A peer-reviewed open-access journal NeoBiota 93: 293-31 9 (2024) @) NeoB iota DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 Advancing research on alien species and biological invasions Research Article Stakeholder mapping to support invasive non-native species management in South America Manuela Erazo’, Pablo Garcia-Diaz2*4©, Barbara Langdon®*®, Karen Mustin’®®©, Mario Cava®"®, Gabriella Damasceno?""’©, Magdalena F. Huerta’ "©, Eirini Linardaki?, Jaime Moyano'®, Lia Montti'®"’, Priscila A. Powell*78©, Thomas W. Bodey®, David F. R. RP Burslem2©, Laura Fasola?"?, Alessandra Fidelis°®, Xavier Lambin2®, Sofia Marinaro*2°©, Anibal Pauchard®*®, Euan Phimister2'22©, Eduardo Raffo2?®, Ignacio Rodriguez-Jorquera™®, Ignacio Roesler?’°, Jorge A. Tomasevic'®, J. Cristobal Pizarro®”4© Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, Santiago, Chile School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK Aves Argentinas/Asociacion Ornitoldgica del Plata, CABA, Argentina Instituto de Ecologia Regional (UNT-CONICET), Tucuman, Argentina Laboratorio de Invasiones Bioldgicas (LIB), Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcién, Chile Institute of Ecology and Biodiversity (IEB), Santiago, Chile Instituto de Investigacion en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC, CSIC-ULM-JCCM), Ronda de Toledo 12, Ciudad Real, Spain Department of Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolution, Complutense University of Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040, Madrid, Spain Lab of Vegetation Ecology, Instituto de Biociéncias, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Rio Claro, Brazil Programa de Pos-graduacao em Conservacao de Recursos Naturais do Cerrado, Instituto Federal Goiano, Urutai, Brazil German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstrasse 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany 12 Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg, Am Kirchtor 1, 06108 Halle (Saale), Germany 13 Centro de Humedales Rio Cruces, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile 14 Fundacion Legado Chile, Puerto Varas, Chile 15 Grupo de Ecologia de Invasiones, INIBIOMA, CONICET, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Quintral 1250, San Carlos de Bariloche, CP 8400, Argentina 16 Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata-CONICET, CC 1260, 7600, Mar del Plata, Argentina 17 Instituto de Geologia de Costas y del Cuaternario, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata-CIC. Funes 3350, 7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina 18 Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e IML, Universidad Nacional de Tucumén, Tucumén, Argentina 19 Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Técnicas-Fundacion Bariloche, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina 20 Biogeography Conservation Lab, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany 21 Business School, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3QY, UK 22 Business School, University of Stellenbosch, PO Box 610, Bellville 7535, South Africa 23 Servicio Agricola y Ganadero, Gobierno de Chile, Valdivia, Chile 24 Laboratorio de Estudios del Antropoceno. Facultad de Ciencias Forestales. Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile Corresponding author: Xavier Lambin (x.lambin@abdn.ac.uk) Oo AN DT oO FP WO YS — ak tk, —-_ oO Abstract Chas Qaceess Effective long-term management of invasive non-native species (INNS) in South America is a pressing yet complex task. Critically, the environmental, historical, cultural, and economic idiosyncrasies of ETAT RA OE RARBG the region call for the inclusion of a plurality of views from those sectors of society receiving the neg- Received: 21 February 2024 ative and positive impacts of INNS. This is a multifaceted, and often daunting, task that can be aided Accepted: 14 May 2024 by an early identification of stakeholders — those affected by or with an interest in INNS and their Published: 8 July 2024 management — accompanied by targeted stakeholder engagement. Here, we report the procedures and results of a stakeholder mapping activity aimed at identifying stakeholders and designing engagement Copyright:@: Manuela Ersz6 eual: strategies. Using expert knowledge procedures, we compiled comprehensive lists of stakeholders for This is an open access article distributed under six case-studies in South America: (i) invasive grasses (Urochloa spp.) in Brazil; (ii) glossy privet (Li- terms of the Creative Commons Attribution cs : gustrum lucidum) in Argentina; (iii) lodgepole and Monterey pines (Pinus contorta and P radiata) in License (Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0). 293 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Citation: Erazo M, Garcia-Diaz P Langdon B, Mustin K, Cava M, Damasceno G, Huerta MF, Linardaki E, Moyano J, Montti L, Powell PA, Bodey TW, Burslem DFRP Fasola L, Fidelis A, Lambin X, Marinaro S, Pauchard A, Phimister E, Raffo E, Rodriguez-Jorquera |, Roesler |, Tomasevic JA, Pizarro JC (2024) Stakeholder mapping to support invasive non-native species management in South America. NeoBiota 93: 293-319. https://doi. org/10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 Argentina; (iv) American mink (Veogale vison) in Argentina and Chile; (v) lodgepole and Monterey pines in Chile; and (vi) German yellow-jacket (Vespula germanica) in Chile. Overall, we identified 250 stakeholders, which, based on their interest and influence, were classified into “context settlers” (2%), “key players” (47%), “crowd” (5%), and “subjects” (49%). We outlined strategies to engage with each of these four groups and for each of our six case-studies. Across case studies, communication with stakeholders was the most common engagement strategy proposed (27%; 19 of 70 strategies), followed by active involvement of stakeholders in INNS research and management (23%). Our re- sults highlight the importance of considering power imbalances, as those stakeholders more likely to benefit from INNS were assessed to have more influence over INNS management relative to local and indigenous communities. Our work illustrates how to identify stakeholders in a rigorous and rapid manner, which should be complemented with the involvement of the stakeholders themselves. Keywords: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, expert knowledge, long-term management, participatory en- vironmental management science-normative strategies, social actors Introduction Invasive non-native species (INNS, hereafter), those non-native species that have established multiple self-sustaining populations outside their native range, and have spread from their point of introduction (Blackburn et al. 2011), are a leading cause of biodiversity loss and damage to ecosystem services and economic assets globally (PySek et al. 2020; Diagne et al. 2021). Consequently, effectively man- aging the severe impacts of INNS has become a priority for policy-makers and environmental managers worldwide (Early et al. 2016; Turbelin et al. 2016; Rob- ertson et al. 2020). Unfortunately, many of these INNS are too widespread and abundant to be eradicated, and therefore need to be actively managed over the long term to mitigate their negative impacts and restore affected native communities (Dunham et al. 2020; Robertson et al. 2020; Sapsford et al. 2020). As the impacts of INNS on biodiversity, ecosystems, and human well-being vary regionally and locally, management practices must adapt and match these idiosyncrasies to be ef- fective (Nifiez and Pauchard 2010; Dunham et al. 2020; Garcia-Diaz et al. 2022). South America is no exception to these global INNS trends. The number and distribution of INNS have increased in the region since the 1800s (Seebens et al. 2021), leading to impacts on natural ecosystems and local societies and their econ- omies (Speziale et al. 2012; Early et al. 2016; Essl et al. 2020). This is particularly troubling given that South American countries harbour highly diverse natural eco- systems of global significance (Mittermeier et al. 2011). In Argentina alone, there are more than 772 INNS, of which 102 are known to cause negative ecological impacts (GEKKO, Grupo de Estudios en Conservacién y Manejo, Departamento de Biologia, Bioquimica y Farmacia 2023). In continental Chile and Brazil, exist- ing datasets have reported well over 1,100 non-native species in each country, with hundreds of them classified as INNS (PNUD 2017, Ziller et al. 2020). INNS pose a serious challenge to ecological integrity and livelihoods in South America, and these problems are forecast to increase in the near future (Speziale et al. 2012; Essl et al. 2020; Seebens et al. 2021). A range of national and multi-national policies have been formulated and, at least, partially implemented to deal with INNS in South America (Speziale et al. 2012; Turbelin et al. 2016; Faria et al. 2023). These include the Chilean “Estrategia Nacio- nal Integrada para la Prevencion, el Control y/o Erradicacién de las Especies Exdticas NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 294 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Invasoras ” (Comité Operativo para la Prevencion, el Control y la Erradicacién de las Especies Exdticas Invasoras 2014), the “Estrategia Nacional sobre Especies Exéticas Invasoras ” in Argentina (Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible 2022) , and a wide variety of policies in Brazil (reviewed recently by Faria et al. 2023). Ad- ditionally, trans-national organisations such as MERCOSUR (Southern Common Market) have produced guidelines for member countries, including Argentina and Brazil with Chile as an associated country, to tackle the INNS problem (“Lineamien- tos para la Elaboracién de un Plan para la Prevencién, Monitoreo, Control y Miti- gacion de las Especies Exéticas Invasoras”; MERCOSUR, 2019). These are relatively recent initiatives that still need to be adopted widely, and assessing their efficacy in addressing INNS will require continued monitoring and research (Nufez and Pauchard 2010; Speziale et al. 2012; Faria et al. 2023). Counter to these initiatives, past and ongoing policies that promote the use of INNS in South America continue to create a misalignments in objectives that hampers progress in INNS management in the region (Reyes and Nelson 2014; Baggio et al. 2021; Faria et al. 2023). The potential success of these INNS management policies hinges on accounting for the constraints imposed by a low availability of context-specific ecological in- formation, high socio-cultural diversity, policy mismatches, strong dependence on natural resources, and limited funds for addressing the challenges posed by INNS (Nufez and Pauchard 2010; Speziale et al. 2012; Faria et al. 2023). In particular, there is potential for conflicts of interest and identity over INNS use and man- agement due to the diversity of actors involved and how they perceive and receive INNS impacts depending on their economic activities, interest, income levels, and asymmetries in power and access to resources (Beever et al. 2019, Shackleton et al. 2019a; Sax et al. 2022). For example, some INNS are used for wood and cellulose production (e.g., pines, Pinus spp., and gum trees, Eucalyptus spp.) and recreation and tourism (e.g., trout, Salmo trutta and Oncorhynchus mykiis, wild pigs, Sus scro- fa, and red deer, Cervus elaphus), providing important economic and cultural bene- fits for certain societal sectors (Defossé 2015; Ballari and Barrios-Garcia 2022; Sax et al. 2022). Additionally, many INNS are highly dispersive, requiring large-scale temporal and spatial management over large tracts of land with different uses and tenures to overcome their capacity to rebound and reinvade following population suppression (Oliver et al. 2016; Glen et al. 2017; Banks et al. 2018). Many South American countries have economies based on natural resource use and extraction. They generally include extensive areas that have been converted to monocultures of non-native species, often owned by trans- or multi-national companies that usually hold very different views of nature, natural resource use, and sustainable development than do indigenous and traditional peoples and local communities (hereafter [TPLCs), and which usually wield much more power in decision-making processes (De Castro et al. 2016; Oberlack et al. 2016; De la Mora 2023). This leads to a situation in which those most dependent on land tend to be those most excluded from environmental governance structures, further fuelling inequity in natural resources use and management (Bateman and Mace 2020; Léfqvist et al. 2023; Tedesco et al. 2023). This inequality is a matter of gen- eral concern for global agencies and South American countries when formulating environmental and economic policies (De Castro et al. 2016; L6fqvist et al. 2023). Considering the complexity of environmental governance in South America, effective INNS management will benefit from a more inclusive approach to en- sure that the interests and needs of all stake- and right-holders are met (Crowley NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 295 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America et al. 2017; Kapitza et al. 2019; Garcta-Diaz et al. 2022). Inclusive approaches to environmental management aim to recognise the values, preferences, and needs of the diversity of actors involved via transparent, accountable, and participatory decision-making processes, the equitable sharing of costs and benefits across socie- tal sectors, and respect for different rights, identities, and ecosystem management practices (Martin et al. 2016; Raymond et al. 2022; Lofqvist et al. 2023; Tedesco et al. 2023). Inclusive environmental management incorporates the idea of sup- porting or empowering community-based initiatives and recognises that [TPLCs have the right to decide how to manage their territories and should be involved in decisions (Martin et al. 2016). This is both a reflection of a moral stance on how environmental management should be approached, and of the recognition that a broad engagement with society is necessary to gain the social legitimacy to operate and implement environmental management actions (Bridger et al. 2019; Raymond et al. 2022; Mason et al. 2023). As a consequence, inclusivity has been shown to lead to improved social and ecological outcomes and long-term viability in envi- ronmental management, although a certain level of disagreement on objectives and interventions is always expected (Bryce et al. 2011; Alter et al. 2019; Chambers et al. 2021; Newig et al. 2023). In turn, this entails engaging stakeholders, under- standing their attitudes and local perspectives, and anticipating and navigating so- cial conflict (Novoa et al. 2018; Kapitza et al. 2019; Shackleton et al. 2019b; Newig et al. 2023). Stakeholder engagement is critical for fostering collective action in for- mulating and implementing INNS management under complex socio-ecological conditions (e.g., Stokes et al. 2006; Bayliss et al. 2013; Omondiagbe et al. 2017). A vital first step involves identifying stakeholders and analysing their interests and how they relate to INNS to develop engagement strategies that foster stakeholder participation (Reed 2008; Conroy and Peterson 2013; Bridger et al. 2019). Here, our aim was to design collaborative management actions for INNS across three countries in South America. We show how the application of a structured methodology to systematically identify and map stakeholders can be used to plan engagement strategies. In this sense, we align our work with frameworks that con- sider the plurality of stakeholders’ views to define and formulate INNS manage- ment projects to deliver the most favoured outcome(s) for all (Bridger et al. 2019; Garcia-Diaz et al. 2022; Newig et al. 2023). We included both stakeholders with an interest and influence on INNS themselves (e.g., companies planting INNS trees) and stakeholders with an interest and influence on INNS management (e.g., NGOs controlling an INNS). Some stakeholders may have an interest and in- fluence on both INNS and their management. We focussed on six case studies of INNS plants and animals in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile to showcase the ap- plicability of our methods across a range of geographical, ecological, and social conditions. The ultimate output is a series of lists of essential stakeholders linked to strategies that engage them in the process of defining INNS management plans. Our stakeholder mapping tools applied to South America have the potential to become an instrumental method for promoting inclusive INNS management. Methods The process described here was part of a multi-country, multi-species research project funded under the Latin American Biodiversity Programme as part of the Newton Fund (Lambin et al. 2020), with contributions from the UK Natural NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 296 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Pacific Ocean Environment Research Council (NERC), the Argentine National Scientific & Technical Research Council (CONICET), the Brazilian Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), and the Chilean National Commission for Scientific & Technological Research (CONICYT), which later became the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID). The project took place between 2019 and 2023, and represented a collaboration among universities, research institutes, and non-governmental organisations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and the UK aiming to improve the management of INNS based on six detailed case-studies. Based on researchers’ and practitioners’ opinions and perceptions, our objective was to identify the stakeholders relevant to our case-studies in our study areas (see map in Fig. 1) and propose engagement strategies for the participatory socio-ecological management of INNS. Early in the project, partners identified that a barrier to effective engagement of stakeholders in the case-study countries was a lack of clarity surrounding the different stakeholders involved and their levels of interest and potential influence on the different study species and their management. It was in this context that we conducted an iterative exercise over the course of six months (April-Septem- ber 2021), including individual expert activities and two virtual workshops with researchers and practitioners that aimed to: 1) list the stakeholders expected to Atlantic Ocean 1 BR-Invasive grasses (Urochloa spp.)-3N AR-Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum)-4N AR-Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) & Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata)-1N B83 AR/CH-American Mink (Neogale vison)-6N lll CH-Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) & Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata)-3N Ml CH-German Yellow Jacket (Vespula germanica)-5N 0 1,000 2,000 km Figure 1. Geographical location of our six case-studies (AR: Argentina; CH: Chile; BR: Brazil), the target INNS (common and scientific names), and the number of participants per case-study who completed individual stakeholder spreadsheets containing information on the stakeholders relevant to their system (denoted by the letter NV in the legend). The final products were a consensus stakeholder spreadsheet and a consensus engagement strategy for each of the six case-studies. NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 297 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America be impacted by, or have influence on, INNS and their management; 2) map the distribution of different stakeholders in the different study systems along axes of interest and influence, with a view to 3) defining engagement strategies for differ- ent stakeholder groups. Our central instrument was a stakeholder spreadsheet that each participant had to complete independently. Participants then discussed their completed personal spreadsheets with both other members of their same case-study group and the broader group of participants during facilitated virtual workshops. ‘The ultimate goal was to produce a final single stakeholder spreadsheet for each case-study (6 fi- nal stakeholder spreadsheets in total). We invited 2—6 participants and experts per case-study, all of them project partners, to participate in this activity. In the case of pines in Argentina, two were invited, but only one participated. We were unable to recruit substitute experts for this case-study since we only invited on-project partners and close collaborators. The stakeholders for Pinus radiata and Pinus con- torta were assessed to be the same for both species in both Argentina and Chile and, therefore, the stakeholder spreadsheets were independent for each country but included both pine species together (pines, hereafter). In addition, two partic- ipants were involved in two case-studies and, therefore, completed a stakeholder spreadsheet for each. The final number of participants per case-study varied be- tween one and six, all of them co-authors in this paper. Overall, we obtained 21 individual stakeholder spreadsheets and six unique consensus stakeholder spread- sheets. An exemplar spreadsheet and the instructions provided to each participant can be found in the Suppl. materials 1, 2, respectively (see also Table 1), and in a data package archived at the UK Environmental Information Data Centre (EIDC) which is publicly available (Erazo et al. 2024). In the following sections we de- scribe our methodology in detail. Identifying stakeholders Our first step involved collecting an initial list of stakeholders expected to be im- pacted by, or have an influence on, INNS and their management. For each case- study, we emailed the respective participants to complete our stakeholder spread- sheet individually and independently. Participants were given two weeks to list all the stakeholders, including all the organisations and actors they considered to be relevant to their case-study, guided by the following questions (based on Reed and Oughton 2017): 1) Who would be affected by your target INNS or by your con- trol or management project? 2) Who has the power to influence the outcomes of your project? 3) Who are your potential allies and opponents? 4) Are there people whose voices or interests in the issue may not be heard? 5) Who could facilitate or impede the success of the project through their participation, non-participation or opposition? And, 6) who could contribute to the success of the INNS target species management or control with financial, technical or other resources? Participants were provided with background information and instructions, and were encouraged to be comprehensive and to list as many stakeholders as pos- sible at this stage. Where appropriate, participants could also search for papers, institutional publications, websites, social media platforms, and historical records, as well as consult other experts and key informants, and news sites to identify stakeholders. However, they were instructed to avoid contacting any of the other participants involved in this activity. Additionally, while the circulated stakehold- NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 298 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Table 1. Description and stakeholder mapping dimensions of the 17 elements of our stakeholder spreadsheet, each one corresponding to a column in our spreadsheet. Dimension | Variable | Description Stakeholders Identification | 1. Name of the organisation Basic data about each stakeholder. 2. Target INNS 3. Country 4. Ecoregion Stakeholders’ area of interest | 5. Stakeholders’ area of interest Variables that help to identify stakeholders’ key areas of interests. Categories: — Environmental sustainability & biological conservation — Social & community development — Natural resource management — Governance & policy — Academic and research — Agriculture, livestock and forestry production (including landowners, traders and associations). — Tourism sector — Other (describe) Stakeholders’ attitudes and | 6. Conception of nature A proxy to understand and categorise stakeholder pre-disposition towards values towards nature INNS. Categories: — Naturalism: Nature is a venue for exploration and first-hand discovery — Humanism: Nature provides emotional satisfaction — Moralism: Nature is inherently valuable and should be preserved — Dominionism: Nature is meant for humans to control — Utilitarianism: Nature is a reservoir of material resources for humans — Negativism: Nature is dirty, dangerous, and/or scary — Ecologism: Nature is a fascinating system of interrelated processes — Scientism: Nature is an object worthy of empirical study about its structures and functioning Management experience 7. Previous experience in [AS manage- Stakeholders’ prior experience in INNS management: ment Yes = | No = 0 NA = No Answer or Not Applicable Level of influence 8. Land ownership A proxy for the level of influence. Categories of land ownership measured on a 5-point scale: — Large landowners and companies (2 30,000 ha) = 5 — Large landowners (< 30,000—5,000 ha) = 4 — Medium-sized landowners (< 5,000—200 ha) = 3 — Smallholders (< 200—5 ha) = 2 — No land = 1 9. Perceived level of influence of stake- Perceived level of influence of stakeholders on the decision-making process holders regarding INNS and their management (e.g., if they have the capacity to influence decisions, to make decisions, or to implement actions regarding INNS and their management). ‘The variable is measured by a 5-point scale: — Extremely influential = 5 — Moderately influential = 4 — Somewhat influential = 3 — Slightly influential = 2 — Not at all influential = 1 INNS Impacts 10. Negative INNS ecological impacts Set of variables on the perceived INNS impacts will help to measure the level of interest of the stakeholder, measured on a 5-point scale: 11. Negative INNS economic impacts — Extreme = 5 12. Negative INNS socio-cultural impacts | — Major = 4 13. Positive INNS ecological impacts — Moderate = 3 14. Positive INNS economic impacts — Minor = 2 15. Negative INNS socio-cultural impacts | — None = 1 Level of interest 16. Perceived level of interest on INNS Perceived stakeholders’ level of interest, measured on a 5-point scale: and their management — Very interested = 5 — Interested = 4 — Moderately interested = 3 — Slightly interested = 2 — Not interested = 1 Relationships among stake- | 17. Relationships with other stakeholders | Variable providing relevant information on the multiple relationships among holders stakeholders. NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 299 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America er spreadsheet included many columns to add information on each stakeholder (Table 1), in this initial step the participants were told to focus on identifying stakeholders rather than characterising them. In total, we built 21 independent stakeholder spreadsheets in this step. Once the initial listing of stakeholders was complete, we held a facilitated online workshop on 15 April 2021 aimed at further developing the participants’ understanding of the social dimensions of INNS, the use of the stakeholder spreadsheet, the next steps, and the overarching goal of the stakeholder mapping activity. This three-hour workshop included two presentations and a practical group activity. For the group activity, which served to demonstrate the methods and the use of the stakeholder spreadsheet, the participants were grouped by study species — with pines in Argentina and Chile grouped together. Each of the 3-6 participants in each group was asked to choose three exemplary stakehold- ers from their lists and classify them depending on the stakeholder type (e.g., NGOs, ITPLCs, or government agencies) and their level of interest in INNS and their management. We used the online software MURAL (https://www.mural. co/) to support this exercise, and we invited four external experts not involved in the stakeholder listing to join to provide an external perspective and potentially challenge the results and evidence being presented (Garcia-Diaz et al. 2022). After the group discussions, all participants joined a general meeting where a rep- resentative of each group presented the results of the exercise to all participants, and we ran a Q&A session. After this first workshop, we provided additional instructions and participants were given 30 days to individually and independently revise their stakeholder lists and add the remaining information to each stakeholder listed (see Table 1). The fi- nal lists of stakeholders and associated information can be found in Suppl. material 3 and in the data package archived at the EIDC (Erazo et al. 2024). Mapping INNS impacts and stakeholder influence to design engagement strategies Based on the information collected in the revised stakeholder spreadsheets, our next step was to construct influence/interest matrices (see Reed et al. 2009 for de- tails), according to the researchers’ and practitioners’ perceptions of the stakehold- ers’ levels of interest in, and influence on INNS management. ‘This type of analyt- ical categorisation is commonly applied in environmental management and can be carried out with or without direct stakeholder involvement in the analysis (Reed et al. 2009). Here, the analysis was conducted by the participating researchers and practitioners without direct involvement of ITPLCs and other stakeholders. The implications of this for the interpretation of the results are fully considered in the discussion of this paper. To derive interest from impact, the overall level of interest was assumed to be the maximum across all six impact types (positive or negative ecological, eco- nomic, and socio-cultural) where 1 represents not at all interested in INNS and their management, and 5 represents highly interested in INNS and their man- agement. We used the maximum instead of the mean or other summary statistics because the scales are not directly comparable across impact types and, conse- quently, not readily amenable to mathematical operations (Canessa et al. 2021). Moreover, we expect that any stakeholder with a high negative or positive impact NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 300 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America in any of the impact dimensions will be highly interested regardless of the scores in the other dimensions. We held a second facilitated online workshop on 18 May 2021 with the same participants and external experts, in which experts were again divided into groups according to their study species. In this workshop, experts within the same group discussed their individual stakeholder spreadsheets and obtained a single consensus stakeholder spreadsheet for each of the six case-studies. Finally, we built an influ- ence/interest matrix based on the information stored in those consensus stakehold- er spreadsheets. The consensus stakeholder lists can be found in the Suppl. material 3 and in the data package archived with the EIDC (Erazo et al. 2024). According to their level of interest and influence on both INNS and their poten- tial management, stakeholders were classified into four categories (Reed et al. 2009): Context settlers: Highly influential but with low interest. Key players: Highly influential and high interest. Crowd: Little influence and little interest. ba et ccctag ale Subjects: Low influence but high interest. Within each group, experts also identified potential engagement strategies for each of the four stakeholder categories described above. After that, all participants joined a general meeting where they discussed their final stakeholder spreadsheets, the corresponding influence/interest matrices, and their engagement strategies. Af- ter this second workshop, participants were given one month to produce a final list of engagement strategies tailored to each stakeholder category. Unlike in previous steps, members of the same case-study group were allowed to meet to debate and discuss their consensus engagement strategies. Exemplar consensus engagement strategies and the final lists of consensus engagement strategies are provided in Sup- pl. materials 4, 5, respectively, and in the EIDC data package (Erazo et al. 2024). We summarised the outputs of our stakeholder mapping exercise by qualitatively describing the consensus stakeholder spreadsheets and consensus engagement strat- egies across and between case-studies, countries, and stakeholder types. We did not conduct more detailed analyses and comparisons due to concerns about the validity of the data gathered, as stakeholders were not directly consulted (so the information remains the opinions and perceptions of our participants) and the different settings covered by our case-studies meant that some of them generated detailed stakeholder lists whilst others were broader categories (e.g., detailed lists of the government organisations involved in the Argentine privet case vs. broad categories of govern- ment levels in the case of the Brazilian Cerrado). This also reflects the complexity associated with mapping stakeholders at large scales, which we elaborate on below. We anonymised the spreadsheets, and engagement strategies, removing the names of the participants and any named organisation and institution, prior to analysis. Results Stakeholder identification and description We identified a total of 250 potential stakeholders in three countries (99 in Argen- tina, 18 in Brazil, and 133 in Chile), across all target species (97 for pines consid- ered together, 49 for German yellow-jacket, 47 for the American mink, 18 for the NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 301 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America African grasses, and 39 for privet). The lower number of stakeholders identified in Brazil is explained by the large extent of the study area and the use of high-lev- el stakeholder categories instead of detailed lists of each stakeholder within each category. Main stakeholder categories across all target species were: government agencies (30.8%), followed by local communities (17.2%), landowners, produc- ers, rural workers organisations, and companies (14.4%), and public, private, and non-governmental educational, research and extension organisations (14.4%). Other categories each account for less than 10% of the total. Our participants classified each stakeholder into one of nine primary areas of interest (Table 1): 20.8% of them relate to governance and policy, 20.4% to ag- riculture, livestock and forestry production, 17.6% to social and community de- velopment, 16.4% to environmental sustainability and biological conservation, 11.2% to academic and research, 6% to natural resources management, another 6% to the tourism sector, and 1.6% to other interests. Stakeholder interest in and influence on INNS and their management The vast majority of the stakeholders listed (232; 93%) were expected to be highly in- terested in INNS and their management. Of these, 109 (47% of 232) were expected to have high influence and thus were classified as “key players’, while 123 (53%) were expected to have little influence and were considered to be “subjects”. Government agencies (56), landowners, producers, rural workers and companies (22), and public, private, and non-governmental educational, research and extension institutions (12) together represent 82.6% of the most influential and highly interested stakeholders across all case-studies (Fig. 2). Local communities (38), public, private, and non-gov- ernmental educational, research and extension institutions (21) and government agencies (19) together represented 63.4% of “subjects” across all case-studies (Fig. 2). Only four local community stakeholders were classified as being “key players”: an apicultural committee and an Indigenous community in the German yel- low-jacket case-study, as well as small-scale poultry producers in the American mink case-study in Chile and private neighbourhoods in the privet case-study in Argentina. Conversely, only eight landowners, producers, rural workers and com- panies were classified as “subjects”. Of these, five were plant nurseries and forestry extensionists in Argentina, two were cider producers and landowners in the Ger- man yellow-jacket case-study in Chile, and the last were private corporations in the American mink case-study in Argentina. The remaining 18 stakeholders (7.2%) were expected to be less interested in INNS and their management, owing to lower negative or positive impacts of INNS on these stakeholders. Only six of these stakeholders (33.3% of 18) were expected to be highly influential and are thus classified as “context-settlers”. ‘These include two landowners, producers, rural workers and companies, two media stakeholders, a government agency and a public, private, and non-governmental educational, research and extension institution. Finally, the 12 “crowd” — unin- terested and un-influential stakeholders — included landowners, producers, rural workers and companies (3), public, private, and non-governmental educational, research and extension institutions (2), certification agencies for agricultural, live- stock and forestry products (2), and one each of: local communities; government agencies; media; professionals, professional associations, societies, and councils; and tourism agencies, tourists, and visitors to green areas. NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 302 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America 40 Matrix category Key-player Subject i Context-setter crowd 0- o- a] a “i Government LocalCommunities Landowners Research Others Stakeholder category Count of matrix category i] Figure 2. Number of stakeholders in each stakeholder matrix category (“key player”, “subject”, “context-settler”, and “crowd”) for the four most common stakeholder categories and all other stakeholder categories grouped together. Positive and negative impacts of INNS on key players and subjects The stakeholders expected to be most impacted by INNS were “key players” and “subjects”. Overall, there were more major or extreme negative than positive eco- logical (100 vs. 4), economic (59 vs. 43) or socio-cultural (33 vs. 19) impacts ex- pected for both stakeholder types (Figs 3, 4). The only positive ecological impacts were expected for “key players” in the privet case-study in Argentina. These posi- tive ecological impacts included increased carbon capture and providing vegetation cover after severe disturbances to the environment. On the other hand, negative ecological impacts of all taxa were expected to be felt by all stakeholder categories, particularly government agencies as both “key players” (37) and “subjects” (10), and by public, private, and non-governmental educational, research and extension institutions (5 key players and 13 subjects). Expected negative ecological impacts included native biodiversity loss, threats to endemic and endangered species, and changing forest functionality. The “key players” and “subjects” most frequently affected by negative economic impacts are government agencies (21) and local communities (27), respectively. Major or extreme negative economic impacts include reductions in productivity affecting cattle grazing and agriculture and tourism. Positive economic impacts were most frequently expected for landowners, producers, rural workers and companies as “key players” (12), and for public, private, and non-governmental educational, research and extension institutions (6) and landowners, producers, rural workers (5) and companies as “subjects”, with most related to the two pine case-studies (Fig. 4). As such, major or extreme positive economic impacts mostly relate to forestry production. As with economic impacts, government agencies (12) were the “key players”, and local communities (8) the “subjects”, most frequently experiencing negative socio-cultural impacts. These negative impacts include the loss of native medicinal plants used by ITPLCs and the nuisance caused by German yellow-jackets during NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 303 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America outdoor and recreational activities. Most of the few expected positive socio-cultur- al impacts were spread between landowners, producers, rural workers and compa- nies (6 key players and 3 subjects), and public, private, and non-governmental ed- ucational, research and extension institutions (3 key players and 4 subjects), with all positive socio-cultural impacts relating to the pine and the privet case-studies (Figs 3, 4). These positive impacts included the creation of jobs in the forestry industry and the harvesting of wood for domestic and subsistence use, respectively. 20- Stakeholder category Wi Government ©) Landowners \ LocalCommunities NGOs Professionals Research | CertificationAgencies © Media Wi Tourism -20- Count of stakeholders impacted -40- -ve ecological +ve ecological -ve economic +ve economic -ve socio-cultural +ve socio-cultural Type of Impact Figure 3. Distribution of negative (-ve) and positive (+ve) ecological, economic and socio-cultural impacts between “key player” stake- holder groups. 20- Stakeholder category HE Government Landowners ©) LocalCommunities NGOs Professionals Research !) CertificationAgencies : ©) Media “20 @ Tourism Wi Consumers Count of stakeholders impacted -40- -ve ecological -ve economic +ve economic -ve socio-cultural +ve socio-cultural Type of Impact Figure 4. Distribution of negative (-ve) and positive (+ve) ecological, economic and socio-cultural impacts between “subject” stakeholder groups. NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 304 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Engagement strategies for different stakeholder groups The participants suggested consensus engagement strategies for each one of the stakeholder influence/interest matrix categories (“key players”, “subjects”, “con- text-setters” and “crowd”). In total 70 different strategies were suggested, which we grouped ad-hoc into six categories: communication, education, policy, co-plan- ning, active involvement, and networking (Table 2). A complete list of the sug- gested consensus strategies is available in Suppl. material 5 and the EIDC data package (Erazo et al. 2024). We provide examples drawn from our experience in the discussion. Overall (Table 2), communication strategies were the most frequently suggested engagement strategies (19), being most frequently suggested for engagement of “crowd” (7) and “subject” (5) stakeholders, i.e. those perceived to have less in- fluence over INNS management. Commonly suggested strategies included work- shops, seminars and dialogues, and the use of press, newsletters, leaflets and social media to communicate both the issues caused by INNS and the aims and results of management programs. The second most proposed type of engagement strategy was active involvement (16), particularly for “subjects” (6) and “context-settlers” (5). These strategies were identified for all case study species in Chile and Argentina, and can be categorised as stakeholder participation in monitoring and management activities, including in a citizen science context, for all stakeholder types. Education strategies (12) were the third most commonly suggested engagement strategy, being identified as important for all countries and species, particularly for subjects (4) and con- text-setters (4). Specific suggestions for German yellow-jackets, American mink, and privet included workshops and information-sharing with “context setters’, “crowd”, and “subjects”; capacity building with “key players” and “subjects” and, interestingly, the suggestion to identify specific “subject” stakeholders who could be empowered via the provision of information. The fourth most commonly identified strategies were those related to policy (10), with the majority suggested for “key players” (6). For all case-study species, envisaged policy actions included the creation of national action plans, legal in- struments and guidelines, multi-sectoral agreements and funding agreements and schemes for INNS management. Co-planning strategies were the fifth most frequently suggested strategy and were identified as being important to engage with “key players” (4), “subjects” (3) and “context-settlers” (2) in the American mink, German yellow-jacket and pine case-studies. These co-planning strategies in the case of pines included the co-de- velopment of management strategies with “subjects” and “context settlers”, highly interested “subjects” and “key players” engaging other stakeholders to participate, and “key players” providing feedback on research projects. For both American mink and German yellow-jackets, strategies included identifying and enhancing, together with “key players”, opportunities for joint work, the participatory co-creation of for- mal documents, and the co-organisation of workshops and other interaction spaces. Finally, networking strategies were identified as important for those stakehold- ers with the highest interest in INNS management, i.e. “key players” (3) and “sub- jects” (1) in all but the pines’ case-study. For privet and German yellow-jackets specifically, it was suggested that “subjects” could be empowered and given more influence via strengthening of contacts and links with relevant “key players”. NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 305 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Table 2. Overall number of strategies according to six categories created ad-hoc and submitted by the participants in our stakeholder mapping exercise for each stakeholder category (based on their interest/influence level). Stakeholder Category General Strategy Aim Key players Subjects Context-settlers Crowd Total Communication: Any knowledge exchange action or 4 3 ) 7 19 action leading to the dissemination of a message and/ or which seeks to influence behaviour. Active involvement: Any patticipation in activities 2 6 5 3 16 directly related to the management of the INNS (field trials, volunteering, citizen science, etc.). Policy: Actions that lead to regional, national or inter- 6 1 ] 0 10 national policy mechanisms, or regulations concerning INNS. Co-planning: Strategies that enhance the co-develop- 4 3 2 0 9 ment of actions between stakeholders, decision-makers and/or experts. Networking: Actions that enhance the creation of links 3) 1 0 0 4 and interaction between different stakeholders, deci- sion makers and/or experts. Total 20 20 Ly, iio} 70 Discussion Here we show how facilitated workshops with researchers and practitioners can be used to plan more inclusive and strategic stakeholder engagement in INNS-relat- ed activities. Inclusive environmental management, which aims to ensure process and outcome fairness, is a cornerstone of good practice when tackling complex socio-ecological issues such as INNS management and accompanying ecosystem restoration (Frumento et al. 2019; Chambers et al. 2021; Lofqvist et al. 2023; Tedesco et al. 2023). While, ideally, stakeholder mapping should be carried out with direct involvement of the stakeholders themselves, our experience highlights three critical elements for designing and conducting INNS management activities in South America that aspire to be inclusive: 1) the complex and diverse network of stakeholders affected or involved in INNS management, and the consequent challenge in mapping these stakeholders; 2) the power dynamics and imbalances in INNS governance and, by extension, in environmental governance; and, 3) the potential conflicts arising from the distribution of positive and negative impacts of INNS perceived or experienced by different stakeholders. We elaborate on these three themes below and conclude by discussing how stakeholder mapping and our revealed engagement strategies can help alleviate these core challenges and advance fair planning in INNS management in South America. First, our results clearly showed the breadth of stakeholders linked to INNS management in South America, spanning government agencies (at all levels) to pri- vate business and NGOs, and including up to 97 different stakeholders in the case of pines. Such a breadth of stakeholders will naturally result in a diversity of views and identities, contributing to the complexity of INNS management at both design and implementation stages. Acknowledging this diversity is key to inclusive and ef- fective INNS management planning (Kapitza et al. 2019). Facilitated activities can encourage participants to be as objective and wide-ranging as possible to include all stakeholders who might reasonably be expected to have some interest in and/ NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 306 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America or influence over management of a focal INNS. This reflects a positive aspect of implementing our structured methodology with only researchers and practitioners. Specifically, our structured and iterative process can help to reduce the likelihood of bias in stakeholder selection, compared with a narrow focus on engaging stakehold- ers with whom researchers and practitioners already have relationships or are easier to engage with (Groves and Game 2016). That said, this type of activity should be seen as a starting point for stakeholder engagement, with the next steps being active engagement through the different strategies outlined in this paper. Our stakeholder mapping also revealed important practical lessons to be con- sidered when designing and conducting such activities. First, the extent of the area covered matters, as our larger case-study (African grasses in the Brazilian Cerrado) relied on high-level stakeholder categories given the very large number of poten- tial individual stakeholders, compared to highly disaggregated stakeholder lists for more local case-studies where participants had a high degree of existing knowledge or prior engagement with stakeholders (e.g., German yellow-jackets in Chile). High-level stakeholder lists for large areas can be used as building blocks to devel- op more detailed lists for smaller areas embedded within them. Second, stakehold- ers can be shared across multiple INNS, as in our pines case-studies. This opens the door to improved multi-INNS management if the knowledge and resources available can be pooled across multiple target species (Brandt et al. 2023). There- fore, we encourage researchers and practitioners embarking on stakeholder map- ping exercises to consider whether stakeholders might be common across multiple INNS. Last but not least, the management of some INNS requires cross-country coordination (Lambin et al. 2020; Faria et al. 2023), such as in our American mink case-study (Argentina-Chile). In such cases, researchers and practitioners from the relevant countries should identify organisations with similar remits and those em- powered with establishing international collaborations, together with more local stakeholders. Additionally, these networks will serve to expedite the transfer of knowledge between different areas facing the same INNS. Our results show that most of the stakeholders identified were expected to be highly interested in INNS and their management, which is expected given the nature of our mapping exercise. However, there were clear divergences in the ex- pected influence that these stakeholders might wield in decision-making and the success of on-ground interventions. More specifically, government agencies, land- owners and large companies were expected to be influential, whereas [TPLCs were thought to have much less influence over decision-making. ‘This reflects the wider pattern of inequity in environmental governance in South America, which speaks not only to the lack of effective participation in existing governance systems and mechanisms, but on a deeper level, is driven by a lack of recognition of fundamen- tally differing notions of nature, culture, territory, and conservation (De Castro et al. 2016; Martin et al. 2016; Ulloa 2017). It is in this sense that co-planning engagement strategies identified in our exercise could be important (Table 2). These could take the form of co-developing management strategies, participato- ry elaboration of formal documents, and the creation of instances for collabora- tive decision-making (Powell et al. 2023). These strategies align well with work on co-production in sustainability, and existing principles and recommendations drawn from this field can guide such co-planning strategies (Norstrém et al. 2020; Chambers et al. 2021). For example, researchers, local communities, and practi- tioners can engage in the iterative co-development of simulation models of the NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 307 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America system to achieve a shared understanding of the system and jointly evaluate INNS management options (Parrott 2017; Samson et al. 2017; Dunham et al. 2022). However, for such strategies to be equitably implemented, different systems of knowledge and values must be recognised, respected, and reflected in the deci- sion-making processes themselves and in the results of such processes (Dechoum et al. 2019; Frumento et al. 2019; Tedesco et al. 2023). For example, our American mink case-study in Chile (Los Rios Region) began when small land-holders and subsistence farmers started experiencing losses of chickens to mink depredation, and raised the problem with the local government agency. ‘This led to the design and implementation of a community-based campaign to foster knowledge about the American mink and control their populations. Furthermore, whilst high-level government agencies were the most frequent “key players”, many local government agencies were seen as less influential and were classed as “subjects”. This is in part due to reduced access to resources or land ownership at local- relative to medi- um-level government agencies such as Province and State governments or local and regional delegations of central and Federal-level governments (e.g., National Parks agencies). In summary, our results present examples of the widespread ‘top-down approach to environmental management, and highlight the need for addressing power imbalances at multiple governance levels. Our results highlight potential power imbalances that need to be considered for eq- uitable INNS management, especially as not only were landowners expected to have more influence than were ITPLCs, but they are also the main “key players” expected to experience positive economic and socio-cultural impacts from INNS. This is in con- trast to the local communities, who are expected to experience only negative impacts from INNS. This contrast is unsurprising given the history of the region, and has been exacerbated by diverging goals pursued by different agencies of the same government (e.g., see Faria et al. 2023 and Pelicice et al. 2023 for the case of Brazil). This is despite the fact that government agencies were the “key players” most frequently experiencing negative impacts across all three categories (ecological, economic and socio-cultural). For example, pine plantations were incentivised by the state in Chile in the 1970s leading to concentration of these plantations in the hands of forestry companies that own and manage large areas (Reyes and Nelson 2014). Similarly, the use of African grasses as forage for cattle in Brazil has been promoted by agencies supporting primary industries, whilst simultaneously being combated by environmentally-oriented agen- cies (Baggio et al. 2021). While likely a challenging task, these policy misalignments need to be resolved for the effective implementation of INNS management strategies (Powell et al. 2023). Landowners also hold the key to accessing areas where INNS management should be undertaken. Failing to secure access can sometimes — but not always — impede the effective management of highly mobile INNS or act as sources of ecologically-damaging INNS of economic value for the landowner (Glen et al. 2017). Such divergent costs and benefits of INNS to different stakeholders have the potential to polarise opinions on the importance of, and approaches to, INNS management, leading to conflicts (Beever et al. 2019; Kapitza et al. 2019). Accounting for positive impacts is essential to ensure that [TPLCs do not bear the brunt of INNS negative impacts while landowners reap the benefits, rein- forcing existing inequalities. From an ecological perspective, it is important to consider the possibility that some INNS may play an important ecological role once widespread and integrated in the ecosystem, and managing them might lead to unintended consequences affecting the ecosystem in unforeseen ways (Brandt et NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 308 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America al. 2023; Carpouron et al. 2023). Navigating the negative and positive impacts of INNS will be a delicate and context-specific decision in which government agen- cies, as “key players”, might be indispensable actors mediating and pre-empting conflicts (Newig et al. 2023). This can be guided by the following key tenets of sustainability and equity (Bateman and Mace 2020; Lofqvist et al. 2023; Tedesco et al. 2023): 1) account for the potential irreversible damage by INNS on the en- vironment and manage them accordingly (Vimercati et al. 2020; Lockwood et al. 2023); 2) explore the substitutability of INNS’ positive impacts with native species or non-native species with a low risk profile to prevent the incentivisation and spread of INNS of value (e.g., Pelicice et al. 2023); and 3) consider the distribu- tional effects of INNS and their management upon different societal sectors, with an emphasis on ITPLCs (Garcifa-Diaz et al. 2021). Guidelines for the sustainable use of non-native trees of economic importance exist (Brundu et al. 2020), and the investigation of potential substitutes for ecologically-damaging INNS is recognised in INNS policy documents such as the “Estrategia Nacional sobre Especies Exoti- cas Invasoras” in Argentina, which lists INNS of productive use in its “Category 2” (Gobierno de Argentina 2021). Social multi-criteria evaluation, cost-effectiveness analyses, and a diversity of tools for evaluating the positive and negative ecological and socio-economic impacts of INNS can support decision-making to formulate interventions whilst considering their positive and negative impacts (Bacher et al. 2018; Etxano and Villalba-Eguiluz 2021; Vimercati et al. 2022). We reiterate the caveat that our exercise and results stem from the informed opinions of our expert participants on the stakeholders of each case-study. Addi- tionally, the number of participants per case-study varied substantially (from one to six). These features imply that our results should be interpreted with caution and cannot be extrapolated beyond a preliminary assessment of stakeholders and a tool to help practitioners and researchers establish an initial basis for understand- ing and engaging their stakeholders. A robust understanding of stakeholders will require at least two components. First, it would be desirable to engage a greater number of participants for each case-study to an extent that is commensurate with the area each covered. For example, while five participants is a reasonable sample size for the German yellow-jacket case-study, one participant, as in the case of pines in Argentina, is clearly insufhcient. Similar activities should seek to actively recruit participants from diverse backgrounds to achieve a comprehensive picture of the potential stakeholders, and more accurate expert opinions by summarising across experts within each case-study (Groves and Game 2016). Secondly, INNS impacts and perceptions of stakeholders should ideally be elicited from the stake- holders themselves, and identified iteratively. Despite these limitations, our stakeholder mapping was a valuable first step. Our engagement strategies proved useful in framing and guiding our project activities both prior to and after the workshop. In total, we conducted 91 engagement activities across our case-studies, including press releases in Spanish and Portuguese (e.g., Chile: https:// www.diariosostenible.cl/noticia/actualidad/2022/09/impulsan-control-comunitar- io-de-chaqueta-amarilla-en-rio-cruces; Argentina: https://radio3cadenapatagonia. com.ar/capacitacion-sobre-especies-exoticas-invasoras-en-el-parque-nacional-la- go-puelo/; Brazil: https://agencia.fapesp.br/an-international-research-group-propos- es-six-guidelines-for-managing-the-impacts-of-invasive-species/35298), the organi- sation of eight workshops with decision-makers and protected area managers (e.g., Brazil: hetps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GNrA2k _ bgo), participation in multi- NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 309 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America ple conferences and workshops related to INNS and their management, presence at local fairs to raise awareness, contributions to technical documents on INNS and their management in the local languages (Spanish and Portuguese), actively connect- ing with researchers and practitioners beyond our case-studies yielding ongoing col- laborations (Zaninovich et al. 2023), and 17 training workshops to build capacity and capability. Conclusion In conclusion, effectively managing the multidimensional socio-ecological issue of INNS requires the collaborative action of multiple stakeholders, from researchers to government agencies and ITPLCs (Novoa et al. 2018; Alter et al. 2019; Garcta-Diaz et al. 2022). This calls for establishing and maintaining strong linkages among research- ers, practitioners, decision-makers, and the community, which in turn hinges on an accurate understanding and deep communication with the relevant stakeholders. As more policies and initiatives are being formulated and implemented to tackle INNS in South America, our stakeholder mapping tools can be used to produce engage- ment strategies to bolster and strengthen connections between those with a shared interest in a focal INNS. Moreover, as we have showcased here, such an exercise in mapping stakeholders can uncover “key players” instrumental to INNS management and power imbalances that require specific attention (e.g., “subjects”), as well as iden- tify potential conflicts that need to be managed carefully. Thus, we echo previous work highlighting the value of stakeholder mapping for environmental management in general, and for INNS management in particular (Stokes et al. 2006; Reed 2008; Samson et al. 2017; Novoa et al. 2018; Newig et al. 2023). This approach can be expected to result in enhanced social, ecological, and economic outcomes of INNS management, although it cannot be assumed to be a silver bullet and will require active research and adaptability to improve and match the needs of the local context (Alter et al. 2019; Pagés et al. 2019; Chambers et al. 2021; Newig et al. 2023). Acknowledgements Servicio Agricola y Ganadero, Gobierno de Chile, is one of the CONTAIN proj- ect partners, and it is represented by ER in this paper. However, the opinions and results presented in this document are entirely those of ER and may not represent SAG position on the topic. Additional information Conflict of interest The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Ethical statement No ethical statement was reported. Funding The stakeholder mapping activities were funded by project CONTAIN under the Latin American Biodiversity Programme as part of the Newton Fund (NE/S011641/1), with contributions from NERC (UK), the Argentine National Scientific & Technical Research Council (CONICET,-2019- NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 310 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America 74-APN-DIR#CONICET), the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (Brazil, FAPESP 2018/14995-8), and the Chilean National Commission for Scientific & Technological Research (CONICYT). Addi- tional support was provided by the project ‘Invasive alien species management to decrease impacts on biodiversity, rural poverty and carbon storage’ (2022GCBCCONTAIN) funded by the UK Global Centre on Biodiversity for Climate (GCBC), Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). MC (FAPESP grant #2020/04713-5) and GD (FAPESP grant #2018/09054-0) received support from Sao Paulo Research Foundation during the development of stakeholder mapping activ- ities. AP and CP were funded by ANID/BASAL FB210006. PG-D was partially supported by PICT 03355 (FONCyT, Argentina). Author contributions Conceptualization: PGD, JCP, ME, MC, BL. Data curation: ME, JCP, KM, BL, PGD. Formal anal- ysis: PGD, ME, BL, KM. Investigation: SM, DFRPB, APB KM, IR, JM, XL, BL, GD, LE, AF, EL, LM, EP, JCP, ER, JAT, IRJ, TWB, PGD, ME, MC, MFH, PAP. Methodology: ME, JCP, PGD, MC. Visualization: KM, PAP. Writing — original draft: PAP, MFH, PGD, KM, EP, JM, EL, XL, MC, LM, BL, JCP, GD. Writing — review and editing: AP, ER LM, MC, EL, XL, JCP, ER, JAT, MFH, IRJ, SM, TWB, JM, PGD, IR, PAR KM, BL, GD, DFRPB, LE AEF Author ORCIDs Pablo Garcia-Diaz © https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5402-0611 Barbara Langdon © https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8397-1774 Karen Mustin © https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2828-2316 Mario Cava © https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6630-5347 Gabriella Damasceno © https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5103-484X Magdalena F. Huerta ® https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4999-4723 Jaime Moyano ® https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7072-0527 Priscila A. Powell © https://orcid.org/0000-0003-391 1-0912 Thomas W. Bodey ® https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5334-9615 David FE. R. P. Burslem © https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6033-0990 Alessandra Fidelis © https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9545-2285 Xavier Lambin ® https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4643-2653 Sofia Marinaro ® https://orcid.org/0000-0001-55 12-7832 Anibal Pauchard © https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1284-3163 Euan Phimister © https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6483-01 13 Eduardo Raffo © https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9218-0632 Ignacio Rodriguez-Jorquera © hetps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8854-8422 Jorge A. Tomasevic ® https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0800-2110 J. Cristébal Pizarro © https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5240-2816 Data availability The data underpinning the analyses reported in this paper are deposited in the NERC EDS Environmen- tal Information Data Centre at https://doi.org/10.5285/450fd469-5cd7-4c8f-b 1 13-ba469c358caf. References Alter T, Martin P, Hine D, Howard T (2019) Community-based control of invasive species. Csiro Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1071/9781486308880 Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Essl E, Genovesi P, Heikkila J, Jeschke JM, Jones G, Keller R, Kenis M, Kueffer C, Martinou AK Nentwig W, Pergl J, Pysek P Rabitsch W, Richardson DM, Roy HE, NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 311 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Saul W-C, Scalera R, Vila M, Wilson JRU, Kumschick S (2018) Socio-economic impact classi- fication of alien taxa (SEICAT). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9(1): 159-168. https://doi. org/10.1111/2041-210X.12844 Baggio R, Overbeck GE, Durigan G, Pillar VD (2021) To graze or not to graze: A core question for conservation and sustainable use of grassy ecosystems in Brazil. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 19(3): 256-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.06.002 Ballari SA, Barrios-Garcia MN (2022) Mismatch between media coverage and research on invasive species: The case of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Argentina. PLoS One 17(12): e0279601. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279601 Banks PB, Byrom AE, Pech RP, Dickman CR (2018) Reinvasion is not invasion again. Bioscience 68(10): 792-804. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy076 Bateman IJ, Mace GM (2020) ‘The natural capital framework for sustainably efficient and equitable de- cision making. Nature Sustainability 3(10): 776-783. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0552-3 Bayliss H, Stewart G, Wilcox A, Randall N (2013) A perceived gap between invasive species research and stakeholder priorities. NeoBiota 19: 67—82. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.19.4897 Beever EA, Simberloff D, Crowley SL, Al-Chokhachy R, Jackson HA, Petersen SL (2019) Social— ecological mismatches create conservation challenges in introduced species management. Fron- tiers in Ecology and the Environment 17(2): 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2000 Blackburn TM, Pysek P, Bacher S, Carlton JT, Duncan RP, Jarosik V, Wilson JR, Richardson DM (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26(7): 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.023 Brandt AJ, Png GK, Jo I, McGrannachan C, Allen K, Peltzer DA, D’Antonio C, Dickie IA, French K, Leishman MR, Ostertag R, Parker IM, Stanley MC, Suding KN, Bellingham PJ (2023) Man- aging multi-species plant invasions when interactions influence their impact. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 21(8): 370-379. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2658 Bridger JC, Alter TR, Frumento PZ, Howard TM, Adams LB (2019) Community engagement the- ory for a new natural resource management paradigm. Community-based Control of Invasive Species: 84. Brundu G, Pauchard A, Pysek P, Pergl J, Bindewald AM, Brunori A, Canavan S, Campagnaro T, Celesti-Grapow L, Dechoum M de S, Dufour-Dror J-M, Essl F, Flory SL, Genovesi P, Guarino FE Guangzhe L, Hulme PE, Jager H, Kettle CJ, Krumm E Langdon B, Lapin K, Lozano V, Le Roux JJ, Novoa A, Nufiez MA, Porté AJ, Silva JS, Schaffner U, Sitzia T, Tanner R, Tshidada N, Vitkova M, Westergren M, Wilson JRU, Richardson DM (2020) Global guidelines for the sustainable use of non-native trees to prevent tree invasions and mitigate their negative impacts. NeoBiota 61: 65-116. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.61.58380 Bryce R, Oliver MK, Davies L, Gray H, Urquhart J, Lambin X (2011) Turning back the tide of American mink invasion at an unprecedented scale through community participation and adap- tive management. Biological Conservation 144(1): 575-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bio- con.2010.10.013 Canessa S, Trask AE, Ewen JG (2021) Mind the gap (between assessing risks and prioritizing man- agement). NeoBiota 68: 1-4. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.68.60816 Carpouron CJ, Zuél N, Monty MLE, Florens FBV (2023) Breeding success of an endangered island endemic kestrel increases with extent of invasion by an alien plant species. Journal for Nature Conservation 72: 126366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126366 Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernandez-Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE, Klenk NL, Tengé M, Brennan R, Cockburn JJ, Hill R, Munera C, Nel JL, Osterblom H, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Brandeis A, Char- li-Joseph L, Chatterton P, Curran K, Dumrongrojwatthana PR Duran AP, Fada SJ, Gerber J-D, NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 312 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Green JMH, Guerrero AM, Haller T, Horcea-Milcu A-I, Leimona B, Montana J, Rondeau R, Spierenburg M, Steyaert P, Zaehringer JG, Gruby R, Hutton J, Pickering T (2021) Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nature Sustainability 4(11): 983-996. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41893-021-00755-x Comité Operativo para la Prevencién, el Control y la Erradicacién de las Especies Exdéticas Invasoras (2014) Estrategia Nacional Integrada para la Prevencion, el Control y/o Erradicacién de las Espe- cies Exdéticas Invasoras. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, 1—26. Conroy MJ, Peterson JT (2013) Decision making in natural resource management: a structured, adap- tive approach. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118506196 Crowley SL, Hinchliffe S$, McDonald RA (2017) Invasive species management will benefit from social impact assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 54(2): 351-357. https://doi-org/10.1111/1365- 2664.12817 De Castro EK Hogenboom B, Baud M (2016) Environmental Governance in Latin America. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-50572-9 De la Mora G (2023) Conceptual and Analytical Diversity of Environmental Governance in Lat- in America: A Systematic Review. Environmental Management 71(4): 847-866. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00267-022-01739-z Dechoum M de S, Giehl ELH, Siiths RB, Silveira TCL, Ziller SR (2019) Citizen engagement in the management of non-native invasive pines: Does it make a difference? Biological Invasions 21(1): 175-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1814-0 Defossé GE (2015) ;Conviene seguir fomentando las plantaciones forestales en el norte de la Patago- nia? Ecologia Austral 25(2): 93-100. https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.15.25.2.0.154 Diagne C, Leroy B, Vaissiére A-C, Gozlan RE, Roiz D, Jari¢ I, Salles J-M, Bradshaw CJA, Courchamp F (2021) High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 592(7855): 571-576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03405-6 Dunham JB, Arismendi I, Murphy C, Koeberle A, Olivos JA, Pearson J, Pickens F Roon D, Steven- son J (2020) What to do when invaders are out of control? WIREs. Water 7(5): e1476. https:// doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1476 Dunham J, Benjamin JR, Lawrence DJ, Clifford K (2022) Resist, accept, and direct responses to biological invasions: A social—ecological perspective. Fisheries Management and Ecology 29(4): 475-485. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12574 Early R, Bradley BA, Dukes JS, Lawler JJ, Olden JD, Blumenthal DM, Gonzalez P, Grosholz ED, Ibanez I, Miller LP, Sorte CJB, Tatem AJ (2016) Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century and national response capacities. Nature Communications 7(1): 12485. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12485 Erazo M, Garcia Diaz P, Langdon B, Mustin K, Cava M, Damasceno G, Huerta ME, Linardaki E, Moyano J, Montti L, Powell PA, Bodey TW, Burslem DFRP, Fasola L, Fidelis A, Lambin X, Marinaro S, Pauchard A, Phimister E, Raffo E, Rodriguez-Jorquera I, Roesler I, Toma- sevic JA, Pizarro JC (2024) Expert-based stakeholder mapping and engagement strategies for six invasive non-native species case studies in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, 2021. https://doi. org/10.5285/450fd469-5cd7-4c8f-b1 13-ba469c3 58caf Essl FE, Lenzner B, Bacher S, Bailey S, Capinha C, Daehler C, Dullinger S, Genovesi P, Hui C, Hulme PE, Jeschke JM, Katsanevakis S, Kiihn I, Leung B, Liebhold A, Liu C, Maclsaac HJ, Meyerson LA, Nufiez MA, Pauchard A, PySek P, Rabitsch W, Richardson DM, Roy HE, Ruiz GM, Russell JC, Sanders NJ, Sax DF, Scalera R, Seebens H, Springborn M, Turbelin A, van Kleunen M, von Holle B, Winter M, Zenni RD, Mattsson BJ, Roura-Pascual N (2020) Drivers of future alien species impacts: An expert-based assessment. Global Change Biology 26(9): 4880-4893. https:// doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15199 NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 313 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Etxano J, Villalba-Eguiluz U (2021) Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies. Ecological Economics 188: 107131. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107131 Faria L, de Carvalho BM, Carneiro L, Miiller NOR, Pedroso CR, Occhi TVT, Tonella LH, Vitule JRS (2023) Invasive species policy in Brazil: A review and critical analysis. Environmental Con- servation 50(1): 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892922000406 Frumento PZ, Whitmer WE, Alter TR, Muth AB, Marshall DP, Shuffstall WC (2019) Strategy and practice for community engagement. In: Martin P, Alter TR, Hine D, Howard T (Eds) Commu- nity-based control of invasive species. CSIRO — CABI, Clayton South, VIC, Australia; Walling- ford, UK; Boston, USA, 97-121. Garcia-Diaz P, Cassey P, Norbury G, Lambin X, Montti L, Pizarro JC, Powell PA, Burslem DF, Cava M, Damasceno G, Fasola L, Fidelis A, Huerta ME Langdon B, Linardaki E, Moyano J, Nufez MA, Pauchard A, Phimister E, Raffo E, Roesler I, Rodriguez-Jorquera I, Tomasevic JA (2021) Management Policies for Invasive Alien Species: Addressing the Impacts Rather than the Species. Bioscience 71(2): 174-185. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaal39 Garcia-Diaz P, Montti L, Powell PA, Phimister E, Pizarro JC, Fasola L, Langdon B, Pauchard A, Rafto E, Bastias J, Damasceno G, Fidelis A, Huerta MF, Linardaki E, Moyano J, Nufiez MA, Ortiz MI, Rodriguez-Jorquera I, Roesler I, Tomasevic JA, Burslem DFRP, Cava M, Lambin X (2022) Identifying Priorities, Targets, and Actions for the Long-term Social and Ecological Man- agement of Invasive Non-Native Species. Environmental Management 69(1): 140-153. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01541-3 GEKKO, Grupo de Estudios en Conservacién y Manejo, Departamento de Biologia, Bioquimica y Farmacia (2023) InBiAr. Base de Datos sobre Invasiones Bioldgicas en Argentina. http://www. inbiar.uns.edu.ar/especies [August 7, 2023] Glen AS, Latham MC, Anderson D, Leckie C, Niemiec R, Pech RP, Byrom AE (2017) Landholder participation in regional-scale control of invasive predators: An adaptable landscape model. Bio- logical Invasions 19(1): 329-338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1282-3 Gobierno de Argentina: Lista oficial de especies exdticas en Argentina. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ ambiente/biodiversidad/exoticas-invasoras/lista Groves CR, Game ET (2016) Conservation planning: informed decisions for a healthier planet. Roberts and Company Publishers, Greenwood Village, Colorado, USA, 580 pp. Kapitza K, Zimmermann H, Martin-Lépez B, von Wehrden H (2019) Research on the social per- ception of invasive species: A systematic literature review. NeoBiota 43: 47-68. https://doi. org/10.3897/neobiota.43.31619 Lambin X, Burslem D, Caplat P, Cornulier T, Gabriella D, Fasola L, Fidelis A, Garcfa-Diaz P, Lang- don B, Linardaki E (2020) CONTAIN: Optimising the long-term management of invasive alien species using adaptive management. NeoBiota 59: 119-138. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobio- ta.59:52022 Lockwood JL, Lieurance D, Flory SL, Meyerson LA, Ricciardi A, Simberloff D (2023) Moving scholarship on invasion science forward. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38(6): 495-496. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.01.006 Lofqvist S, Kleinschroth FE Bey A, de Bremond A, DeFries R, Dong J, Fleischman F, Lele S, Martin DA, Messerli P, Meyfroidt P, Pfeifer M, Rakotonarivo SO, Ramankutty N, Ramprasad V, Rana P, Rhemtulla JM, Ryan CM, Vieira ICG, Wells GJ, Garrett RD (2023) How social consider- ations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration. Bioscience 73(2): 134-148. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac099 Martin A, Coolsaet B, Corbera E, Dawson NM, Fraser JA, Lehmann I, Rodriguez I (2016) Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate recognition. Biological Conservation 197: 254-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021 NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 314 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Mason NW, Kirk NA, Price RJ, Law R, Bowman R, Sprague RI (2023) Science for social licence to arrest an ecosystem-transforming invasion. Biological Invasions 25(3): 873-888. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10530-022-02953-w MERCOSUR (2019) Lineamientos para la Elaboracién de un Plan para la Prevencién, Monitoreo, Control y Mitigacién de las Especies Exdticas Invasoras. https://www.iri.edu.ar/wp-content/up- loads/2020/12/tm2019GMCres38.pdf Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible (2022) Estrategia Nacional sobre Especies Exoticas Invasoras. Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de la Nacién, 1-144. Mittermeier RA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, Brooks TM, Gascon C (2011) Global biodiversity conser- vation: the critical role of hotspots. In: Zachos FE, Habel JC (Eds) Biodiversity hotspots: distribu- tion and protection of conservation priority areas. Springer, 3—22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-642-20992-5_1 Newig J, Jager NW, Challies E, Kochskamper E (2023) Does stakeholder participation improve envi- ronmental governance? Evidence from a meta-analysis of 305 case studies. Global Environmental Change 82: 102705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102705 Norstrém AV, Cvitanovic C, Lof ME, West S, Wyborn C, Balvanera P, Bednarek AT, Bennett EM, Biggs R, de Bremond A, Campbell BM, Canadell JG, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Fulton EA, Gaff- ney O, Gelcich S, Jouffray J-B, Leach M, Le Tissier M, Martin-Lopez B, Louder E, Loutre M-F, Meadow AM, Nagendra H, Payne D, Peterson GD, Reyers B, Scholes R, Speranza CI, Spieren- burg M, Stafford-Smith M, Tengé M, van der Hel S, van Putten I, Osterblom H (2020) Princi- ples for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability 3(3): 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2 Novoa A, Shackleton R, Canavan S, Cybele C, Davies SJ, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Fried J, Gaertner M, Geerts S, Griffiths CL, Kaplan H, Kumschick $, Le Maitre DC, Measey GJ, Nunes AL, Richard- son DM, Robinson TB, Touza J, Wilson JRU (2018) A framework for engaging stakeholders on the management of alien species. Journal of Environmental Management 205: 286-297. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.059 Nufiez MA, Pauchard A (2010) Biological invasions in developing and developed countries: Does one model fit all? Biological Invasions 12(4): 707-714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9517-1 Oberlack C, Tejada L, Messerli P, Rist S, Giger M (2016) Sustainable livelihoods in the global land rush? Archetypes of livelihood vulnerability and sustainability potentials. Global Environmental Change 41: 153-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.001 Oliver MK, Piertney SB, Zalewski A, Melero Y, Lambin X (2016) The compensatory potential of increased immigration following intensive American mink population control is diluted by male-biased dispersal. Biological Invasions 18(10): 3047-3061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530- 016-1199-x Omondiagbe HA, Towns DR, Wood JK, Bollard-Breen B (2017) Stakeholders and social networks identify potential roles of communities in sustainable management of invasive species. Biological Invasions 19(10): 3037-3049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1506-1 Pagés M, Fischer A, van der Wal R, Lambin X (2019) Empowered communities or “cheap la- bour”? Engaging volunteers in the rationalised management of invasive alien species in Great Britain. Journal of Environmental Management 229: 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen- vman.2018.06.053 Parrott L (2017) The modelling spiral for solving ‘wicked’ environmental problems: Guidance for stakeholder involvement and collaborative model development. Methods in Ecology and Evolu- tion 8(8): 1005-1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12757 Pelicice FM, Agostinho AA, Alves CBM, Arcifa MS, Azevedo-Santos VM, Brito MFG, de Brito PS, de Castro Campanha PMG, Carvalho FR, da Costa GC, Cozzuol MA, Cunico AM, Dagosta FCP, Dias RM, Fernandes R, Franco ACS, Garcia DAZ, Giarrizzo T, Gubiani EA, Guimaraes NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 315 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America EC, Ikeda L, Katz AM, Magalhaes ALB, Montag LFA, Nogueira MAMP, Orsi ML, Ottoni FP, Pavanelli CS, Peixoto TG, Petry AC, Pompeu PS, Ramos TPA, Rodrigues LRR, Sabino J, Sam- paio WMS, dos Santos VLM, Smith WS, Souza G, Tonella LH, Vitule JRS, Montag LF de A, Nogueira MAM de P, Orsi ML, Ottoni FP, Pavanelli CS, Peixoto TG, Petry AC, Pompeu PS, Ramos TPA, Rodrigues LRR, Sabino J, Sampaio WMS, dos Santos VLM, Smith WS, Souza G, Tonella LH, Vitule JRS (2023) Unintended consequences of valuing the contributions of non-native species: Misguided conservation initiatives in a megadiverse region. Biodiversity and Conservation 32(12): 3915-3938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1053 1-023-02666-z PNUD (2017) Catalogo de las especies exdticas asilvestradas/naturalizadas en Chile. Powell PA, Garcia-Diaz P, Fernandez Canepa G, Grau A, Herrera L, Nufiez C, Quiroga MP, Qui- roga PA, Rojas TN, Ruiz de Huidobro N, Speziale KL, Vidal-Russell R, Zaninovich S, Montti L (2023) Insights from experiences comanaging woody invasive alien plants in Argentina. Ecologi- cal Solutions and Evidence 4(4): e12272. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12272 PySek P, Hulme PE, Simberloff D, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Carlton JT, Dawson W, Essl F, Foxcroft LC, Genovesi P, Jeschke JM, Kithn I, Liebhold AM, Mandrak NE, Meyerson LA, Pauchard A, Pergl J, Roy HE, Seebens H, van Kleunen M, Vila M, Wingfield MJ, Richardson DM (2020) Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 95(6): 1511-1534. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12627 Raymond CM, Cebrian-Piqueras MA, Andersson E, Andrade R, Schnell AA, Romanelli BB, Fily- ushkina A, Goodson DJ, Horcea-Milcu A, Johnson DN (2022) Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects. One Earth 5(3): 252-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.008 Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Bio- logical Conservation 141(10): 2417-2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 Reed MS, Oughton L (2017) Stakeholder analysis. Soil Care for profitable and sustainable crop production in Europe, Newcastle, UK. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource man- agement. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5): 1933-1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2009.01.001 Reyes R, Nelson H (2014) A tale of two forests: Why forests and forest conflicts are both growing in Chile. International Forestry Review 16(4): 379-388. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554814813484121 Robertson PA, Mill A, Novoa A, Jeschke JM, Essl F, Gallardo B, Geist J, Jari¢ I, Lambin X, Musseau C, Pergl J, Pysek P, Rabitsch W, von Schmalensee M, Shirley M, Strayer DL, Stefansson RA, Smith K, Booy O (2020) A proposed unified framework to describe the management of biological invasions. Biological Invasions 22(9): 2633-2645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-020-02298-2 Samson E, Hirsch PE, Palmer SC, Behrens JW, Brodin T, Travis JM (2017) Early Engagement of Stakeholders with Individual-Based Modeling Can Inform Research for Improving Invasive Spe- cies Management: The Round Goby as a Case Study. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5: 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00149 Sapsford SJ, Brandt AJ, Davis KT, Peralta G, Dickie IA, Gibson RD, Green JL, Hulme PE, Nufez MA, Orwin KH, Pauchard A, Wardle DA, Peltzer DA (2020) Towards a framework for under- standing the context dependence of impacts of non-native tree species. Functional Ecology 34: 944-955. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13544 Sax DF, Schlaepfer MA, Olden JD (2022) Valuing the contributions of non-native species to peo- ple and nature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 37(12): 1058-1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tree.2022.08.005 NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 316 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Seebens H, Bacher S, Blackburn TM, Capinha C, Dawson W, Dullinger S, Genovesi P, Hulme PE, van Kleunen M, Kiihn I, Jeschke JM, Lenzner B, Liebhold AM, Pattison Z, Pergl J, Pysek P, Win- ter M, Essl F (2021) Projecting the continental accumulation of alien species through to 2050. Global Change Biology 27(5): 970-982. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15333 Shackleton RT, Richardson DM, Shackleton CM, Bennett B, Crowley SL, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Estévez RA, Fischer A, Kueffer C, Kull CA, Marchante E, Novoa A, Potgieter LJ, Vaas J, Vaz AS, Larson BMH (2019a) Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. Journal of Environmental Management 229: 10-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen- vman.2018.04.045 Shackleton RT, Adriaens T, Brundu G, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Estévez RA, Fried J, Larson BM, Liu S, Marchante E, Marchante H, Moshobane MC, Novoa A, Reed M, Richardson DM (2019b) Stakeholder engagement in the study and management of invasive alien species. Journal of Envi- ronmental Management 229: 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.044 Speziale KL, Lambertucci SA, Carrete M, Tella JL (2012) Dealing with non-native species: What makes the difference in South America? Biological Invasions 14(8): 1609-1621. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10530-011-0162-0 Stokes KE, O’FNeill KP, Montgomery WI, Dick JTA, Maggs CA, McDonald RA (2006) The impor- tance of stakeholder engagement in invasive species management: A cross-jurisdictional perspec- tive in Ireland. In: Hawksworth DL, Bull AT (Eds) Human Exploitation and Biodiversity Con- servation. Springer, Dordrecht, 2829-2852. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5283-5_27 Tedesco AM, Lépez-Cubillos $, Chazdon R, Rhodes JR, Archibald CL, Pérez-Hammerle K-V, Bran- calion PH, Wilson KA, Oliveira M, Correa DF, Ota L, Morrison TH, Possingham HP, Mills M, Santos FC, Dean AJ (2023) Beyond ecology: Ecosystem restoration as a process for social-ecolog- ical transformation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 38(7): 643-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tree.2023.02.007 Turbelin AJ, Malamud BD, Francis RA (2016) Mapping the global state of invasive alien species: Pat- terns of invasion and policy responses. Global Ecology and Biogeography 26(1): 78-92. https:// doi.org/10.1111/geb.12517 Ulloa A (2017) Perspectives of Environmental Justice from Indigenous Peoples of Latin America: A Relational Indigenous Environmental Justice. Environmental Justice 10(6): 175-180. https://doi. org/10.1089/env.2017.0017 Vimercati G, Kumschick S, Probert AE Volery L, Bacher S (2020) The importance of assessing positive and beneficial impacts of alien species. NeoBiota 62: 525-545. https://doi.org/10.3897/ neobiota.62.52793 Vimercati G, Probert AK, Volery L, Bernardo-Madrid R, Bertolino S, Céspedes V, Essl E, Evans T, Gallardo B, Gallien L, Gonzalez-Moreno P, Grange MC, Hui C, Jeschke JM, Katsanevakis S, Kiihn I, Kumschick S, Pergl J, Pysek P, Rieseberg L, Robinson TB, Saul W-C, Sorte CJB, Vila M, Wilson JRU, Bacher S (2022) The EICAT+ framework enables classification of positive impacts of alien taxa on native biodiversity. PLoS Biology 20(8): e3001729. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pbio.3001729 Zaninovich SC, Herrera L, Carro NG, Zugasti EAG, Montti L (2023) Bases para el manejo adap- tativo de la lefiosa invasora Acacia melanoxylon (Fabaceae) en la Reserva Natural Privada Paititi, sierras del Sistema de Tandilia, Argentina. Boletin de la Sociedad Argentina de Botanica 58(1): 21-30. https://doi.org/10.31055/1851.2372.v58.n1.38462 Ziller S, Zenni R, Souza Bastos L, Possato Rossi V, Wong LJ, Pagad S (2020) Global register of in- troduced and invasive species — Brazil. Version 1.5. Checklist dataset/Invasive Species Specialist Group ISSG. NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 317 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Supplementary material 1 File with instructions and guidance for completing the stakeholder spreadsheet Authors: Manuela Erazo, Pablo Garcia-Diaz, Barbara Langdon, Karen Mustin, Mario Cava, Gabriella Damasceno, Magdalena F. Huerta, Eirini Linardaki, Jaime Moyano, Lia Montti, Priscila A. Pow- ell, Thomas W. Bodey, David FE. R. P. Burslem, Laura Fasola, Alessandra Fidelis, Xavier Lambin, Sofia Marinaro, Anibal Pauchard, Euan Phimister, Eduardo Raffo, Ignacio Rodriguez-Jorquera, Ignacio Roesler, Jorge A. Tomasevic, J. Cristébal Pizarro Data type: pdf Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendata- commons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.93.121386.suppl1 Supplementary material 2 Example Stakeholder Spreadsheet shared with all participants Authors: Manuela Erazo, Pablo Garcia-Diaz, Barbara Langdon, Karen Mustin, Mario Cava, Gabriella Damasceno, Magdalena F. Huerta, Eirini Linardaki, Jaime Moyano, Lia Montti, Priscila A. Pow- ell, Thomas W. Bodey, David FE. R. P. Burslem, Laura Fasola, Alessandra Fidelis, Xavier Lambin, Sofia Marinaro, Anibal Pauchard, Euan Phimister, Eduardo Raffo, Ignacio Rodriguez-Jorquera, Ignacio Roesler, Jorge A. Tomasevic, J. Cristébal Pizarro Data type: xlsx Explanation note: This is an example used to create the individual Stakeholder Spreadsheets com- pleted by participants. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendata- commons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.93.121386.suppl2 Supplementary material 3 File containing the consensus lists of stakeholders for each of our six case-studies Authors: Manuela Erazo, Pablo Garcia-Diaz, Barbara Langdon, Karen Mustin, Mario Cava, Gabriella Damasceno, Magdalena F. Huerta, Eirini Linardaki, Jaime Moyano, Lia Montti, Priscila A. Pow- ell, Thomas W. Bodey, David FE. R. P. Burslem, Laura Fasola, Alessandra Fidelis, Xavier Lambin, Sofia Marinaro, Anibal Pauchard, Euan Phimister, Eduardo Raffo, Ignacio Rodriguez-Jorquera, Ignacio Roesler, Jorge A. Tomasevic, J. Cristébal Pizarro Data type: csv Explanation note: Data have been anonymised. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendata- commons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.93.121386.supp13 NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 318 Manuela Erazo et al.: Defining stakeholder engagement strategies in South America Supplementary material 4 Example matrix Authors: Manuela Erazo, Pablo Garcia-Diaz, Barbara Langdon, Karen Mustin, Mario Cava, Gabriella Damasceno, Magdalena F. Huerta, Eirini Linardaki, Jaime Moyano, Lia Montti, Priscila A. Pow- ell, Thomas W. Bodey, David EF. R. P. Burslem, Laura Fasola, Alessandra Fidelis, Xavier Lambin, Sofia Marinaro, Anibal Pauchard, Euan Phimister, Eduardo Raffo, Ignacio Rodriguez-Jorquera, Ignacio Roesler, Jorge A. Tomasevic, J. Cristébal Pizarro Data type: pdf Explanation note: Example of an empty matrix (page 1) to be completed by participants with pro- posed engagement strategies for each of the four types of stakeholder ("context settlers", "crowd", "key players", and "subjects"). Page 2 shows a matrix for invasive non-native plants in Brazil. Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendata- commons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.93.121386.suppl4 Supplementary material 5 File containing the consensus stakeholder engagement strategies for our six case- studies Authors: Manuela Erazo, Pablo Garcia-Diaz, Barbara Langdon, Karen Mustin, Mario Cava, Gabriella Damasceno, Magdalena F. Huerta, Eirini Linardaki, Jaime Moyano, Lia Montti, Priscila A. Pow- ell, Thomas W. Bodey, David EF. R. P. Burslem, Laura Fasola, Alessandra Fidelis, Xavier Lambin, Sofia Marinaro, Anibal Pauchard, Euan Phimister, Eduardo Raffo, Ignacio Rodriguez-Jorquera, Ignacio Roesler, Jorge A. Tomasevic, J. Cristébal Pizarro Data type: csv Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendata- commons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited. Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.93.121386.suppl5 NeoBiota 93: 293-319 (2024), DOI: 10.3897/neobiota.93.121386 319