittent funding on the Working for Water Programme ........................ 80 4.3 The importance of landowner engagement ................................................................................ 82 4.4 Restoration..................................................................................................................................... 83 4.5 Habitat destruction in the Northern Drakensberg escarpment ................................................ 83 vi 4.5 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 85 4.8 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 88 References ............................................................................................................................................ 89 Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 112 Appendix 1: Categories 1a, 1b, 2 and 3 listed Invasive Species, in terms of which certain restricted activities are prohibited in terms of section 71A (1); exempted in terms of section 71(3); required a permit in terms of section 71(1) of the NEMBA AIS, 2020. .............................................................. 112 Appendix 2 : Landowner and Participants questionnaires. The data is stored online and can be accessed through the following links. ................................................................................................................ 115 Appendix 3: Research Ethics Approval: Environment & Biosafety Ethics Committee .................... 130 Appendix 4: Research Ethics approval: General/ Human Research Ethic Committee (GHREC) ..... 131 Appendix 5: Research permit obtained from the Mpumalanga Tourism Parks Agency (MTPA). .... 132 Appendix 6: List of plants species collected per sites during vegetation survey. .............................. 133 vi ABSTRACT The Working for Water (WfW) programme started in 1995, with the aim of controlling invasive alien plants in South Africa to protect a range of ecosystem services such as water and rangeland productivity, to protect biodiversity and create employment opportunities for previously disadvantaged rural communities targeting women, youths and people leaving with disabilities. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the WfW programme focusing on three of their main objectives: (1) create sustainable jobs; (2) remove invasive alien plants from the river courses, grasslands, and indigenous forest; and (3) increase biodiversity. This study investigated the success of these objectives in the northern Drakensberg escarpment, Mpumalanga province, South Africa, by (1) determining the perceptions of employees and landowners on the impacts of the WfW programme through questionnaires, and (2) determining the impact of clearing on plant biodiversity through field surveys comparing plant diversity and cover-abundance in plots cleared by WfW and neighbouring uncleared grasslands. To determine whether the programme had created sustainable jobs, questionnaires were submitted to 80 community members who were employed in the WfW programme, in the study area, and 65 completed questionnaires. The surveyed family size ranged from one individual to eleven persons per household with an average of five people per household, and all had indicated that their primary source of income was from the WfW programme. The study found that most (46%) of the participants had a good knowledge of invasive alien plants (IAPs) while 86% of the respondents believe IAPs are a major problem, and 91% of the participants believed that WfW had benefitted communities living in the northern Drakensberg escarpment, with 97% indicating that the programme had improved their living conditions. This study further revealed that the programme has significantly contributed to rural communities’ livelihoods, but short-term contracts and intermittent funding have significant implications for the communities now relying on the funding. In addition, a limited number of landowners (10) were interviewed on their perceptions of the WfW programme. The findings revealed that most (60%) of the landowners who responded believed the programme was beneficial, and 70% of the landowners indicated that clearing of IAPs had increased stream flow and water availability. In addition, 90% of the landowners indicated that they had seen an estimated reduction of IAPs of between 20% to 80% on their properties due to clearing by WfW. Vegetation surveys were conducted at sites previously cleared by WfW teams (some as early as 1995) and paired with adjacent uncleared control sites. Initially, approximately 30 study sites vii were selected for investigation, which were refined to five suitable sites. The diversity and cover- abundance of plant species were surveyed in plots along transects within each pair of sites. Results showed that species diversity was significantly lower in cleared sites than in natural sites at Blyde river and Robbers Pass, while Graskop had significantly lower species diversity overall in both natural and cleared habitats. The NMDs plots showed that vegetation community assembly varied between cleared plots and open veldt across all sites, and more species were shared between sites in the Blyde river catchment and Pilgrims Rest. In addition, PERMANOVA results indicated that there were significant differences in plant communities between cleared and uncleared sites with lower species diversity in cleared plots. The study showed that despite areas being cleared for over ~25 years many important native species have not returned, and the communities remain different. Presumably, species recovery might not occur without some form of additional management, therefore restoration actions including monitoring of cleared sites should be considered to accelerate native vegetation recovery. In addition, landowner cooperation is critical to the success of WfW which seemed to be a challenge and needs to be strengthened to ensure improvement in the implementation of the programme. This study concludes that there is a need for quantitative, long-term, post management evaluations and assessments of the impacts of the funding models on communities used in broad scale initiatives. This will ensure that both the benefits and the failures of the project can be accurately determined to ensure its continued development and success. In addition, WfW should have dedicated funding for research to provide valuable long-term capacity. Finally, WfW should develop long-term clearing management plans with clear and realistic goals for all priority areas, and progress towards those should be routinely monitored to ensure continued improvement in the implementation of the programme. viii ETHICAL CONSIDERATION Ethical considerations were considered before data was collected. The research questionnaires and informed ethical consents were approved by the General/ Human Research Ethics Committee -(GHREC) (reference number UFS-HSD2021/1102/21) and the Environment & Biosafety Research Ethics Committee (reference number UFS-ESD2021/0210/21). The researcher observed all COVID-19 protocols and POPIA act legislative requirements. The researcher obtained the required permit from the Mpumalanga Tourism Parks Agency for the collection of plant specimens before the vegetation survey was conducted. Furthermore, permissions were requested from the Landowners where work had been done by the Working for Water programme on their properties as well as project participants who have worked in the project to remove invasive alien plant species. All participants were informed of the objective, risk, and benefits of their participation, and that their participation was voluntary. The rights and welfare of the participants were upheld when conducting interviews, all the participants and landowners had voluntarily signed the consent form to participate in the research project and the information collected was kept confidential. The research was conducted in a manner that shows respect and honour to patents, copyright, and other forms of intellectual property by giving appropriate credit to the sources of information that were used to substantiate the research. ix DECLARATION I, Nthambeleni Bologo declare that the master’s thesis that I herewith submit at the University of the Free State, is my independent work and that I have not previously submitted it for qualification at another institution of higher education. _____________________ Nthambeleni Bologo, December 2023 I, Nthambeleni Bologo, declare that I am aware that the copyright is vested in the University of the Free State. _____________________ Nthambeleni Bologo, December 2023 I, Nthambeleni Bologo, declare that all royalties as regards to intellectual property that was developed during the course of and/or in connection with the study at the University of the Free State, will accrue to the University. _____________________ Nthambeleni Bologo, December 2023 I, Nthambeleni Bologo, declare that I am aware that the research may only be published with the Dean’s approval. _____________________ Nthambeleni Bologo, December 2023 x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS APO-Annual Plan of Operation AS- Alien species Arc GIS- Aeronautical Reconnaissance Coverage Geographic Information System ANOVA- Analysis of Variance CARA- Conservation of Agricultural Resource Act DEA- Department of Environment Affairs DFFE- Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment DME- Drakensberg Mountain Centre DPWI- Department of Public Works and Infrastructure DWA- Department of Water Affairs EDRR- Early Detection and Rapid Response EPWP- Expanded Public Works Programme ESRI- Environmental Systems Research Institute FTEs- Full-Time Equivalents GDS- Growth Development Summit IAPs- Invasive Alien Plants IAS- Invasive Alien Species NBAL- Natural Biodiversity Alien LC50- Lethal Concentration of 50% LD50- Lethal Dose to 50% LMEE- Limpopo Mpumalanga Eswatini Escarpment NMDS- Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling NEMBA- National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act PDs- Person Days PERMANOVA- Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Non-parametric POPIA- Protection of Private Information Act SANBI- South African Biodiversity Institute SANBI ISP- South African National Biodiversity Institute for Invasive Species Programme SMMEs- Small Micro Medium Enterprises SIMPER-Similarities Percentage xi USD- United State Dollar WIMS- Working for Water Management Information Systems WfEco- Working for Ecosystem WfW- Working for Water WoF- Working on Fire 1 Chapter 1: General introduction and literature review 1.1 Invasive alien species Globalisation has accelerated the spread of alien species across continents to the point now that alien species are widely distributed in every type of ecosystem throughout the world (Diagne et al., 2020; Pathak et al., 2021). Alien species are non-indigenous organisms translocated outside of their natural geographic range usually by human intervention, but not always, and some of these alien species have the potential to become invasive. Invasive alien species (IAS) are species which become established in a natural or semi-natural ecosystem or habitat and threaten native biological diversity or have significant other environmental, economic, or social impacts (IUCN, 2016; Atyosi et al., 2019; Vitule et al., 2019). IAS are considered key drivers of human-induced global environmental change (Pejchar and Mooney, 2009). Invasive alien species consists of organisms from all six Kingdoms of life; however, Invasive Alien Plants (IAPs) are considered the most damaging of IAS, attributed with the greatest environmental and economic impacts (McGeoch et al., 2010). IAPs have contributed significantly to the transformation of natural ecosystems and in many instances become the drivers of environmental change, disrupting ecosystem integrity, and provisioning necessary for human survival (Blackburn et al., 2011; Chikowore et al., 2021). Furthermore, the loss of native plant diversity due to IAPs can reduce ecosystem functioning (Linders, 2019). It is worth noting that some IAP’s were introduced for useful reasons into certain ecosystems but have become invasive resulting in undesirable qualities far exceeding their desirable effects. In addition, not all impacts are negative and some species in certain scenarios may have beneficial aspects and can provide key services that benefit livelihoods as they deliver assets in the form of capital and creation of job opportunities (Shackleton et al., 2019). This includes the provision of fuelwood, food, poles, charcoal, timbers, paper, fodder, tanning agents to produce soft leather, and medicinal products (Atyosi et al., 2019; Shackleton et al., 2019). Invasive Alien species also provide other benefits for livelihoods such as soil improvement through nitrogen fixation and green manure, fencing, and cultural services, such as aesthetic values and recreation (Shackleton et al., 2019). For example, in South Africa, IAPs such as Acacia dealbata Link (Fabaceae), Acacia mearnsii De Wild (Fabaceae). Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill. (Cactaceae), Opuntia robusta J.C. Wendl. (Cactaceae) and Opuntia stricta (Haw.) Haw. (Cactaceae) provide supporting and regulatory services such as green manure, fodder, 2 firewood, medicine, building materials, horticultural material, food, and income to the local communities through the selling of various plant products (Shackleton et al., 2015; Atyosi et al., 2019). However, in general, the negative impacts of IAPs outweigh derived benefits as the benefits are more associated with availability and not out of preference (Shackleton et al., 2018). Invasive alien plants often have severe economic effects because they can greatly reduce the amount and flow of ecosystem services from invaded areas (Scheepers and Griffiths (2020). The estimated global economic cost of IAP invasions over the last 50 years is approximately USD 1,288 trillion (2017 US dollars), with a mean annual cost of USD 1.268 billion to 1.4 trillion (5% of global GDP) and the number is steadily growing over time (Howard, 2019; Diagne et al., 2021a; Zenni et al., 2021). According to Pimentel (2011), the overall cost of invasive species amounts to more than USD 300 billion per year in the United States, Australia, Europe, India, British Isles, and South Africa. However, the present and future projections of numbers and types of IAS differ throughout ecosystems (van Kleunen et al., 2015; Essl et al., 2020), and impacts and costs also differ extensively across time and space (Angulo et al., 2021b; Diagne et al., 2021a). In Africa, the overall annual cost of IAS to agriculture alone is estimated at USD 65,58 billion and the average annual cost without research costs amounted to USD 1,366 billion per country (Eschen et al., 2021). There are large differences in economic costs of IAS among countries; for example, economic losses for Botswana, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Somalia were less than USD 50 million, whereas for Nigeria alone it’s estimated to be over USD 15 billion (Eschen et al., 2021). De Lange and van Wilgen (2010) estimated that the economic losses of water resources, biodiversity and livestock production totalled to USD 773, USD 45 and US 57 million per year. Furthermore, these estimations were conservative, since 2010 invasive species have continued to spread, and more species have become invasive. The overall amount spent on the control of alien species by the South African government so far is unknown, but it is currently at least ZAR2,6 billion (USD 142 million) as this is the amount used by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE) control programmes including Working for Water programme (van Wilgen et al., 2020).. The Working for Water (WfW) programme is a government funded conservation initiative established by the South African government with the primary aim to prevent, contain and reduce the density and distribution of established IAS to reduce their negative effects on the environment (Angelstam 3 et al., 2017; O’Connor and van Wilgen 2020) while providing job opportunities to marginalised sectors of society (Ntshotsho et al., 2015). According to van Wilgen et al. (2022), the WfW projects spent ZAR 7.1 billion (adjusted to 2020 values of ZAR) between 1998 and 2020 on interventions to control alien plant invasions of which the largest proportion (ZAR 5,27 billion) was spent on teams that were contracted to remove IAPs. One of the most damaging impacts of IAPs is their impact on water resources (Le Maitre et al., 2016; Preston et al., 2018; Chikowore et al., 2021). According to Le Maitre et al. (2020), in South Africa, the estimated impacts of IAPs on surface water runoff are at 1,44–2,44 billion m3 annually (Le Maitre et al. 2020). The Eastern Cape, Western Cape, and KwaZulu-Natal Provinces are the most affected primary catchments (>5% reduction in mean annual runoff). Le Maitre et al. (2020) suggest that if no corrective action is taken there can be expected increased reductions in surface water runoff of 2,59–3,15 billion m3 per year, about 50% higher than current reductions. In addition to water resources IAPs also threaten wetland environments through the alteration of the wetlands’ habitat, biodiversity conservation, species number, and water quality; alteration of nutrient cycling; reduction of light penetration below the water surface, affecting aquatic plants and animals; consumption of oxygen that is much needed by aquatic organisms; and ultimately affecting ecosystem services provided by wetland environments (Pathak et al., 2021). For example, Pandey et al. (2020) investigating the Koshi Tappu Wetlands showed that the extensive coverage of IAS adversely affected water quality and fish communities. Mukul et al. (2020) assert that IAS are increasingly threatening the native fauna, flora and ecosystems in Bangladesh and consequently result in the deterioration of wetland health including a range of goods and services. 1.2 Invasive alien plants in South Africa The introduction of IAS into South Africa occurred at the start of colonialism in the country (Pooley, 2009). The first records of deliberately introduced exotic species were in 1652 when a Dutch horticulturalist Hendrick Boom started a garden in Cape Town, Western Cape Province, for the Dutch East India Company (Pooley, 2009; Pooley, 2018). Global travel and trade have since continued to contribute to both accidental and intentional introductions of exotic species, especially during the 19th century (Sala et al., 2000; Keane and Crawley, 2002; Richardson et al., 2003; McKinney, 2006). Many intentional introductions of IAPs were for 4 their aesthetic value, economic value or to try to curb environmental problems such as erosion or dune stabilisation. For example, Eucalyptus globulus Labill. (Blue Gum, Tasmanian Blue Gum) and Pinus palustris Mill. (Pinaceae), Pinus radiata D. Don (Pinaceae) and many others were introduced for the supply of timber; Prosopis juliflora Swartz. (Fabaceae) was introduced for fodder (Mtengwana et al., 2021); and certain Australian acacias for dune stabilisation. Recent literature suggests unintentional introductions and the horticultural industry have been the main contributors to the introduction and spread of IAS (Martin and Coetzee, 2011; van Wilgen et al., 2012; Faulkner et al., 2017; Cronin et al., 2017; Hulme et al., 2018). To date, thousands of alien plant species have invaded nearly 80 000 km² of the South African landscape and hundreds of species have naturalised (Henderson, 2020; van Wilgen et al., 2020), occupying roughly 7% of the country with many species entered stages of exponential growth (van Wilgen, 2018). According to Lukey and Hall (2020), there is no thorough inventory list of aliens, naturalised, and invasive plants for South Africa, but 327 plant taxa, most of which are invasive, are listed in national legislation. Furthermore, there are collated records of 759 plant taxa in 126 families and 418 genera that have naturalised in natural and semi-natural ecosystems, of which half of these naturalised taxa are trees or shrubs with under a tenth in the families Fabaceae (73 taxa) and Asteraceae (64). The most problematic terrestrial IAPs in South Africa are the Australian Acacia spp. and Eucalyptus spp., North America Opuntia spp. and Mexican Pinus spp. (Mtengwana et al., 2020; Richardson et al., 2020)). These species are mostly problematic, because they consume huge quantities of water and consequently lead to depletion of water supplies, reduced agricultural productivity, intensified veldfires and threatened biodiversity (Le Maitre et al., 2016; O’Connor and van Wilgen 2020; Figure 1.1). 5 Figure 1.1: Features of South Africa’s naturalised alien flora, showing the dominant (a) families, (b) genera, and (c) plant life forms (adapted from Richardson et al., 2020). 0 20 40 60 80 Onagraceae Oleaceae Proteaceae Solanaceae Poaceae Myrtaceae Fabacae Alien species richness per family P la n t F a m il ie s (a) 0 5 10 15 20 Banksie Ligustrum Populus Passiflora Verbena Melaleuca Opuntia Acacia Alien species richness per genus P la n t G en u s (b) 0 50 100 150 200 Epiphyte Geophyte Ferm Vine Grass Succuent Annual herb Perennial herb Shrub Tree Alien species richness per Life form L If e F o rm (c) 6 Invasive alien plants are found growing in all biomes in South Africa with Fynbos being the most invaded biome (Henderson, 2020). These plants are mainly found in the moist areas of the country, particularly mountainous areas, and along perennial rivers, posing an extensive threat to water availability (Mtengwana et al., 2021; Canavan et al., 2021, 2022). The impacts of these invasions are reasonably well documented, and the significant impacts include reductions in surface water runoff, rangeland productivity, native biodiversity, and groundwater resources (van Wilgen et al., 2022). South Africa is mainly semi-arid to arid, with an average annual rainfall of around 464 mm/year (compared to a global average of 786 mm) of which only 8% forms surface run-off (Wilson et al., 2020). South Africa has hot summers, combined with aridity that produces significant water stress, and the problem is exacerbated by the presence of IAPs, as they have high evaporation rates and often use more water than indigenous plants, which has a direct impact on stream flow and groundwater reserves (Le Maitre et al., 2015; Richardson et al., 2020). For example, studies conducted in Cape Agulhas indicated that IAPs were consuming water equivalent to the long-term average run-off (Mkunyana et al., 2018). At a national level it is estimated that IAPs are using approximately 1,44 billion m3 of water (Le Maitre et al., 2020). It has been estimated that this water could provide 3,38 million households of four inhabitants each with water for a year or irrigate 120,000 hectares of cropland (WWF, 2016). Unfortunately, it is estimated that this figure could rise to 2,59–3,15 billion m3 per year if no action is taken, which is about 50% higher than the current reductions (Le Maitre et al., 2016). Invasion by IAPs in the rangelands can lead to a reduction in native grass diversity and a change in grass community composition, ultimately leading to rangeland degradation (O’Connor and van Wilgen, 2020), and catastrophic reduction in non-graminoid plants. On average, only one in six species in a grassland is a graminoid, and therefore non-graminoid loss is the major biodiversity loss aspect from woody invasions. In addition, most grassland is made up of many other plant forms who are also directly impacted by woody invasive alien plants. This rangeland degradation has a significant effect on grazing capacity which in turn compromises livestock production (Gwate et al., 2016; Chikowore et al., 2021). The presence of IAPs in the grassland biome alters the environment by changing thermal regimes and light penetration because of the shading effect of IAPs’ higher canopy cover, especially by woody species (Chikowore et al., 2021), resulting in the formation of new environments wherein native 7 species are unable to adapt and compete (Lazzaro et al., 2018; Chikowore et al., 2021). For example, the study by Chikowore et al. (2021) suggests that Robinia pseudoacacia Peaboy (Fabaceae) is transforming grassland arthropod ecosystems through altercation of micro- climatic conditions in the eastern Free State in South Africa. Furthermore, the presence of IAPs in grassland ecosystems can decrease plant species richness, and this may trigger changes in functional group composition which may reduce the ability of the ecosystem to provide ecosystem services. Due to the number of impacts caused by IAPs in South Africa, the Government has developed extensive policies, frameworks, and programs to try to alleviate the impacts. 1.3 Legislative frameworks governing invasive alien plants in South Africa The management of biological invasions in South Africa is governed by the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA), 2004 (Act no. 10 of 2004) Alien and Invasive Species (AIS) regulations, which became law on 01 October 2014, with revised regulations in 2016 and 2020 respectively. The NEMBA regulations are aimed at mitigating the destructive and negative impacts of invasive species and effective management plans. Notably, the regulations list alien species and requires landowners to take reasonable measures to control these species, noting that there are specified exemptions and permits that may be issued in some cases for otherwise prohibited activities (van Wilgen et al., 2022). The AIS component of the NEMBA regulations list four categories of invasive species that must be managed, controlled, or eradicated from areas where they cause harm to the environment, or that are prohibited from being brought into South Africa. The categorisation of invasive species is as follows; Category 1a includes invasive species that must be combatted or eradicated, and any form of trade is strictly prohibited; Category 1b includes invasive species which must be controlled and wherever possible, removed and destroyed, and any form of trade or planting is strictly prohibited (furthermore, Category 1a and 1b include weed species that are of no value); Category 2 includes invasive species or species deemed to be potentially invasive, in which a permit is required to carry out a restricted activity and this includes species that have commercial value such as pine, gum and wattle trees; and Category 3 includes alien invasive species with ornamental value, historical or authentic conditions, which may remain in prescribed areas or provinces and any further planting, propagation or trade is prohibited (van Wilgen, 2018). For the last two categories, the regulations state that certain restricted activities are prohibited in accordance with section 71 8 (A); exempted in accordance with section 71 (3); and require a permit in terms of section 71 (1) of the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (van Wilgen, 2018). For a summary of controlled activities for invasive species listed in Categories 1a, 1b, 2 and 3, see Appendix 1 (NEMBA AIS Regulation, 2020), which outlines the restricted activities prohibited in terms of section 71A (1); exempted in terms of section 71(3); or that require a permit in terms of section 71(1) of the NEMBA AIS, 2022. The NEMBA regulations also cater for contentious groups of plants that may not have been included in the national legislation. This is achieved through the establishment of a designated unit to detect and document new invasions, provide reliable and transparent post-border risk assessments, and provide the cross-institutional coordination needed to successfully implement national eradication plans in South Africa. For example, in 2008, the then Department of Water Affairs and Forestry’s WfW Programme contracted the South African National Biodiversity Institute Invasive Species Programme (SANBI ISP) to develop, in partnership with other stakeholders, a programme focusing on ‘emerging’ plant invaders called Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) for IAPs. The name EDRR was later dropped in favour of SANBI ISP as the programme was used as a management approach that can apply to any stage of the invasion process at any spatial scale (Wilson et al., 2013). The NEMBA Act, section 69 places a “duty of care relating to alien species” on all private and public landowners to take reasonable steps to control species on their land. The regulations require that all state organisations in all spheres of government comply to invasive species monitoring, control, and eradication plans for land under their jurisdiction (Potgieter et al., 2020). Furthermore, the act states that those landowners who fail to comply with the regulations may be liable for hefty fines and/or imprisonment. However, the implementation of these punitive or corrective measures has not been implemented fully as there have been no prosecutions to date (van Wilgen, 2018). The NEMBA Act under the Alien and Invasive Regulations requires regular reporting (at least every three years) on the status and impact of invasions, and the effectiveness of management and policy interventions (Wilson et al., 2017). In addition to the NEMBA Act, the control and management of IAPs in South Africa is also governed by the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983 (CARA) (Act no 43 of 1983) which legislated IAPs into three categories, namely; Category 1 which includes invader plants that must be removed and destroyed immediately and any form of trade is strictly prohibited; Category 2 which includes invader plants that may be grown under controlled 9 conditions in permitted zones and no trade is allowed; and Category 3 includes invader plants that may no longer be propagated or sold and existing stands/ plants do not need to be removed. Regulation number 15 of CARA makes provision for the declaration of weeds and invader plants, which was later revised and amended to support the WfW Programme alien plant clearing programme to manage and control existing stands of IAPs and also prevent the introduction of new alien species through secondary invasions. The amendments to regulation 15 of declared weeds and invader plants were aimed at the long-term management and prevention of invasions of plants that are harmful to human welfare and the environment. Furthermore, the amendments to the regulations declared all aliens must be effectively controlled, and landowners are legally under obligation to control IAPs occurring on their properties (Badenhorst, 2014; Bennett and Van Sittert, 2019; van Wilgen et al., 2022). Furthermore, the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) requires the relevant authorities responsible for all protected areas to prepare management plans which are to be made available to the public and accessible online. It further directs authorities to ensure that the management plan contains a section that deals with biological invasions, and that the protected area plans are all of a high standard, providing statements of intent with clear targets and implementation strategies (van Wilgen et al., 2022). Other related pieces of legislation governing Natural Resource Management through the WfW IAPs clearing programme include the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998); Mountain Catchment Areas Act (63 of 1970); Water Act, 1998 (Act 36 of 1998); National Forests Act, 1998 (Act no 43 of 1998); National Veld and Forest Fire Act, 1998 (Act no 101 of 1998); and Fertilizer, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, 1947 (Act 36 of 1947). These pieces of legislation are infrequently implemented and or enforced whereas CARA, Act 43 of 1983, and NEMBA, Act 10 of 2004, have been dominating the legislations, but implementation or enforcement seems to be lagging, contributing significantly to the negative effects of IAPs on native species and major ecosystem services. 1.4 Background of the South African Expanded Public Works Programme and alignment with Working for Water Programme The Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) is one of the government’s medium to long- term strategies to reduce and alleviate poverty through the creation of work opportunities using labour-intensive methods (Vaughan, 2016; RSA: DPWI, 2019). The EPWP was initiated in 2003 during a Growth and Development Summit (GDS) held in Gauteng Province. The 10 programme was launched by the South African Government in 2004 in line with the broader strategy of addressing structural poverty in South Africa and is currently implemented in four sectors, namely Infrastructure, Social, Environment and Culture, and Non-State. All spheres of government and State-owned entities are expected to implement the EPWP (van Wilgen and Wannenburgh 2016; Vaughan, 2016; RSA: DPWI, 2019). The EPWP works on a five-year cycle; the first phase was implemented in 2004 until 2009 with the main goal being to take a minimum of one million people in the country out of unemployment with employment targets of 40% women, 30% youth and 2% people with disabilities. The second phase of EPWP which began in 2009 was to create the equivalent of 4,5 million, 100-day work opportunities (2 million work opportunities) in five years with an employment target of 55% women, 40% youth and 2% people with disabilities (DPWI, 2019). The aim was to contribute to halving unemployment by 2014 and also to strive towards tenure and job security. The target for phase three of EPWP which began in 2014 was to create six million work opportunities or equivalent to 2.55 million Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) (person- years) or 585 million workdays in 2019. The EPWP is presently in its fourth cycle, which began in 2019 and the goal is to create five million work opportunities (equivalent to 2,37 million full-time jobs) to alleviate unemployment with employment targets of 60% women, 55% youth and 2% people with disabilities (van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016; Vaughan, 2016; RSA: DPWI, 2019). The Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) is responsible for coordinating and monitoring EPWP in all sectors. The DPWI manages the EPWP Incentive Grant Project and is responsible for the allocation of grants to public bodies to incentivise work created through a formula based on past performance on jobs created. The Incentive Grant is performance-based and significantly different from other conditional grant allocations and is paid per quantum of employment created for the EPWP target group and can be measured in person-days of work or Full-Time Equivalent jobs and this depends on the actual validated EPWP performance of the public body (van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016; Vaughan, 2016; RSA: DPWI, 2019). The WfW Programme is a public works driven ecological restoration project for the clearing of alien plants and is the largest environmental programme within the EPWP. The WfW is one of the main initiatives aimed at providing work opportunities for South Africa’s poor rural population, and is funded through the EPWP Incentive Grant Project based on past performance on jobs created, the number of accredited and non-accreted training 11 sessions achieved, as well as achievement of EPWP employment targets (McConnachie et al., 2013; RSA: DPWI, 2018). 1.5 The South African Working for Water Programme The high-level goal of WfW is to prevent, contain and reduce the density and distribution of established invasive alien plants to reduce their negative effects on the environment (Bek et al., 2017). The programme aims to improve the integrity of natural ecosystems; restore important ecosystems such as water, grassland, natural forest, and biodiversity; improve water purification and retention; prevent new invasive species from establishing; manage the impact of established IAS; and enhance the rehabilitation and maintenance of natural ecosystems and delivery of ecosystem services. In addition, one of the core mandates of the WfW system is the creation of work opportunities for the previously disadvantaged communities targeting women, youth, and people with disabilities; skill development; and strengthening support for Small Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) (van Wilge et al., 2012). 1.6 History of the Working for Water programme The WfW was established in 1995 to control alien plant invasion thereby alleviating their impacts, principally on water resources. The programme’s focuses on clearing alien invasive trees from conservation areas and river courses, and at the same time address poverty through the creation of work opportunities and development of human skills (Working for Water, 2007; van Wilgen and Wannenburgh; 2016; Angelstam et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2018; van Wilgen et al., (2020). The programme started with ten projects in six provinces with an operational budget of R25 million under the leadership of the then Deputy-Director General, Dr Guy Preston, in his capacity as Chair of the National Water Conservation Campaign and the late minister of the then Department of Water Affairs, Kader Asmal, and the vision was to create 20,000 jobs for 20 years in winning the war against invasive plants (van Wilgen et al., 2016a). The programme budget grew to ZAR1,28 billion in 2013/2014 and to ZAR2 billion by 2017 (Ntshotsho et al., 2015; van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016; van Wilgen, 2020). The programme currently has more than 300 clearing projects spread over all nine provinces in South Africa and some offshore islands and employs more than 20,000 people per annum (van Wilgen et al., 2020; Figure 1.2). The programme is presently under the administration of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE) in the Environmental 12 Programmes Branch, Environmental Programmes’ Chief Directorate, under the Non- Infrastructure Sub-directorate effective from 01 April 2023, formerly known as the Natural Resource Management Chief Directorate since 2011 and was previously under the administration of the then Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. 13 Figure 1.2: The contribution of the Working for Water programme to alien plant control in South Africa in terms of (a) the amount of money invested (ZAR unadjusted for inflation); (b) the number of Full-Time Equivalent jobs created (this number only includes jobs created for previously unemployed people as part of poverty alleviation efforts); and, (c) the area treated per annum in condensed hectares. Note that the apparent decrease in the area treated between 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2017 Z A R ( b il li o n s) Annual expenditure on alien plant control projects (a) Year 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2017 N u m b er o f jo b s Full-Time Equivalent jobs created(b) Year 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2017 A re a c le a re d ( h a ) Area subjected to initial clearing(c) Year 14 2013 and 2014 is due to a relaxation of the requirement to record areas treated (source: van Wilgen, 2020). The WfW programme is part of the country’s EPWP which is primarily aimed at the creation of job opportunities to alleviate poverty in South Africa (Angelstam et al., 2017), and the main funding comes from the government allocations and limited contributions from other sources including non-governmental organisations and private entities to enable the programme to clear IAPs and create employment among the rural poor while securing vital ecosystem services (McConnachie et al., 2013; van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016; Hassan and Mahlathi, 2020). However, the funding is subjected to the achievement of targets such as the planned number of work opportunities, Full-Time Equivalent and ecosystem, rehabilitation, protection, and selection of priority areas (van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016). The programme has cleared an average of about 200,000 condensed hectares and follow-up hectares of about 600,000 per year, which is the equivalent to three years of follow-up treatment and has achieved 2000-2300 Full-Time Equivalent jobs per annum (van Wilgen et al. 2020; Figure 2). However, WfW funding by the government is still regarded as insufficient to address the problem effectively (van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016). Coetzee and Louw (2012) assert that the programme has made a substantial impact on the lives of many of the people it employs, but sceptical as to how successful it has been in terms of social upliftment. 1.7 Control methods implemented by Working for Water to manage invasive alien plants Management and control of IAPs generally involve the primary control methods of chemical, mechanical, and biological control. The effectiveness of these management techniques is mainly dependent on environmental factors, the size of the management operation and the species under consideration. The fourth method that can be used is called integrated control which involves combining any of the three primary methods (Goolsby et al., 2020). Forms of integrated control have gained interest both globally and in South Africa because of their success with several woody invasive species (van Wilgen et al., 2020; Schaffner et al., 2022). 15 1.7.1 Mechanical control method Mechanical control entails the physical removal of the entire plant or removing the above- ground portions of a weed. The method uses control techniques such as hand pulling, digging, bark stripping, prescribed fire, harvesting, moving and ring barking (Minteer et al., 2021). It can be integrated with other control methods. The timing of this method can significantly influence its efficacy and the degree to which it may be integrated with biological control (Lake and Minteer, 2018). However, the use of a manual control method without chemicals can worsen the problem, and therefore this method can work well in some areas but can lead to unintended impacts on native species in other areas (Gagnon, 2020). According to Coetzee and Martin (2018), the method has been widely used, but rarely with great success and always at high costs. However, Minteer et al. (2021) asserts that mechanical methods such as hand pulling can be effective in small areas but are often time-consuming and labour-intensive. For example, a study that was conducted on the control of Hakea sericea Schrad. & J.C.Wendl. (Proteaceae) (Sweet Hakea) in the Western Cape Province, which included a combination of felling and burning, augmented by biological control, concluded that the initial mechanical clearing integrated with burning in the 1970s and 1980s by the Department of Forestry was responsible for reducing the density and extent of infestations (Elser et al., (2010). 1.7.2 Chemical control method Chemical control entails the utilization of herbicides to suppress the invasive species (Yadav et al., 2016), it can be explicit to a cluster of plants, for example, broad-leaved species, or grasses without affecting non-target plants. This method is mainly used together with mechanical control. In this scenario, the herbicide is applied to stumps or to kill seedlings after felling or burning, which eventually impedes re-sprouting (Van Wilgen et al., 2001). The application rate, as in mechanical control, can also vary significantly from targeted individual seedlings and cut stumps to large foliar applications applied through aircraft. Unfortunately, the use of herbicide can have adverse impacts on the environment because they can affect or poison to non-target species. (de Castro, 2017; Tudi et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2022). Increasingly, the use of herbicides in South Africa is managed under the Fertilizer, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, while most of the countries have developed their pesticides laws and regulatory authorities (Ojemaye et al., 2020) 16 In South Africa, the use of herbicides for control of weeds and IAPs must be consistent with the provision in the NEMBA 10 Act of 2004 as well as the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Seeds and Remedies Act 36 of 1947 as they have the potential to negatively impact the environment and other living organisms since some of the active ingredients that are used to produce herbicides have a high toxicity level and half-life (i.e. the length of time it takes for 50% of the herbicide to break down to secondary compounds). For example, Picloram, a commonly used herbicide in South Africa has been shown to have a level of toxicity to mammals of 4012 for acute oral LD50 (mg/kg) and 2000 for dermal LD50 (mg/kg bw). It is moderately toxic to birds with an acute LD50 (mg/kg) of >1944, moderately toxic to honeybees with a contact acute 46-hour LD50 (>100), moderately toxic to fish with an acute h LC50 (mg/l) (8,8), not highly toxic to earthworms with an acute 14 day LC50 (mg/kg) (> 4,475), and it can last up to 82,2 days in the soil, and be released from the roots of treated plants into the soil, where non-target plant species may take it up and consequently die (van Zyl, 2016). Therefore, in South Africa, the use of herbicide requires a high level of training and users must be declared competent and have a valid Pest Control Operating License to be legally allowed to use herbicide in South Africa. The Act further dictates that all intended clearing activities should be outlined in the control plans as per the guidelines required in terms of section 76 of NEMBA (Sieben et al., 2022). The laws in South Africa requires that registered herbicides are used in control programmes and adhere to guidelines for the preparation and application method, hence poor herbicide choices, applications and incorrect preparation methods may lead to ineffective clearing outcomes (van Zyl, 2016). In South Africa, chemical control is nearly always implemented when clearing IAPs. 1.7.3 Biological control method Biological control involves the use of natural enemies to control a population of IAPs and relies on suitable host-specific natural enemies. The biological agents are sourced from the countries of origin of those IAPs to suppress the invasiveness of the target weed (Hill et al., 2020)McFadyen (1998) indicated that biological control has the potential to reduce target weed impacts while having little to no impact on the environment and other species. The method is perceived as the most environmentally friendly, cost-effective, safe, and self-sustainable method that can result in effective and permanent control of IAPs and is often associated with the alleviation of economic and ecological impacts of IAPS (Lake and Minteer, 2018; Minteer 17 et al., 2021; Zachariades et al., 2017). Biological control has been used in 130 countries as a valuable tool for the control of IAP species (Winston et al., 2014; Zachariades et al., 2017), and as a management tool in South Africa since 1913 to supplement chemical and mechanical control of problematic plants (Hillet al., 2020), and it is a proven, more responsible science as it was not always in the earliest forms of ad hoc biocontrol which were catastrophic for many endemic and indigenous species, such as using cats and mongooses to control rodents on islands, etc. According to van Wilgen (2018), biological control has been used extensively in support of labour-intensive containment and control efforts in South Africa and remarkable success has been achieved in either controlling or reducing the invasive potential of many invasive plants (van Wilgen, 2018; Henderson, 2020). This method contributes significantly to the control of 34 of the 59 IAP species on which biological agents have been established in South Africa, wherein 14 of these target species are considered to be under complete under control without further need for any other control intervention (Zachariades et al., 2017). For example, a review of alien plant species such as Sesbania punicea Cav., O. stricta, Lantana camara L., (Lantana) and two species of invasive alien aquatic plants in Kruger National Park suggested that the reduction of populations of these species was due to biological control (van Wilgen et al., 2017). However, often biological control alone does not always provide adequate control and that necessitates the use of additional management techniques or the integration of other control methods (Lake and Minteer, 2018). It is also not an available option for most plant species, because there are closely related native species, of important crop species that the agent may not be sufficiently host-specific and in some cases the suitable agents cannot be found. 1.7.4 Integrated control method The integrated control method involves a combination of at least two or three primary methods such as mechanical removal followed by applying herbicides (chemical method) and in some instances including biological control (Henderson, 2020). The integration of two or more control methods may be more effective than using one method in isolation and therefore the selection of techniques for integration and timing of treatments is vital for the successful implementation, particularly when applying biological control with other management tools. The timing of herbicide application, grazing, burning or mechanical removal must impact the target weed or plant with no adverse effects on biological agents (Lake and Minteer, 2018). 18 For example, in the Western Cape Province, the integration of biological with mechanical and/or chemical methods has drastically reduced populations of Hakea spp. And Acacia spp. (Esler et al., 2010; Moran and Hoffmann, 2011), and populations of Lantana spp. and Opuntia spp. in the Kruger National Park, Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces (van Wilgen et al., 2017). 1.8 Implementation of the clearing of invasive alien plants project by the Working for Water programme The WfW’ s activities are managed and implemented at a provincial level, with additional units providing support for research, planning and reporting. The basic operating model involves the appointment of implementing agents or contractors to recruit workers from the previously disadvantaged local communities where the project is being implemented in accordance with EPWP guidelines. The implementing agents can be an irrigation board, conservation agency, municipalities, and forestry companies. The appointed contractors/ implementing agents are assigned demarcated areas and payments are made on achievement of agreed tasks and based on the contract specifications. These contracts have to be re-negotiated annually and the approval process at times takes longer than anticipated and may be time-consuming which eventually result in unnecessary delays (van Wilgen et al., 2022). For example, out of 156 proposed contracts for implementation in the 2021/2022 financial year (starting from 01 April), only 107 had been approved by end of October 2021, and as such led to the late start of operational activities, because contractors can only commence with clearing activities once an official order is issued (van Wilgen et al., 2022). WfW managers are responsible for drawing up of strategic plans and annual plans of operations (APO) for approval and securing funding based on operational targets such as hectares to be cleared and effort required expressed as person days (PDs), which is equivalent to one person being employed for a full eight-hour day’s work (McConnachie et al., 2013; van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016; Kraaij et al., 2017). It is worth noting that the WfW project managers are required to do infield verifications in each management unit, collecting data on IAP species present, densities, age classes and appropriate treatment methods for capturing into the WfW information management systems (McConnachie et al., 2013; van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016; Kraaij et al., 2017). The work contracts are generated through the WfW Information Management System (WIMS) and the effort requirement for each contract is automatically calculated using the WfW norms and 19 is used as the basis of an agreement between WfW and implementing agents (Neethling and Shuttleworth, 2013; Kraaij et al., 2017). Furthermore, the protocols require that a joint inspection by a WfW manager and the contractor be undertaken before the start of the contract, during implementation, and before the contract is signed-off for payment processing. It is a requirement that an invoice for all completed contracts should include timesheets with actual days worked on the contract, start and end date, and all actual expenses to be captured into the WIMS database (Kraaij et al., 2017; van Wilgen et al., 2022). 1.9 Working for Water programme success The WfW programme has conducted control operations on 2,8 million hectares (ha) of IAPs, unfortunatly the outcomes are generally not understood due to lack of monitoring programmes (van Wilgenet al., 2020). The programme has created work opportunities for many historically disadvantaged people primarily focusing on women, youth and people with disabilities mainly rural areas where unemployment is high (Angelstam et al., 2017; Figure 2). According to van Wilgen et al. (2022), the WfW has successfully treated 27,275 km2 over the past 25 years, and the extent and abundance of plant invasions have been reduced compared to if there had been no control activities implemented (McConnachie et al., 2016). The WfW is still regarded as a highly successful programme, and has raised awareness of the problem of biological invasions, secured substantial funding to address the issue, cleared invasive plants over extensive areas, and created much-needed employment (van Wilgen et al., 2022). Mukwada et al. (2016) stated that the removal of IAPs by WfW has been successful in some species and the success had been attributed to the project’s multi-faceted and cross-disciplinary nature. However, the WfW has not been successful in its goal of reducing the overall impact of invasion within a reasonable timeframe and has only treated a relatively small fraction of South Africa’s total alien plant cover (McConnachie et al., 2013). It is suggested that some IAPs might be spreading faster than the rate of clearing (van Wilgen, 2012, 2016b). Beater et al. (2008) and van Wilgen et al. (2012) stated that despite enormous expenditure in clearing efforts in South Africa, only a small portion of infested areas have been cleared, and many studies have reported very little progress (less than 10%) in some areas prioritised for clearing since the inception of the programme in 1995. For example, McConnachie et al. (2012) investigated the clearing project in the northern Eastern Cape, and showed that there has been little reduction in total infestation since the inception of the project. In a separate example, in 20 an assessment conducted by Kraaij et al. (2017) on the effectiveness of IAP management in a large fynbos protected area in the Garden Route National Park in South Africa, they found that the quality of infield treatment application by WfW implementation teams was disappointing with no evidence of work done over a third of the assessed area, and deviation from acceptable standards of treatment application occurring over an additional 44% of the area. Similarly, McConnachie et al. (2012) found that the information recorded in the WfW-WIMS as treated in the Kouga (24% of the sites) and Krom (4% of the sites) catchments in the Eastern Cape were never treated. An additional concern is regarding management techniques implemented by contracted teams. For example, Fill et al. (2017) argued that the reliance on manual and labour-intensive clearing aimed at maximising employment opportunities has reduced the efficiency levels resulting in a lack of progress towards the goals of reaching a maintenance level of IAP control. Similarly, van Wilgen et al. (2022) argued that the programme has lost focus and lacked inclusive vision of what, where, and/or when it intends to achieve goals, because of a lack of clarity in these goals, various structural issues which made control less effective, insufficient monitoring, and mismatch between annual plans of operation and reality which has contributed to insufficient funding. However, van Wilgen et al. (2022) further suggested that WfW can play a positive role in ensuring that IAPs are effectively controlled in well-defined priority areas, provided that a number of issues are effectively addressed by creating a more focused vision that spells out achievable goals; strategic actions based on conservation triage, focusing on clearly defined priority sites, improving planning and monitoring, and increasing operational effiecieny. In order to achieve these, the government should increase the level of funding, WfW should maximise the use of biological control, eradicate high-risk species where possible, and rationalise and intergrate value added projects. Failure to address those issues will result in widespread increases in the range and density of IAPs, including in priority areas. 1.10 Socio-economic benefits The alleviation of poverty, particularly in rural areas, has been the main driver for the investment from the South African government’s EPWP (van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016; Angelstam et al., 2017). The Natural Resource Management programme including WfW has been highly successful in providing short to medium-term employment opportunities and a practical skill set for thousands of unskilled labourers (Giordano et al., 2012; Figure 2). The 21 WfW programme’s secondary objective is to create work opportunities targeting designated groups including previously disadvantaged communities, with emphasis on women, youth and persons with disabilities (Hassan and Mahlathi, 2020), and to uplift livelihoods through employment in marginalised communities and socio-economic development (Angelstam et al., 2017). Since inception, the WfW projects have provided numerous jobs and training opportunities for approximately 20,000 people across the country on an annual basis (DEA, 2016; Mukwada et al., 2016). Mukwada et al. (2016) indicated that one of the most important social benefits generated by IAS is employment which has been a vital source of household income. A study in Mpumalanga Province in the Inkomati Catchment indicated that the investment in eradication of alien vegetation had both direct and indirect social benefits (Hassan and Mahlathi, 2020). However, the program has been criticised for not effectively selecting the poorest and neediest workers (Hope, 2006), and for its focus on short-term employment opportunities, lack of rigorous criteria for the selection of the projects and a relatively small fraction of WfW’s total costs actually being spent on wages (McConnachie et al., 2012; McConnachie et al., 2013; van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016). Unfortunately, of the three main goals of the WfW programme (Figure 3), the social benefits or failures are the least studied. The current study aims to assess if the goals of the WfW programme have been achieved in the northern Drakensberg escarpment, Mpumalanga Province, especially addressing the gap of knowledge on the social-economic impacts of the programme by exploring the perceptions of the WfW programme by employees and landowners. 1.11 Study area The study area was located in the Thaba Chweu Local Municipality, Ehlanzeni District along the northern Drakensberg escarpment, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa, centred between the towns of Graskop (24.926498° S, 30.852588°E) and Pilgrim’s Rest (24.8886201° S, 30.743250° E), lies between 560 m and 2023 m asl. The Mpumalanga Escarpment includes three of South Africa’s biomes including Savannah, Grassland and Forest Biomes. Grassland Biome is the most prevalent biome in the study area (Ferrar and Lotter, 2007; Breman et al., 2019). 1.11.1 Vegetation The area area is characterized by grassland vegetation that is interspersed with Afromontane forest (Maimela et al., 2022), and has an extraordinary diversity of plant species with an 22 estimated 4946 plant taxa occurring within the province (Emery et al., 2002). A recent review by Clark et al. (2022), revealed that the Limpopo-Mpumalanga-Eswatini escarpment has 496 endemic plant taxa which is the highest plant endemism recorded for a summer rainfall mountain area in southern Africa while the winter rainfall Cape Fold Mountains will still likely have higher diversity. The review further revealed that the transformation of the landscape such as conversion from mesic montane grassland to commercial forestry; the rampant spread of IAS; poaching of wild plant populations for horticulture and traditional use; mining; and bush encroachment by indigenous woody species, are the most challenging conservation concerns and therefore the remaining grassland should be the primary focus of protection and conservation stewardship efforts. 1.11.2 Land use The primary land use activities in the area include forestry plantation, mining, agriculture and tourism-related activities. Other land use activities include business services, scattered settlement and small to medium scale farming, as well as old (decommissioned) mine shafts. (Giddy et al., 2022; Kritzinger, 2022; Figure 1.3). 23 Figure 1.3: Land use activities along the northern Drakensberg escarpment. Smaller dots represent the study site for plant diversity surveys in this study with blue dots representing sites in Working for Water cleared areas, and pink dots representing the adjacent grassland sites outside of Working for Water areas. The large black dots represent the towns of Pilgrim’s Rest and Graskop. 1.11.3 Climate The Mpumalanga Escarpment is characterized by cool to moderate temperature (10-18 °C) with moderate to high rainfall (800-1 200 mm), and mean annual precipitation of than 1 000 mm (WRC, 2001). The study area is characterised by extreme relief and high elevation ranges of 560 m to 2,030 m above sea level (Lotter et al., 2014; Figure 1.4). Figure 1.4: Average temperature and weather by month/ climate graphs for study areas. (a) Graskop climate graph/ weather by month (b) Graskop average temperature (c) Pilgrim’s Rest climate graph/ weather by month (d) Pilgrim’s Rest average temperature (Graphs taken from https://en.climate-data.org/africa/south-africa/mpumalanga/graskop-189588/). https://en.climate-data.org/africa/south-africa/mpumalanga/graskop-189588/ 24 1.11.4 Population Thaba Chweu Local Municipality had a total population of 98,387 of which 81,6% are black African, 14,5% white, and 26% coloured with other population groups making up the remaining 1,2%. Of those aged 20 years and older, 4,5% have completed primary school only, 33,7% have secondary education, 30,7% have completed matric and 9,6% have some form of higher education. In 2011, the overall unemployment rate was at 20,49%, the youth unemployment was at 27,1%, and the growth rate between 2001 and 2011 was 1,86% (Stats Census, 2011). The unemployment rate had risen from 20,49% in the year 2011 to 24,2% in the year 2016 and 30,9% in 2020 (Thaba Chweu Local Municipality IDP, 2022-2027). The population of Thaba Chweu Local Municipality had grown to 101,985 in 2016, because of changes in demarcation during 1996 and 2016, and in 2019 the projections for 2022 were standing at 121,966 due to migration and high unemployment rates across all the neighbouring provinces/ towns leading to people flocking into Thaba Chweu (Thaba Chweu Local Municipality IDP, 2022-2027). The main land use activities are forestry, agriculture, settlement, mining, business and tourism. A large number of employment opportunities come from the trade industry, followed by community service, agriculture, and forestry, and mining is the least contributing sector. Forestry and agriculture are the dominant sectors in the Graskop and Pilgrim’s Rest towns and have been the main economic contributors (Thaba Chweu Local Municipality IDP, 2022-2027). 1.11.5 Water catchment area The present study covers three quaternary catchments, namely: Graskop (X31A) and two in Pilgrim’s Rest (B60A and B60B). These catchments have the highest relative importance and/ or priority within the Mpumalanga region as they have high water yields, contain areas which are rich in biodiversity that is considered irreplaceable, have high relative carrying capacity, and contain freshwater biodiversity priority areas and other ecosystem services (Forsyth et al., 2011). The northern Drakensberg escarpment comprises of two main river headwaters, namely Blyde River and Sabie River (Figure 1.5). Blyde River is a major tributary to Olifants River and it rises on the western slopes of the north-south trending Drakensberg Mountains and flows northwards towards the escarpment edge to the Blyde Dam, cascading down a steep series of rapids to its lower reaches, and flowing northwards to join Olifants River (Addo-Bediako and Malakane, 2020). 25 Figure 1.5: Major water catchments in the northern Drakensberg escarpment, Mpumulanga Province, South Africa. The Blyde River sub-catchment is approximately 2000 km2 in size and lies partly on the escarpment. As a result it experiences high rainfall with a mean annual precipitation of about 1000 mm. It is classified as a top-priority catchment and critical for downstream water security in the Mpumalanga Province (Forsyth et al., 2011; Nel et al., 2017; Addo-Bediako and Malakane, 2020). The Blyde River Catchment is a high-priority biodiversity and water resource area and plays a critical role in increasing water quality and quantity in the Olifants River while the Sabie River is a major tributary of the Icomati system, flowing eastwards from the Eastern Escarpment region of South Africa to the west 1600 m above see level (m asl), descending onto the low-relief Lowveld (400 m asl) and Lebombo zones (200 m asl) in the east (Heritage et al., 2015). 26 The Sabie River meets the Kruger National Park and flows through the coastal plains of Mozambique towards the Indian Ocean (Raven, 2004). The Sabie River Catchment is important ecologically and economically, supporting many different land users west of the Kruger National Park (Mallory et al., 2013). The Sabie Catchment system is recognised within various national and provincial plans and strategies, including the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas, the National Strategic Water Source Areas, the National WfW Prioritization, and the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan (Forsyth et al., 2011; Nel et al., 2017; Le Maitre et al., 2018). 1.11.6 Invasive species The WfW programme has been operating in the study area since 1995, and has performed initial and follow-up clearing of hundreds of hectares of IAPs including A. dealbata, A. mearnsii, E. globulus, L. camara, Pinus palustris Mill (Pinaceae), P. radiata, Rubus cuneifolius Bailey (Rosaceae) 9, Solanum mauritianum Roe (Solanaceae), Populus alba L. (), Populus canescens Smith (Salicaceae), A. melanoxylon. & Perr., Sesbania punicea Cav (Fabaceae). And many others as recorded in the WIMS Database. Most of these species have been observed in the study area and originate from the forestry industry, either as escapees or as a result of historic planting. The ecological functioning and biodiversity of this area are threatened by the invasion of IAPs which in turn threatens the various benefits derived by people from this ecosystem. (Figure 1.6). 27 Figure 1.6: A sign board highlighting the objectives of the Working for Water programme. The sign board was erected outside the Pilgrim’s Rest Secondary School (24.90466° S, 30.753996° E) in Pilgrim’s Rest town (study area) when projects were first started in the area in 1995. The old sign reads as follows: “Mpumalanga Working for Water project objectives: 1. Remove Alien Invader flora from River courses, Grasslands and Indigenous forests. 2. Increase Biodiversity. 3. Create sustainable jobs.” 1.12 Aim of the study The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the WfW alien plant removal programme on the water courses, job creation and impact on native biodiversity along the northern Drakensberg escarpment, Mpumalanga, South Africa. The study assessed the impact of WfW on the livelihood of communities and the perceived benefits to the landowners where clearing had been conducted. 1.13 Objectives In order to achieve the aims of this study, the following objectives were outlined: • Determine the socio-economic benefits and effectiveness of the Working for Water programme as perceived by the communities in the northern Drakensberg escarpment. 28 o Determine the community knowledge of invasive alien plants and relevant legislations governing alien vegetation control. o Determine whether the WfW is meeting set employment targets. o Determine the perceptions of impacts of invasive alien plants by communities and landowners. o Determine the level of satisfaction by landowners where clearing work had been conducted and highlight future improvements in the implementation of WfW. • Determine the impact of clearing of invasive alien plants on native biodiversity along the northern Drakensberg escarpment. o Determine impact on species diversity on areas cleared by WfW programme and adjacent natural grassland (referred to as Open Veld). o Determine the species composition between paired plots and the effect of clearing across serveral grassland habitats and sites. The data chapters are presented in draft manuscript format and as a result some repitation are unavaoidable. 29 Chapter 2: Socio-economic benefits and effectiveness of the Working for Wateprogamme as perceived by communities in the northern Drakensberg escarpment 2.1 Introduction In addition to managing the spread of invasive alien plants (IAPs), the Working for Water’s (WfW) secondary objective is to provide job opportunities, training and economic empowerment to the marginalized sectors of South African society, mainly in rural areas where unemployment is widespread (McConnachie et al., 2013; Ntshotsho et al., 2015). Since its inception, the programme has had remarkable success in securing substantial funding from the South African government to reduce the high level of unemployment, given the enormous challenges facing the country in the post-apartheid era (see chapter 1; van Wilgen and Wannenburg, 2016; van Wilgen et al., 2022), and the ability of the WfW to meet job creation targets, leading to the rapid rise and sustainability of funding (van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016). The WfW programme as a labour-intensive project is expected to contribute to the creation of short to medium-term work opportunities in line with Expanded Public Works Programmes (EPWP) policies and guidelines (McConnachie et al., 2013). According to van Wilgen et al. (2022) (see Chapter 1 for further information), the WfW control operations resulted in 107,554 Full-Time Equivalents jobs between 1998 and 2020, with a mean of 4,676 full-time jobs per year, distributed between 58% women, 65% youth and 2% of people living with disabilities (RSA: DPIW, 2019). On average, participants received 120,517 days of training between 2011 and 2020 which equates to approximately 25 days per Full-Time Equivalent job per year. This training included skills directly essential for the work such as WfW induction, contractor development, plant identification, herbicide application, health and safety, and first aid, as well as broad social development skills such as personal financial management, diversity management, peer educator and others (van Wilgen et al., 2022). Hassan and Mahlathi (2020) argued that the bulk of previous studies investigating the WfW programme have not accounted for the social benefits from labour employment and cost of invested capital funds. However, some studies have investigated the contribution of WfW to the communities. For instance, van Wilgen and Wannenburgh (2016) found that the WfW programme has created between 2000 and 23,000 fulltime equivalent jobs per year supported 30 by Byrne et al. (2020) who indicated that the programme has created more than 20,000 jobs per year over two decades. However, van Wilgen et al. (2022) states that, despite these impressive figures, few studies have attempted to quantify the degree to which WfW’s social objective has been achieved. In South Africa, private landowners are legally obliged to control IAPs on their land under the Conservation of Agricultural Act (1983) and the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (2004). In 1995, the government sought to address the problem of listed invasive alien species (IAS) by providing both private and state landowners with assistance to clear IAS (van Wilgen and Wannenburg, 2016; van Wilgen et al., 2022). The WfW’s general policy states that private landowners will maintain sites free from re-invasion after WfW has completed one initial and two follow-up treatments (McConnachie et al., 2013). However, it has infrequently been investigated what the landowners’ opinion of the invasive species on their property was, what their experience working with WfW contractors have been, and the overall benefits by landowners where clearing has been implemented. The aims of this study were to (a) determine socio-economic benefits experienced by employees of WfW living along the northern Drakensberg escarpment and (b) to determine the perceived effectiveness of IAP management interventions within the northern Drakensberg escarpment by landowners where WfW clearing projects have been implemented. 2.2 Material and Methods 2.2.1 Study sites The study was conducted in Matibidi, Moremela, Leroro villages, and Graskop and Pilgrim’s Rest towns in Thaba Chweu Local Municipality in the Mpumalanga Province, South Africa (Figure 2.1). The study area is predominantly rural where the main economic sectors are forestry plantation, agriculture, tourism, mining and business services (Giddy et al., 2022). Notably, Thaba Chweu Local Municipality is one of the major tourist attraction areas in South Africa (Thaba Chweu Local Municipality IDP, 2020/2021), and mining and forestry are the largest sectors in this area. The economic potential in the study area is dependent on its natural resource base which consists of forests, minerals, unique attractiveness for tourism and to an extent its human resources. However, there is low active involvement of the previously 31 disadvantaged communities in commercial and tourism development and there are minimal economic activites in rural areas (Tshandu, 2010). Figure 2.1: Map showing the Thaba Chewu Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa, and the locations where the participants completed research questionnaires – black dots (Source: Google maps, AfriGIS, 2023). 2.3 Data collection and Ethics Data for contractors and workers were collected using semi-structured narrative questionnaires which contained both open-ended and close-ended questions. The research questionnaires and Informed Ethics Consent were approved by the General/ Human Research Ethics Committee (GHREC) of the University of the Free State (reference number UFS-HSD2021/1102/21). Consent from interveiwees was always obtained in writing. The questionnaires for contractors and workers (called participants) were distributed during two events: Compensation for occupational injuries and disease training on the 25th November 2021 in Graskop, and Workplace Risk Assessment training on the 26th November 2021 in Bushbuckridge. Additional 32 questionnaires were also given to employees of the WfW programme who were not attending the training session. Participants who worked in the WfW were randomly chosen and questionnaires were returned back by December 2021. The participants’ questionnaires were distributed to 80 workers employed by the WfW programme and consisted of three main sections, namely; participants’ particulars to determine if the employment targets were in line with the WfW and EPWP guidelines; secondly, participants’ knowledge of invasive species and their impacts in order to understand if participants understood the necessity of removing IAPs as this plays a critical role in the work that the WfW programme has been doing over the years; and thirdly, general questions regarding their opinion of the WfW programme in order to determine if the programme has made any significant impact on the environment and the livelihood of the community living along the northern Drakensberg escarpment (See Appendix 1 for further information). Similarly, the data for landowners were collected using semi-structured narrative questionnaires which contained both open-ended and close-ended questions. Consent from the interviewees was obtained in writing. The questionnaires were distributed randomly to the landowners where WfW IAPs clearing has been conducted. The details of the landowners were obtained from completed clearing assistance forms and arrangement to visit their properties were made telephonically. As some landowners could not be contacted, some farm visits were made following physical addresses they provided in the completed clearing assistance forms in order to collect the questionnaires. The majority of landowners did not complete the questionnaires immediately and in these cases, landowners were requested to inform the researcher once the questionnaires had been completed so that they could be collected or received electronically through email. The landowner questionnaires were distrubuted to more than 20 landowners and consisted of four main sections, namely; details of their property in order to determine where the clearing of IAPs actually happened; secondly, knowledge of IAPs and their impacts in order to understand if landowners are aware of the IAPs and their impacts on the environment and livelihoods; thirdly, the level of satisfication with the work that the WfW programme has conducted on their property and the investment made as the programme uses public funds for its operations, hence it is necessary to understand if the work was considered value for money; and fourthly, to determine if the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment should continue to implement the WfW programme and what improvements (if any) that landowners 33 would like to see being implemented in order to holistically address the problem of IAPs. The landowner questionaires were completed between January 2022 and November 2022. For further information on questions and questionnaire structure, both questionnaires can be found in Appendix 2. The researcher informed participants and landowners of the aim and purpose of the study before they answered the questionnaires. Most importantly, they were informed of their rights to participate in the study including any intention to withdraw from participation and that there were no risks involved in participating in the study. The researcher observed all COVID-19 protocols and POPIA act legislative requirements. 2.4 Data analysis Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses from questionnaires while qualitative answers were summarized to assess the perceived benefits of the WfW programme. In order to ensure logical, meaningful and efficient data analysis, a computer-assisted Google survey form or tool was created online and all responses were captured by the researcher as per the completed questionnaires to aid in summarizing the responses from the questionnaires. The data for participants and landowners are stored online (see Appendix 2). 2.5 Results 2.5.1 Working for Water participant questionnaires Overall, 81% (n=80) of the participants responded to the questionnaires. The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 65 years, and comprised of 20% people between 18-20 years, 29% between 21 to 30 years of age, 31% between 31 to 40 years of age, 14% between 41 to 50 years of age, and 6% above the age of 50 years. Both genders were represented with 69% of respondents being female and 30% male. Regarding marital status, 88% of the participants were single, 9% married and 3% divorced. With regard to educational background, 16.9 % of participants possesed a basic education (Grade R-7), 59% had a level of secondary school education (Grade 8-12), 22% had basic qualifications, and 3% had postgraduate qualifications. Family size ranged from one individual to eleven persons per household with an average of five people per household. The participants 34 indicated that within their household their maximum household income was between R0- R5000, which was mainly from the WfW funding and partly from temporary work opportunities in the area. 2.5.1.1 Level of knowledge of invasive alien plants The level of knowledge of IAPs varied across participants, with 46% of the respondents indicating that they had a good knowledge of IAPs, 34% with a very good knowledge of IAPs, and 20% of the respondents indicated that they had an excellent knowledge on IAPs (Figure 2.2). None of the participants chose the lowest category of a fair knowledge of IAPs. Figure 2.2: The percentage responses for four categories on the participants’ knowledge of invasive alien plants ranging from fair to excellent knowledge. Most (86%) respondents indicated that they are aware of IAPs, and believe that IAPs are a major problem, 6% indicated that IAPs are not a major problem, and 8% indicated that they are not sure if these plants are a major problem or not. Poor 0% Fair 0% Good 46% Very good 34% Excellent 20% 35 2.5.1.2 Knowledge of legislations that govern invasive alien vegetation and control All participants acknowledged that they were aware of the National Environmental Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004, Conservation of Agricultural Resource Act 43 of 1983 and National Water Act 36 of 1998, general legislation governing invasive alien vegetation control and management. Responses indicated that 43% of the participants had a good knowledge of legislations that govern invasive alien vegetation control and management, 35% indicated that they have very good knowledge, 12% indicated that they have excellent knowledge, whereas 9% of the respondents indicated they had fair knowledge (Figure 2.3). Figure 2.3: The percentage responses for five categories on the participants’ knowledge of legislations governing invasive alien vegetation control and management. 2.5.1.3 International studies on invasive alien plants The respondents were asked to indicate their sentiments towards “International studies which have suggested that Invasive Alien Plants have several negative impacts on the environment”. The following statements were put forward (a) IAPs alter the fire regime of the natural vegetation; (b) IAPs harbour vermin (rats, mice, snakes, etc); (c) IAPs reduce native Poor 0% Fair 9% Good 44% Very good 35% Excellent 12% 36 biodiversity; (d) IAPs create impenetrable thickets that impede human and animal movement; (e) IAPs reduce the yields of farming land by encroaching on cultivated land; and (f)