Introduction

South Africa is the third most biologically diverse country in the world (Wynberg 2002). This biodiversity and its associated ecosystem services underpin the livelihoods of millions of South Africans and contribute significantly to the country’s economy (Wynberg 2002). But many of South Africa’s most valuable biomes are vulnerable to degradation from invasive alien plant species (IAPs) (Richardson and van Wilgen 2004; Henderson 2007; Kotzé et al. 2010). IAPs cover approximately 20 million ha (about 16%) of South Africa’s biomes, with the rates of invasion increasing rapidly (Henderson 2007; Marias and Kotze 2010), and this directly threatens community livelihoods, by reducing run-off, river-flows and available water supplies (Zimmermann et al. 2004; De Lange and van Wilgen 2010). In exacerbation, South Africa has a high rate of income inequality (World Bank Report 1997), poverty (Triegaardt 2006), and unemployment (STATS SA 2016). The South African government has attempted to manage these socio-economic, employment and environmental challenges through outcomes-based programmes, projects and campaigns (South African Government 2016). The introduction of the Expanded Public Works Programmes (EPWP) initiative, for example, aims to employ a significant number of South Africans, enabling them to gain skills and to earn an income. Another example is the ‘Working for Water’ (WfW) programme, administered by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) Environmental Programmes, which was established in 1995. The main goal of the programme has been to co-ordinate the integrated management of IAPs (van Wilgen et al. 1998), while also providing social services that address unemployment among designated groups (Working for Water 2007). These designated groups include previously disadvantaged communities, with an emphasis on women, youth and persons with disabilities (PWDs). These projects have provided jobs and training for approximately 20,000 people annually (DEA 2016). The programme is considered one of the largest biodiversity conservation efforts in the world and is currently running over 300 local projects in South Africa, using mechanical, chemical, biological and integrated control techniques to suppress IAPs (Wynberg 2002; DEA 2016).

Biological control has been used to manage invasive plant species in South Africa for over 100 years (Moran et al. 2013) and is generally considered the most cost effective, safe and sustainable method of control (Moran et al. 2005; van Wilgen et al. 2008; De Lange and van Wilgen 2010). It is estimated that, in South Africa, biological control has reduced weed populations by 19.8% and if it were to be exploited to its full potential, weed populations could be reduced by 58.6%, and result in significant financial benefits (Zimmermann and Klein 2000; Zimmermann et al. 2004; De Lange and van Wilgen 2010; van Wilgen and De Lange 2011).

Historically, weed biological control in South Africa was exclusively the responsibility of researchers working at universities and state organisations. These researchers conducted exploration for, and host-specificity testing of, candidate biological control agents, then applied for release permits, mass-reared and released the agents, and then conducted post-release evaluations (Gillespie et al. 2004). Consequently, financial and logistical constraints often resulted in less time spent in mass-rearing, insect release and post-release monitoring, i.e. the actual implementation of weed biocontrol in the field (Gillespie et al. 2004; Zachariades et al. 2017). The significant investment into weed biological control implementation since 1995 by the DEA: National Research Management Programme (NRMP) and its predecessor, WfW (initially based in the Department of Water Affairs), has allowed weed biological control to be shared by researchers and implemented by the wider community, rather than remain the sole purview of researchers and research institutions. This has made the practice of weed biocontrol more accessible to local communities, and has created a widespread understanding of what biological control is, what it does, and how communities can use it to manage their own natural economic resources. However, biological control has been suggested as being in conflict with some of the philosophies of the EPWP, as biological control agents may negate the need for manual IAP clearing and thus reduce job creation and availability. This paper is an account of initiatives in South Africa that have involved the wider community in mass-rearing, post-release evaluations, quarantine, research and multiple educational projects which have led to increased employment, education and acceptance of biological control as a useful weed management practice.

Pre-release activities

Mass-rearing

Weed biological control mass-rearing facilities in South Africa are non-commercial facilities, established to mass produce high numbers of healthy biological control agents for release against IAPs. In some cases, repeated augmentative releases are required to obtain ongoing control, predominantly against invasive cacti and problematic aquatic species.

In South Africa, before 1995, mass-rearing was predominantly the responsibility of researchers, usually within their own research laboratories. There were however three rudimentary facilities: the Merensky Trust, Tzaneen, the South African Sugarcane Research Institute (SASRI) and the Sezela Sugar estate, the first in the Limpopo province and the latter two in Kwa-Zulu Natal province (Zachariades et al. 2017). These facilities were operated in an ad-hoc manner and only released low numbers of a few species of agents (Zachariades et al. 2017). The increase in biological control of invasive weeds resulted in a need for higher numbers and a greater availability of healthy agents, which led to the development and improvement of a number of mass-rearing centres across the country, namely: the mass-rearing facilities at the SASRI and the Agricultural Research Council—Plant Protection Research Institute (ARC-PPRI) in KwaZulu-Natal province, the Waainek and Uitenhage facilities in the Eastern Cape Province, the City of Cape Town and ARC-PPRI in Stellenbosch in the Western Cape Province, the ARC-PPRI mass-rearing facility at Roodeplaat in Gauteng Province, and the Department of Environmental Affairs: Natural Resource Management Programme (DEA: NRMP) in collaboration with the ARC-PPRI mass-rearing facility in Limpopo (Zachariades et al. 2017) (Fig. 1). Currently, 47 agents for use against 33 IAP species are being mass-reared (Zachariades et al. 2017), providing approximately ten million biological control agents for release in South Africa annually.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The change in capacity (i.e. personnel involved) in pre- and post-release activities, research and education in weed biological control since 1995. The plot shows increasing or decreasing activity trends and the combined activity are indicated in the right-hand column. The scale bars represent number of individuals involved with the activity, which differs between the groups. The difference in numbers between the schools activities means they are not directly comparable, approximations are given in the text when appropriate. *The overall trend is derived from the number of initiatives

Full size image

Working for Water considers the advancement of social and economic benefits for people as an essential element of environmental conservation (DEA 2016). Short-term contract jobs created through clearing activities are undertaken, with an emphasis on recruiting women (the target is 60%), youth (20%) and the disabled (5%) (DEA 2016). It has however proven difficult to employ People with Disabilities (PWDs), as the majority of job opportunities are in daily-wage systems, which involve private contractors who employ labourers to clear existing IAPs manually. This work is often physically demanding, effectively excluding the majority of PWDs from employment opportunities. The development of two PWD-oriented, mass-rearing facilities at Waainek in the Eastern Cape and the City of Cape Town mass-rearing facility in the Western Cape, has provided opportunities for PWDs to be trained and employed in skilled positions, culturing and harvesting biological control agents for release (Fig. 1). Currently, mass-rearing facilities in South Africa employ 32 personnel, of whom seven have physical disabilities (Zachariades et al. 2017).

Quarantine facilities

Weed biological control quarantine facilities provide a secure, controlled environment where all new potential biological control agents can be identified and cleared of pests and diseases. It is also where host specificity and host range tests are conducted to ensure only target specific agents are released (Fisher and Andrés 1999). In South Africa, there has been a steady increase in the number of biological control quarantine facilities to keep pace with the increased impetus in biological control research and the subsequent number of biological control agents released.

There are now six biological control quarantine facilities across the country, four of which are run by the ARC-PPRI, namely: Roodeplaat (previously Rietondale) in Pretoria, two in Stellenbosch (for insects and pathogens respectively), one in Cedara (near Pietermaritzburg), with the others at Rhodes University in Grahamstown and at the University of the Witwatersrand (WITS) in Johannesburg (Fig. 1). Rhodes University, ARC Roodeplaat and Cedara have all upgraded and expanded their facilities over the last five years and the facility at WITS is newly built, commissioned in 2015, and as yet has no permanent employees and therefore it is not presented in Fig. 1. The increase in capacity at a number of the facilities, as well as the number of agents kept in the facilities, has resulted in increased employment opportunities. The ARC-PPRI facilities at Stellenbosch and at WITS still rely primarily on research staff for facility management.

Post-release activities

Implementation of biological control in the field

After 1995, the more intensive focus on weed biological control in South Africa generated the introduction of newly employed ‘biological control implementation officers’ (now referred to as biodiversity officers), which were provincially-based government appointed positions, responsible for ensuring that available agents were distributed in their appropriate ecological range and for the facilitation of incorporating biological control into WfW’s clearing programmes (Gillespie et al. 2004; Zachariades et al. 2017). At its inception in 1999, the programme employed six biological control implementation officers, and has now increased substantially to support 16 officers across South Africa, with an intention to increase the number to 26 between 2017 and 2020 (Zachariades et al. 2017).

Furthermore, in 2011, the WfW programme recognised that, through the identification, collection and redistribution of biological control agents in the field, implementation officers could help control efforts against invasive species for which agents were not currently being mass-reared, such as agents for use against invasive Acacia species (Mimosaceae) and Hakea species (Proteaceae). This resulted in the appointment of specialist ‘biological control teams’ which comprised 17 trained implementers, divided into two teams, headed by a contractor. This programme has increased the number of releases made and the success of the programme has resulted in a call for its expansion across the country. Currently, the primary purpose of these specialised teams is the collection and redistribution of agents.

Monitoring and evaluation

A secondary function of both biological control implementation officers and of the biological control teams is to monitor agent establishment. Post-release monitoring of the establishment and effect of biological control agents is fundamental to the management of biological control programmes (Morin et al. 2009). Financial and time constraints often result in less time spent in post-release monitoring relative to research and release efforts, and in many cases, post-release monitoring is completely omitted (Morin et al. 2009). However, sustained funding from the WfW programme has ensured that a number of biological control projects in South Africa have been monitored post-implementation (Hoffmann and Moran 1998; Hoffmann et al. 1998; McConnachie et al. 2003). For example, annual surveys of South African freshwater systems have been conducted since 2008 by the Centre for Biological Control, at Rhodes University (RU-CBC). The intention of the surveys is to collect quantitative long-term data on the status of infestations by the five most damaging, floating, aquatic weed species, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms-Laub (Pontederiaceae) (water hyacinth), Pistia stratiotes L. (Araceae) (water lettuce), Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitch (Salviniaceae) (salvinia), Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell. Conc.) Verd. (Halagoraceae) (parrot’s feather) and Azolla filiculoides Lam. (Azollaceae) (red water fern) and to assess the extent of biocontrol achieved. Also, since 2003, biocontrol personnel at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in collaboration with researchers and implementers from the ARC-PPRI in Stellenbosch, have conducted long-term surveys on the population dynamics and seed biology of 11 invasive Australian Acacia species, and on the related Paraserianthes lophantha (Willd.) Nielsen (Mimosaceae). The long-term nature of both the aquatic weed and acacia surveys have allowed researchers to detect subtle changes brought about by the biological control agents that would not be possible in short-term investigations. Currently, post-release research is conducted on 31 invasive species in South Africa (Zachariades et al. 2017). These studies have shown the significant economic and ecological benefits of biological control, and have highlighted the benefits of conducting quantitative post-release evaluations.

Adult training and education

If community involvement is to aid biological control, the community needs to understand what it is and how it works (Andrews et al. 1992). Additionally, educating and learning from the community not only reinforces their ownership of the problem, but provides them with ownership of the solution (Briese and McLaren 1997; Peters et al. 2015). As the implementation of biological control grew in South Africa after the initiation of WfW in 1995, it became apparent that an important component of the biological control programme was providing the public with relevant information, as these management techniques were relatively unknown to the general public and often regarded with suspicion (Gillespie et al. 2004). Therefore, between 1995 and 2005, half-day biological control information sessions were held throughout South Africa, which outlined the theory of biological control, how it is applied in South Africa and how it can be integrated into the alien plant-clearing programme without affecting jobs (Gillespie et al. 2004). Approximately 400 delegates attended these information sessions. However, it rapidly became clear that the utility and importance of biological control in both an ecological and economic context required a more comprehensive course. This need led to the development of the fully accredited Weed Biological Control Short Course in partnership with the RU-CBC. This week-long course has been run annually since 2005 and teaches basic concepts of invasive weed ecology and biological control (Weaver et al. 2017). The course is designed to inform students, field rangers, governmental scientists, managers, interested and affected parties and researchers about the underlying tenets of invasion management and biological control (Weaver et al. 2017). Since the inception of the short course in 2005, over 232 delegates have successfully completed the course (Weaver et al. 2017). Delegates from 15 African countries including: Kenya, Senegal, Ghana, Benin, Zambia, Uganda, Cameroon, Madagascar, Ethiopia, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Mozambique, Côte d’Ivoire and Nigeria, as well as delegates from Portugal and Israel.

At the tertiary level, a capacity building programme at the University of KwaZulu-Natal introduces university undergraduate students to hands-on training for periods of two months each year at research institutions engaged in research and implementation activities (Downs 2010). The University of Cape Town, WITS and Rhodes University have also incorporated biological control into undergraduate teaching and various post-graduate studies (Hoffmann and Byrne pers. comm.) and a number of these students have gone on to work in biocontrol-related fields (Zachariades et al. 2017).

Additionally, the RU-CBC developed a PWDs Weed Biological Control Short Course in 2013, in order to provide the education and skills required for disabled people to be employed in mass-rearing facilities. The programme has proved to be successful and to date 21 PWDs have completed the short course, obtaining training with invasive species, and 11 have been employed in full-time positions in weed biological control mass-rearing facilities.

Education and technology transfer with an emphasis on outreach to schools

Education is a key component in the success of biological control (Briese and McLaren 1997). In Australia in the 1990s, Briese and McLaren (1997) showed that, while schools (teachers and pupils) are often enthusiastic about participating in biological control programmes, they require continual monitoring and input from researchers to maintain enthusiasm. Furthermore, the authors suggested that, to ensure sustainability of school biological control programmes, biological control should be incorporated into the school curriculum (Briese and McLaren 1997). The South African National Schools Curriculum aims to ensure children acquire and apply knowledge and skills in ways that are meaningful to their own lives (Department of Basic Education DBE 2011). Thus in 2011, the curriculum was altered to include modules on alien plant invasions and their control, using mechanical, chemical and biological methods (DBE 2011; DEA 2016; Weaver et al. 2017). The increase in initiatives targeting educating students in biological control has been one of the most supported initiatives in South Africa (Fig. 1).

The ‘Yebo Gogga!’ outreach initiative

A programme called ‘Yebo Gogga!’ (translated as “Yes Insects!”) is the longest standing entomological education programme running in South Africa. The programme, with an emphasis on schools’ involvement, is a week-long arthropod exhibition, organised by the University of the Witwatersrand Department of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, and has taken place since 1996 (Crump et al. 2000). Yebo Gogga! aims to engage, educate and interest the public about arthropods and their context within biology. A significant component of the annual exhibition is the various aspects of biological control. The target group is broad, encompassing tertiary and secondary educational institutions, and the public of Gauteng Province (Crump et al. 2000).

The ‘Science Internship Programme’

Initiated in 2013 by the RU-CBC in collaboration with the South African institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, the ‘Science Internship Programme’, involves pupils who assist research and technical support staff in the day-to-day maintenance of plant and insect cultures and the collection of biological control agents which are used for the management of South Africa’s four worst aquatic weeds. Pupils complete tasks involved with specific studies that are undertaken by post-graduate students and research staff, which integrates high school pupils into the research environment, and promotes student participation in experiential learning and science-based discussion. To date 70 interns have completed the programme.

The ‘Young Scientists Lecture Series’

Since 2009, biological control researchers from the RU-CBC, together with scientists from other disciplines have participated in the ‘Young Scientists Lecture Series’, presenting current work and scientific endeavour to high school pupils during their scheduled science classes. The lecture series has helped to introduce students to the concepts of biological control and have encouraged students to pursue careers in entomology and biological control.

Annual outreach activities to schools that involve biological control

South Africa has two national education festivals: Sci-Fest Africa and the National Science Week. Sci-Fest Africa is a week-long science festival that provides a platform for scientists, research groups and the private sector to present their work and innovation to the community, with an emphasis on school children (http://www.scifest.org.za/). The festival provides an interactive and innovative environment to engage with the community. In 2016 for example, the festival attracted more than 56,000 visitors from across South Africa, comprising 65 exhibitions and 706 events, presented by 328 contributors from 76 organisations in South Africa, along with six other international contributors (Sci-Fest Africa 2016).

The National Science Week, managed by the South African Government Department of Science and Technology (http://www.exposcience.co.za/), is a second, annual, week-long festival celebrating the role that science, technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) play in everyday life and encourages more young people to follow careers in STEM fields (National Science Week SAASTA 2016). The National Science Week attracts thousands of members of the public, pupils and educators to workshops, science shows and exhibitions at universities, schools and science centre’s countrywide (SAASTA 2016). Approximately 100 organisations, including science centres, schools, science councils, higher education institutions and museums participated in National Science Week (SAASTA 2016).

Biological control scientists have used these platforms to showcase problems and dangers associated with invasive species as well as to demonstrate the benefits and options provided by weed biological control. At these festivals, select invasive water weeds, and some invasive cactus species and lantana, Lantana camara L. (Verbenaceae), all common South African invaders, and their associated biological control agents have been used as case studies. School pupils and the public are invited to observe, investigate and discuss the biological control examples, presented at each festival, with university researchers.

Mass-rearing programmes at schools

Mass-rearing of weed biological control agents has been implemented by some schools in South Africa. Mass-rearing in schools is possible as some (not all) biological control agents are relatively easy to rear, collect, release and monitor with minimal effort, maintenance and infrastructure. Schools’ mass-rearing programmes can be an effective tool in the implementation of biological control as they can provide a direct link to infestations in more rural and less accessible areas (Briese and McLaren 1997). In Australia, for example, the ‘Ragwort School Biological Control Project’ was established in areas where ragwort, Senecio jacobaea L. (Asteraceae), infestations were problematic. Students reared the ragwort crown-boring moths, and released them at ragwort infestations where they could monitor their establishment and effects. In Victoria, a school biological control programme was also set up to rear the blotched boneseed beetle, Chrysolina sp. B, and the painted boneseed beetle, C. picturata (Clark) (both Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Beetles reared by pupils were then released on nearby boneseed, Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera (L.) T. Norl. (Compositae) infestations, assisting in the management of the weed within their community (Briese and McLaren 1997).

In South Africa, despite extensive management initiatives, water hyacinth, E. crassipes, remains one of the most problematic aquatic weeds (Hill and Coetzee 2017). Biological control has been implemented on water hyacinth since 1974, relying mainly on two species of Neochetina weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) (Coetzee et al. 2011). Although the biological control of this weed has been successful, the habitats in which the weed exists are prone to stochastic disturbances such as flooding, drought and herbicide application, and thus the agents need to be re-introduced regularly (Hill and Olckers 2001). To facilitate improved management of the weed, school-based water hyacinth mass-rearing programmes were attempted by the RU-CBC, using the two Neochetina weevil species. At each school, water hyacinth was grown in lattice-wall ponds, following the mass-rearing techniques suggested in Julien et al. (1999), and after the plants had established, the weevils were introduced to the systems to be managed and collected by the school pupils. While the programme allowed for some insects to be reared and released, it primarily served as an educational tool for teachers to use biological control concepts and methods to teach plant–insect interactions, ecology and ecosystem science (Weaver et al. 2017). The programmes have proved successful, although sustained inputs from university-based researchers are essential to sustain enthusiasm and to maintain infrastructure.

Discussion

Biological control is the most important weed management tool in South Africa and has been greatly facilitated by the development of the WfW programme (Zimmermann et al. 2004). As biological control started to grow in the 1990s, it became apparent that equipping communities with the knowledge and skills required to manage their own resources was essential in order to avoid their reliance on university or government researchers (Gillespie et al. 2004). The consequent development of the multiple tertiary-level initiatives described above have proven to be extremely successful: originally, many weed biological control implementers and the communities affected by weeds were not aware of the problems associated with these weeds, nor of the management options available to them. School and adult-level education, combined with weed biological control courses are effective in providing managers and communities with the educational tools to manage the various tasks on their own.

Contrary to the perception that biological control may reduce employment opportunities in invasive plant management, mass-rearing facilities have been able to provide valuable employment opportunities to many people across South Africa. Additionally, the incorporation of PWDs into mass-rearing facilities have contributed to WfW’s ambitious goal of 5% disabled employment (Naidoo et al. 2011). The education, training and employment of PWDs in biological control programmes in South Africa is unique, and has been highly successful in demonstrating the abilities of PWDs to gain the required skills to manage and operate a weed biological control mass-rearing facility, thus providing themselves with meaningful, full-time employment but also with the ability to contribute to the management of their surrounding environment and to the management of invasive species in South Africa.

Significant impetus in educational initiatives involving biological control in South Africa has resulted in communities, land-owners and biodiversity officers increasingly taking ownership of managing their ecological systems through biological control activities. In New Zealand, Landcare Research (formerly DSIR) adopted a model where the central government paid for the development and assessment of most biological control agents. However, those who benefitted from the research took responsibility for its implementation (Grindell 1995). The model initially only incorporated a single species but has now been rolled out to a number of species with great success (Hayes 2000). Successful implementation of biological control requires an understanding of the science behind it (Hayes 2000). The development of trained implementation officers and implementation teams in South Africa has ensured there is a direct link between researchers and the community, providing the public with information relating to the use of biological control (Gillespie et al. 2004) and more importantly how it works and how effective it can be at managing invasive plants. Strengthening the link between researchers and the public is fundamental to the continued success and expansion of biological control in South Africa and indeed globally. The proposed increase in the number of implementation officers means more jobs for suitably trained individuals, and will help to strengthen the link between weed management and locally affected communities.

In addition to the advances in and expansion of mass-rearing and quarantine facilities, and the development and facilitation of adult education in biological control, the South African National Schools Curriculum has recently been altered to include alien plant invasions and the management options available to control them (DBE 2011). This addition to the curriculum was initiated in 2011 as it was recognised as ‘essential information and skills’ that are applicable in the lives and livelihoods of South African pupils (DBE 2011). This, along with the showcasing of biological control within the national science festivals and the young scientist lecture series, ensures that some pupils completing their senior school certificate have had the opportunity to learn about local invasive species and their management options. Holistically, this also ensures the long-term integration of biological control concepts into the community, engendering a sense of environmental stewardship at the grassroots level.

Relying on schools to incorporate additional biological control projects into their course work or extracurricular activities should be considered with some circumspection because failed projects may prove counterproductive (Briese and McLaren 1997). Biological control school projects should generate results that can be seen over a short period of time, where agents have a good chance of establishment and easy-to-rear species should be relied upon to maintain enthusiasm (Briese and McLaren 1997). From the South African experience, sustaining biocontrol programmes at the school level requires a strong relationship between the participating schools and responsible teachers and researchers who developed the programmes, to ensure that assistance is available when problems are encountered and to replace equipment and breeding stock when needed. The close connection with researchers also ensures that the agents which are reared, released and established are recorded and monitored post-release. Increasing access to biological control at school levels assists in demystifying biological control at a community level and ensures that as biological control continues to grow in South Africa, and is received by a community that understands the science. School level initiatives in biological control have increased dramatically in South Africa especially in the last five years, but the true measure of its success will be how well it translates into community mind-sets in future generations.

Continued financial and political support over the last 20 years from the DEA: NRMP and its predecessor, WfW, has enabled innovative research and implementation on biological control of weeds in South Africa that has put the country at the forefront of biological control, globally. Continued political and financial support is crucial to the continued success of the programme. In New Zealand, for example, a lack of political will and resources were primary reasons for the failure of a number biological control programmes between 1988 and 1998 (Fowler 2000). It would be naïve not to recognise that continued, increasing, reliable funding from government sources in South Africa, and strong political support for biological control, should be assured (Zachariades et al. 2017). Australia was once regarded as a global powerhouse in weed biological control research and implementation. However, changes in government policy over the last two decades towards achieving a high benefit/cost ratio from investments and a general divestment in agricultural research resulted in a near total collapse of Australia’s biological control programme, despite its demonstrated financial and environmental benefits (Palmer et al. 2014).

Biological control continues to provide a cost effective and sustainable method of managing the invasive species which threaten biodiversity (van Wilgen et al. 2008), both in South Africa and globally. Biological control programmes in South Africa rely heavily on the generous funding received by the WfW programme and on cutting-edge research (Moran et al. 2011). As communities are the ultimate benefactors of this funding and research, there is a clear need for them to play a more substantial role in identifying problems, sourcing funding, and supporting and/or participating in the research and implementation of biological control. This requires community interest and education to promote ownership and protection of their own biodiversity. South Africa has made significant strides in community engagement and education, but there is still a clear need for further development and growth.