(cfriedel@stanford.edu)

(www.saep.org)

This document was prepared as part of a ten-week internship with the Southern Africa Environment Project (SAEP), an independent non-governmental organization based in Cape Town. The author is working towards a B.Sc. at Stanford University in California.

SAEP promotes sustainable development and environmental justice through environmental research, education and advocacy. SAEP believes that Southern Africa’s natural environment and cultural heritage are its greatest economic assets. The key to the region’s economic development is conserving and sustainably using its natural resources and preserving and promoting its arts, culture, and history.

The perspective and opinions present in this document reflect the author’s synthesis of numerous interviews conducted over the course of two months in Cape Town, as well as readings from scientific journals and the popular press. They do not necessarily reflect the views of SAEP. Due to the complexity of the industry, the short time of the study, and the author’s lack of prior research in the fishing industry, this synthesis is by no means comprehensive. However, it is hoped that the views as presented in this document, coming from a complete outsider, can bring a fresh perspective to at least some aspects of the current situation.

I would like to thank the following people for generously giving of their time to be interviewed: George Branch, Zoology Department, University of Cape Town; Hennie Brand, Viking Fishing Co; Jamie Gates, University of Florida; Marc Griffiths, Linefish Section, Marine and Coastal Management; Maria Hauck, Institute of Criminology, University of Cape Town; Renee Hector, fieldworker, Subsistence Fisheries Task Group; Larry Hutchings, Marine and Coastal Management; Andy Johnson, Artisanal Fishers Association; Vic Kabalin, conservationist, Fish Hoek; Al Karaki, Department of State Expenditure, Ministry of Finance; Arnie Slater, fishing industry consultant; Vincent Taylor, University of the Western Cape, South African Marine Linefish Management Association; Temba Vundla, Oceana Group; and Astrid Williams, University of the Western Cape. Special thanks to Boyce Papu and Norton Tennille of SAEP and to Kavita Paul, a former SAEP Intern, whose previous research made this endeavor considerably easier.

The fishing industry of post-apartheid South Africa is a complex and dynamic area of economic activity and thus a difficult one to grasp in its totality. Marine living resources, our term for all the life in the ocean that we are able to harvest for food or profit, consist of a number of highly complex and variable biological systems. Whether we trawl for anchovy in deep water, catch snoek from a ski boat, or dive for abalone near the rocky shore, we are in effect using technology to make ourselves a part of marine food webs. As our technology becomes more efficient, and the foreign markets for our fish or seafood become more lucrative, we remove more and more life from the sea. Because fish do not stay in one place, and because there is such an incredible diversity of species in the ocean, our scientists are rarely able to model or predict with great accuracy the precise effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. However, it does not take a scientist or a scientist’s statistical certainties to know that our fishing efforts are having detrimental effects on marine life. The dire state of fish stocks around the world and, increasingly, in South Africa’s waters, is a testament to the adverse impacts our activities can have.

The question we must answer is: do we carry on as in the past, increasing the use of technology and fishing activities until important marine species become economically extinct? Or do we recognize that entire fisheries can collapse and that there are values associated with preservation that are not as easily quantified as this season’s profits? Do we acknowledge that a fisherman’s traditional way of life has value, that our grandchildren should be able to taste the indigenous seafood of South Africa, and that our beautiful and intricate marine ecosystems are themselves worthy of protection, regardless of how we can benefit from them? Fortunately, South Africa has, at least on paper, decided that these things are of value; a major goal of the Marine Living Resources Act of 1998 (MLRA) is the "sustainable" use of marine life. In the words of then Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Dr. Z. Pallo Jordan: "All natural marine living resources of South Africa, as well as the environment in which they exist, are a national heritage of all South Africa’s people, which should be managed and developed for the benefit of present and future generations."

Sustainable use of marine living resources is a challenging management task, but conserving these resources for exploitation by future generations is not the only issue confronting South Africa’s government and fishing industry. Fisheries management in South Africa must also confront issues of race, equity, and historical injustice – a mandate broadly described as "transformation" of an industry from which non-whites had for the most part been systematically excluded. Thus a second major goal of the MLRA was to broaden access to the "historically disadvantaged," non-white South Africans. Fisheries management under the apartheid system, it is generally conceded, benefited white South Africans to the exclusion of the majority of the citizens of the country. Whites owned the companies, skippered or owned most of the boats, received the fishing rights for the most lucrative species, and on top of this, were able to fish recreationally. Racial segregation under the National Party government, embodied in legislation such as the Group Areas Act of 1950, forcibly moved many non-white traditional fishing communities away from the coast, in order for whites to build vacation homes.

Such a legacy of injustice is, to be sure, not unique to the fishing industry. It is the historical backdrop for all aspects of commerce and society in South Africa. One of the major challenges for all citizens of South Africa is to redress these obvious imbalances in a fair and rational manner that recognises at the same time that the resources to be reallocated are not infinite. Recent attempts at "transformation" of the fishing industry provide an important case study for the future of the South African economy and South African society as a whole. The lessons learned from fishing industry reform may be useful in other areas, such as land reform, and in the larger goal of redistribution of incomes and wealth.

The broadening of access rights and the sustainable use of marine resources are both necessary elements for creating a stable and equitable fishing industry. The challenge for South Africa – government and industry working together – is to translate these political goals into actual programmes of action and protocols for management. Two years after enactment of the MLRA, we are at a place where we can begin to reflect on the changes that have taken place and what still needs to be done. The current situation, socially and ecologically, is anything but stable, but some constructive changes are, in fact, taking place. What follows is a summary of some of the major problem areas identified. There is a detailed discussion of the linefishery; it is one of the critically endangered sectors of the industry, but one that has received relatively little attention until recently. Finally, the situation in South Africa will be considered within the context of global trends and economic development.

1. LACK OF POLITICAL WILL

There is a widespread perception among various constituencies that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), the department charged with implementing the MLRA, has lacked the political will to implement the necessary conservation and redistribution strategies. The MLRA will represent nothing more than empty promises on the part of an idealistic Parliament unless DEAT follows through with its responsibilities to implement the statute. These responsibilities include defining concretely what is meant by transformation, reforming the rights allocation process, compiling information on all aspects of the industry (not simply on the biology of the resource), and enforcing its laws and regulations.

Regulation of this industry is, to be sure, a political hot potato. DEAT not only has a formidable scientific and administrative task; it will inevitably be unable to meet the demands of all stakeholders involved – and these stakeholders represent votes. To date, none of the ANC politicians overseeing Sea Fisheries, now Marine and Coastal Management (MCM), has had any prior experience with the fishing industry. If there has been inadequate initiative on the part of DEAT thus far, it has most likely stemmed from the difficulties in trying not to alienate constituents while attempting to learn the "ins and outs" of the sector. Many, however, would contend that the government has simply not given this sector the priority it deserves.

As the Minister of DEAT, Valli Moosa must now take ownership of the problems, if for no other reason than to stop the bad press that has dogged marine fisheries management by his Department. The fishing industry has provided a steady stream of sensational news items for South African journalists. Fishermen hold marches to protest the unfair allocation of rights or the piracy of the fish harvest by foreign interests. Abalone poachers are caught with plundered cargo valued at R1m. Charges of corruption within the department and in the industry are tossed left and right. Key decisions are challenged in the courts. Long delays are experienced in issuing quotas, to the financial detriment of the sector.

In a policy review speech in June of this year, Mr. Moosa announced his intentions to give special attention to the fishing industry. The proposed reforms include the following: introduction of non-transferable medium- to long-term quotas; a new policy framework for rights allocation, setting relative quotas for large, medium, small and subsistence fishers, and establishing a tender system to discourage "paper quota" holders and generate revenue for the Department; and creation of a dedicated rights allocation unit to direct industry transformation, and a "high-powered" legal unit to provide capacity for enforcement. These are hopeful signs that the government is at last developing the political will to manage the resource effectively and that South Africa’s fisheries will henceforth be receiving the top-down political attention they deserve.

A major step in the direction of taking ownership of the problem by the government was on August 26, 2000 with the approval by the Cabinet of a Discussion Document designed to provide a major overhaul in the system for allocating fishing rights – an area which has been among the most troublesome and contentious faced by DEAT.

 

2. LACK OF CAPACITY OR MANAGERIAL COMPETENCE IN DEAT

There is a tendency within the industry to blame current problems on the incompetence of the regulatory body, MCM. Ultimately, much of the responsibility for fisheries management does lie within the Department, but those who point fingers must also realize the constraints under which MCM officials must operate. The main problem seems to be a severe lack of capacity with which to complete their multiple objectives.

Many officials at MCM are former Sea Fisheries biologists, whose duties have been expanded from scientifically determining the proper TACs to include processing mountains of quota applications. Decisions often must be made in a subjective manner, owing to the sheer number of applications, the lack of means to verify the data on each application, and the lack of socio-economic expertise on the part of the scientists. In some cases, scientific duties have been neglected, leading to the recent allocation delays that angered many in the industry. The Department has also been tied up in litigation as stakeholders challenge the legal authority with which they have redistributed fishing rights.

Significant structural and policy changes have recently been proposed that should make things easier for MCM officials. A dedicated rights allocation unit and the outsourcing of application processing will relieve the scientists of massive amounts of paperwork. Higher application fees, proper pricing of fishing rights, and a new system of levies should generate much-needed funds for monitoring and enforcement. Concrete goals for transformation, clear criteria for applicant success, and industry involvement in sectoral planning will hopefully decrease the amount of litigation.

Finally, in recognition of the need for strong leadership at MCM, Mr. Horst Kleinschmidt was recently appointed as a new Deputy Director-General, elevating the MCM Chief Directorate to a full branch of the Department.

 

3. CORRUPTION

Corruption in South Africa affects all levels of government and society, but is widely regarded as being especially rampant in the fishing industry. It is inextricably linked to many other problems, but it warrants a separate treatment in this document because there are common factors behind all types of corruption. Corruption takes many forms and has many definitions. Sometimes corruption takes the form of criminal activities, such as bribery or extortion. Legal but unethical practices, such as nepotism or falsifying information, can also be considered corrupt. All too often, many other actions fall into an ethical gray area in which supposedly unbiased decisions are subject to personal prejudice or preference. One may view all these practices as lying on the same spectrum, albeit with differing degrees of severity. In each case, a public duty or responsibility is undermined in order to benefit a single person or a small group, usually monetarily.

In the fishing industry, corruption is believed to exist from the top levels down to the very bottom. Allegations commonly heard include the following: Government officials and their friends receive fishing quotas. A controversial private investigator is paid a large sum of money to investigate corruption, and his contract is terminated when it is discovered he has direct interests in the industry, although some allege it was because he was uncovering evidence of bribery and other crimes among top ANC members. Information is leaked from MCM to interested parties in the industry. Quota applicants provide false data to the government. Decreased minimum size regulations for rock lobster seem to have no rational explanation, until it is discovered that the export market to Japan demands packing more lobsters into each crate. "Paper quota" holders promise jobs and money to fishing communities while they sell the rights to established companies and buy themselves expensive cars. An MCM investigation into illegal beach seine netting practices in False Bay is partly funded by the very fishers under investigation. Inspection officials are seen taking bribes from the boats or, as in one case, actually stealing confiscated stashes of abalone from their own offices.

These examples are only hints at the greater network of unethical practices believed to permeate the industry. Some have even suggested that transactions have taken place between South African fishing interests and multinational crime rings. It is beyond the scope of this document to investigate these allegations, but dealing with these practices is clearly a key element of improved fisheries management in South Africa. It is also vital to restoring public respect for governmental management in this area. Compliance with the law by parties in the fishing industry will be difficult to achieve as long as it is widely believed that government officials charged with managing the resource are not acting with integrity.

 

 

4. OVEREXPLOITATION

The bottom line for minimizing damage to marine ecosystems and preserving fisheries through sustainable use is to prevent overexploitation of the resource. Around the world, fish stocks are being depleted as fishing effort intensifies. Perhaps because of its geographical remoteness from the countries of the First World or because of the authoritarian policies of the apartheid-era government, the fisheries of South Africa are still, on the whole, relatively healthy and productive. But those with long-time experience fishing in South Africa’s waters have noticed dramatic changes in the last 50 years. Anecdotes of the ocean’s past abundance are numerous, and contrast the current stories of empty-handed fishermen. Ocean beds formerly covered with large groups of abalone now lie bare. The seventy-four, one of the Cape’s most favored linefishes and a popular target for sport and sale, was easily caught prior to about 40 years ago. In the 1960s, increased commercial efforts targeted spawning aggregations of the species on the East Agulhas Bank. Now, the moratorium on seventy-four is redundant, since virtually none have been caught in decades. Species extinction is a real and possible outcome of excessive fishing effort.

There is evidence of overexploitation in almost all of the major commercial fisheries. The future of the pelagic fishery appears reasonable, although anchovy catch levels are much less than those of the late 1980s, and it has proven difficult to manage both anchovy and pilchard. The adult pilchard population is jeopardized by bycatches of juvenile pilchard in the anchovy fishery. However, there seem to be plenty of pelagic fish left, including the underutilized red-eye.

The demersal fishery, which generates more than half of the value of the entire industry, primarily through its sale of hake overseas, is currently stressed. Handline and longline catches of hake have increased in the past few years, and there seems to be little room for further expansion of this sector.

West Coast rock lobster is subject to illegal exploitation by poachers, and somatic growth rates in the species have declined. Commercial abalone has also been excessively poached, almost to the point of extinction. Most of the linefish stocks are critically overexploited (see discussion below), and only the snoek fishery is in a healthy state. Squid catch rates are declining and tuna catchers have had to compete with high-tech foreign high-seas fleets.

It can be argued that overexploitation of marine life occurs primarily because of the failure of traditional market rules to properly regulate the commodification of a variable and vulnerable natural resource. Fisheries are the classic example of a "tragedy of the commons." Without government intervention, fish are free and available to all as common pool resource. To become a fisherman, one only needs a boat, some gear, and a little know-how. While access is open to all, the ecological costs of fishing are transferred to no one individual, and everyone has an incentive to fish as much as possible.

On top of this tendency, there is a high demand for seafood, both domestically and from overseas. As a particular fish becomes more scarce, its market value often increases, leading to an intensification of fishing effort and even faster depletion of the resource. Further pressure is applied in poorer countries, where fishing is often seen as the last resort for many. Traditionally, the industry has absorbed unemployment from other sectors of the economy.

There are other ways in which the rules of the market fail to regulate the use of fisheries. Cross-subsidization often occurs when fishing effort towards a particular species is financed by other activities, such as part-time fishing of another, more lucrative species. Overcapitalization occurs when the profits from one season are invested in better technology or more boats for the next season, regardless of whether the fish stock has declined in the interim.

When the undesirable results of the commodification of common pool resources accumulate, some other, external regulatory factor is needed. Although the government is usually called upon to provide fisheries management (i.e. through research, regulation, and surveillance), international experience has proved that the most effective management schemes incorporate extensive participation by industry stakeholders and fishermen. "Co-management" – as this practice is called -- is necessary since, as economist P. Copes points out, "there is no reason to assume that fishermen, when confronted with the rules of individual quota management, will lose either their ingenuity at circumvention or their incentive to promote individual interests at the expense of collective interest." Participation of fishermen and fishing companies in the development and implementation of management schemes enhances the perceived legitimacy of the regulations and may even kindle some kind of industry self-enforcement.

With its recent proposals for a fundamental restructuring of the rights allocation process, and its request for industry involvement in sectoral planning, DEAT and MCM have demonstrated their recognition of the need for co-management. It remains to be seen whether the established industry can constructively cooperate. Unfortunately, the current proposals contain no concrete plans for addressing the involvement of recreational users, or "subsistence" and "artisanal" fishers, whose activities comprise a significant amount of the effort seen in non-capital-intensive fisheries, such as rock lobster, abalone, squid, and especially linefish. The unique challenges in management of the linefishery are explored further elsewhere in this document.

Thus far our analysis has been limited to issues of "top-down" regulation and large-scale trends such as corruption and overexploitation. There is another, "bottom-up" perspective that needs to be explored. One often finds that the view on the ground, from the fishers or the fish buyers, is much more complex. South Africa’s fishing industry is replete with bad fishing practice and lack of compliance with the governing laws and regulations. Here are examples identified in the course of this research:

1. illegal selling of recreational catch
2. disregarding bag limits
3. illegal harvesting
1. poaching of abalone and rock lobster
2. fishing without a permit
3. nighttime trawling in inshore areas
4. supplying of false information
1. underreporting of catches
2. dishonest quota applications
5. holding multiple quotas, leading to effort subsidization
6. "paper" quotas and "cardboard" quotas (dishonest joint ventures)
7. targeting of bycatch

Some of these practices can be addressed through better management. In the proposals for the reform of the rights allocation process, the problem of paper quotas and cardboard quotas is addressed through higher application fees and a dedicated verification unit within MCM. The greater revenue to be generated by the tender system of rights allocation and increased levies can create greater capacity for enforcement as well, which will hopefully reduce instances of illegal harvesting. Strict penalties, such as asset forfeiture, are necessary for reinforcing the criminality of these acts and creating an incentive for compliance. Better enforcement and tougher penalties, however, are only part of the picture. For example, the incentive to poach lucrative abalone for sale to the Far Eastern market is so strong that it may require a more creative solution. The state may begin to treat abalone as it does gold, possessing the sole authority for purchase and auction of the resource.

There is some evidence of empowerment of the previously disadvantaged in South Africa’s fishing industry. In the quota allocation process, the government has favored companies that have "transformed," creating a significant financial incentive for established companies to promote blacks to managerial positions, create equity-sharing schemes, and participate in "joint ventures." The formation of at least one new company, Gugulethu Fishing, represents genuine black empowerment, with 80% empowerment sharing and plans for catching its share of the hake long-line TAC. Some argue that the fishing industry has already been adequately transformed.

Are the changes that have taken place adequate, or should there by further reorganization of the industry? Answering this question depends on the definition of "transformation," as well as a clear and accountable way to measure such changes. It is hard to declare a success for fishing industry transformation when its goals have never been clearly defined by the politicians. Companies and individuals have been very inventive in appearing to represent empowerment and the broadening of access, while instead simply protecting or promoting their own particular interests. The most notorious way this is done is through "paper quotas," whose holders apply for rights under the name of empowerment and then sell the rights back to the established companies without investing a cent in the industry. To combat these unfair and inefficient practices, management must develop capacity for verification of application data, along with clearly defining the goals of transformation.

A major goal of the MLRA was to broaden access to disadvantaged black and coloured fishers, but management schemes past and present have neglected a large number of fishermen from these very same constituencies. As yet, there is no formal recognition of the unique problems that face the thousands of "informal," and mostly coloured, fishermen that live towns or settlements all along South Africa’s coast. The benefits of "transformation" or "empowerment," through equity sharing, quota allocation, and promotion to higher levels of management or ownership, have been seen mostly within the established, capital-intensive, industrial sectors like the demersal, pelagic, and commercial rock lobster fisheries.

Given the lack of data on these coastal "informal" fishers, MCM funded a nation-wide survey to identify subsistence fishers, fishing areas, activities, and resources used by subsistence fishers. This was undertaken by a specially appointed Subsistence Fisheries Task Group (SFTG). The study identified 143 communities engaged in informal fishing of either a subsistence or small-scale nature, and estimated that there are about 20,000 households engaged in these activities, involving approximately 30,000 individual fishers. It was found that most fishers in these communities, at least in the Western Cape, could not qualify as subsistence fishers for the bulk of their activities. Rather, they are better categorized as "small-scale commercial fishermen". Although there has been almost no follow-up to the study, the work of the SFTG was at least a step in the right direction towards increasing communication and legitimizing the rights of this large population of fishers.

Abalone, rock lobster, and handline hake seem to be ideal fisheries for improving the livelihoods of these small-scale coastal commercial fishers. These communities represent some of the poorest people in South Africa, in which fishing is one of few sources of employment, and as such they should receive preferential rights to their neighboring inshore resources.

It should be noted that neither the "company model" nor the "community quota" is best adapted to fit the needs of these fishermen. Attempts to organize fishermen into companies OR co-operatives have failed for a number of reasons. For one, most fishermen simply want to fish the way they have for generations, and companies tend to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few individuals. Secondly, these fishermen are often illiterate or uneducated, and lack the skills necessary to apply for company quotas or create business plans.

For an example of the failure of the "company" model, one need only read the recent accounts of turmoil within the South African Commercial Fishermen’s Corporation, which applied for quotas on behalf of about 3000 disadvantaged fishermen from 25 Cape fishing cooperatives. Member fishermen allege that they have received no benefits or dividends since the corporation was established in 1997. The inequality between management and shareholders even came to blows recently, when frustrated fishermen attacked and looted a meeting of the company’s board of directors.

Another failed model, the "community quota," seems to assume some underlying cohesiveness in the fishing community, without respecting the individual rights of each fisher. The power structure, or organization, necessary for managing a community quota ends up disempowering its members.

Above all, these communities are suffering the bitter legacy of the apartheid

system of corruption, economic oppression, and violation of human rights. All possible

attempts should be made on the part of the government to recognise and enhance their opportunities to pursue a legitimate livelihood in the fishing industry, as well as to fulfill the needs of these communities for basic social services. Programs of community organizing or education about environmental and conservation issues can help provide the self-esteem and sense of stewardship necessary for a sustainable, local fishing economy. But recognition and empowerment of these communities as a sector entitled to participate in the harvesting of marine living resources is essential.

1. STATE OF THE RESOURCE

South Africa’s linefishery is in a state of crisis. Most of the fish species that were previously abundant and easily caught by handline in the nation’s inshore areas have been declared collapsed or overexploited. Collapsed species include silver kob (93.0% decline in annual catch per boat), geelbek (97.2%), carpenter (88.7%), chub mackerel (88.4%), seventyfour (99.9%), red steenbras (99.8%), and white stumpnose (73.2%). Almost all of the depleted species are warm or temperate, k-selected (longer-lived), bottom-dwelling species of the South African eastern seaboard, including several endemics. Large predatory species tend to be especially vulnerable. Those species that have proved resilient, like snoek and yellowtail, tend to exhibit shorter lifespans (less than 15 years) and nomadic movement patterns, presumably resulting in an unpredictable distribution and temporary refuge from fishermen in deeper waters. The state of the linefish resource can be partly attributed to the vulnerable life-history patterns of many species, but the stocks have also been depleted by many years of largely unrestricted fishing effort and notoriously bad compliance with regulations.

 

 

2. MANAGEMENT OF THE RESOURCE

The first attempts at regulating the linefishery came in 1940, when fairly arbitrary minimum size limits were established for selected species. In the decades that followed, a closed season for elf was established in KwaZulu-Natal and one for snoek in the Cape. In 1985, management finally realized that stocks were declining and needed to be regulated, and a two-tiered license system was set up to freeze effort at current levels. "A" licenses were given to commercial applicants and "B" licenses were given to "semi-commercial" fishers. Also, revised minimum size limits were set at the average size at maturity of the species, categories of perceived vulnerability were created, bag limits were set for commercial and recreational fishers, and national closed seasons were instituted for certain species. Still, a lack of biological and fisheries data meant that these regulations were based on somewhat subjective perceptions of vulnerability rather than quantitative evaluations. Although the permit system lost its legal validity six months after the passing of the MLRA in 1998, "A" and "B" permits have in practice been extended in lieu of any new management plan. The truth of the matter is that after 60 years of official management, the linefishery still remains largely unregulated.

Several different types of users are taking advantage of the chaos that currently exists in the fishery. There are an estimated 750,000 shore-based recreational anglers, taking an estimated per annum catch of about 500 tons. They are regulated through daily bag limits, although recent surveys indicate that most daily bags are too liberal and hardly limit effort on the target species, including those on the verge of collapse. Only 0.9% of shore-anglers are inspected each year, and many fishers (around 60%) remain ignorant of regulations or admit to having deliberately disobeyed the law at one time or another (about 40%).

Commercial inshore bottom trawlers are another user group. Currently, there are 4 operating in Natal, 10 in the Eastern Cape, and 20 in the South and Western Cape. In total, they may account for only about 100 tons of linefish caught per year. Onboard observer programs reveal that, except for snoek and silver kob, linefish are not found in significant numbers in the retained or discarded trawl catch. However, it should be noted that trawling tends to target mostly juveniles, which can have a detrimental effect out of proportion with the numbers caught.

Commercial beach seine netting also targets linefish, with about 40 active licenses in the country. Most of these licenses are for the annual sardine runs in KwaZulu-Natal, and seem to be operating at sustainable levels. However, the practices of those who operate in the Western Cape would appear to warrant review. Operators in False Bay net from a kilometer or two offshore, taking in a large number of fish several times a day. Some have been observed operating illegally at night, taking in thousands of fish. Their efforts are largely unregulated, and should be investigated further.

There are over 57,000 recreational ski-boats fishing South Africa’s waters, with anglers numbering anywhere from 70,000 to 100,150 and accounting for perhaps 20,000 tons annually. Hundreds of these recreational fishers actually sell their catches, some simply to cover the fuel costs of running the ski-boat and others to supplement their incomes. Recreational boat fishers are regulated through bag limits, but some bring home tons of fish during some parts of the year. Boat fishers in the Cape are inspected at a rate of 2.6 times per year.

Some estimates put the number of "A" licensed commercial fishermen at about 25,000, with about half of these being genuine commercial fishermen who make a living from the sea, and the other half being recreational fishermen who have obtained a commercial permit to supplement their other sources of income. The SFTG estimated that about 30,000 traditional fishers live in communities along the coast of South Africa. The majority of these informal fishers are unlicensed. Therefore, a conservative estimate of the number of commercial fishers is about 40,000. The commercial sector is responsible for landing around 100,000 tons of linefish annually.

Commercial fishers and recreational anglers who sell their catch are therefore responsible for the largest portion of the linefishing effort. There is no question that excessive effort from these sectors is responsible, at least in part, for the collapsed or overexploited status of many of the linefish stocks. The size of the commercial fleet was frozen at 1985 levels, but even then there were too many boats. Now, many permits issued to larger vessels have been split and given to multiple smaller boats, and this trend, combined the numbers of recreational fishers and unlicensed boats, has led to an increase over 1985 levels. Perhaps the most significant change in the sector has been the widespread adaptation of new technology: the use of light ski-boats with outboard motors. These boats are easily hitched to trucks and driven to productive areas, creating an extremely mobile and efficient fleet of harvesters. The commercial fleet is kept viable, despite the state of many stocks, by income from fisheries like that for snoek and hake. Neither species is particularly vulnerable to overexploitation, although given the amount of effort in these fisheries at present, commercial extinction cannot be ruled out. The viability and lucrative nature of these stocks finances the continued exploitation of collapsed or overexploited stocks.

Three specific changes to linefish management have been proposed or implemented in since the MLRA of 1998. First, it has been proposed that marine protected areas (MPAs) should be increased to 20% of the habitat in the next 10-15 years. This is the minimum amount of habitat that should be protected for a given species in order to prevent collapse of the fishery, according to international recommendations. Second, the fishery has been divided into three subsectors: handline hake, tuna, and traditional linefish. Rights for hake and tuna will be given out by a quota system. To minimize effort subsidization of the traditional linefishery, holders of hake or tuna quotas will not be allowed to fish for other linefish.

Third, a comprehensive Linefish Management Protocol (LMP) has been developed. The new LMP calls for a qualitative assessment of the stock status for each linefish species, and placement of each species into one of four management categories: under-exploited, optimally-exploited, over-exploited, or collapsed. Subsequent management action will be taken by increasing effort for under-exploited stocks, decreasing effort for over-exploited stocks, and complete or partial closure of collapsed stocks. Effort reduction in the linefishery will take the form of regulations such as minimum size limits, closed seasons, MPAs, daily bag limits, commercial bans, gear restrictions, or a moratorium on capture. A final aspect of the LMP is the proposed management structure, in which three separate groups are responsible for management of the linefishery.

The first is the Linefish Working Group (LWG), comprised of 8 scientists from MCM and other institutions. It is responsible for the formulation and scientific evaluation of linefish management recommendations. Its recommendations are reviewed by the second group, the South African Marine Linefish Management Association (SAMLMA), a group of scientists and representatives from all the commercial and recreational sectors in the fishery. SAMLMA works with the LWG to determine the most acceptable combination of regulations for all stakeholders involved. A third opinion is supplied by the Minister of DEAT’s Consultative Advisory Forum (CAF), comprised of 18 fisheries representatives and scientists and external to MCM.

1. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES

The division of the linefishery into separate subsectors is a necessary recognition of the diverse nature of the fishery. With proper compliance and enforcement, this system should significantly reduce subsidized effort in the traditional linefishery, at least in cases where the money is coming from hake or tuna. Effort subsidization from the snoek fishery will remain a problem. The regulation of the hake handline fishery is a necessary change, given the recent growth of this sector. Annual catches of hake by handline are conservatively estimated to be around 2500 to 3000 tons, and 5500 tons of the 2000 hake TAC were kept in reserve in an effort to accommodate handline catches.

The development of a comprehensive LMP is also long overdue. Qualitative assessment of linefish stocks will make subsequent management strategies more responsive to the actual situation. However, the LMP provides inadequate details on how such management will be made effective and legitimate. First of all, there is the problem of how to reduce effort for those species that are collapsed or over-exploited. Reduction of effort requires stricter regulations and the possible revocation of licenses. When considering stricter regulations, one must keep in mind the currently unregulated nature of the linefishery. The mindset still exists that the fish in the ocean are free for all who wish to take them, and only a comprehensive public education campaign will raise awareness among the users about the endangered nature of the fishery. And ultimately, the success of new regulations depends on increased compliance and enforcement.

The LMP also lacks clear criteria for who should be given fishing rights. The need for reducing the number of handline permits is clear, but any attempts at effort reduction will be met with resistance, particularly from those who have invested in the industry by, for instance, purchasing a boat. Creative solutions to these socio-economic problems must be part of any comprehensive management protocol for creating a sustainable fishery.

One of the themes that surfaces time and again in the industry is the need for government to establish better lines of communication with stakeholders. SAMLMA is the proposed co-management institution for the linefishery, responsible for conveying the recommendations and opinions of the users of the linefish resource to government. The trouble with this is that SAMLMA is not representative of the sector. Members of SAMLMA are mainly scientists and recreational fishermen. There is low representation from the commercial fishery, and almost no informal fishermen are involved.

The following would appear desirable to help arrest the current decline in the linefishery:

1. Regulatory measures.
1. Commercial licenses should be made area-specific, in order to curb overexploitation due to the mobility of the fleet. Special venues must be identified and evaluated for the appropriate number of commercial boats, according to need, availability of fish, and availability of infrastructure. An official must then be appointed to manage each venue.
2. Stricter bag limits should be imposed and enforced for many species, as recommended in recent assessments of the linefishery.
2. Enforcement.
1. The needs for enforcement should be met through the establishment of a well-paid, accountable inspectorate, as well as through increased coordination among existing law enforcement agencies.
2. Part-time commercial effort and heavy exploitation by recreational fishers should be stopped, so as to preserve the bulk of the fish stocks for legitimate commercial operations. No boat should operate without a permit, and catch data should be required, in order to compile accurate information on the fishery.
3. Bad practices like those of the commercial beach seine netters in False Bay need to be investigated and, if possible, stopped. Those who do not meet fishing regulations ought to have their licenses revoked.
3. Transformation: Special treatment for impoverished coastal communities. The new hake handline permits should, to the degree possible, be given to impoverished coastal communities. The application process must take into consideration the needs of fishermen in these communities. The fishermen may have trouble filling out the applications or paying application fees. MCM needs to provide people to go into these communities, find out who the fishermen are, and make sure they receive appropriate quotas.
4. Broadening base of SAMLMA. In order to be seen by the fishermen as a legitimate co-management institution, SAMLMA must open itself up to all types of users, even if this means actively recruiting members.

Public Education. There is a great need for greater public knowledge about the state of the linefishery, the nature of the regulations, and the justification for them. A comprehensive public education campaign should be designed in consultation with relevant stakeholders and promptly initiated.

The factors behind overexploitation are complex, and ultimately, the creation of sustainable fisheries in South Africa will require questioning deep-rooted assumptions about the role of natural resources in a global, industrial economy. The demands that are placed upon fisheries and marine ecosystems in South Africa are the result of a flawed pattern of resource use, originating primarily in the countries of the economic North (Europe, Japan, the United States) that has been actively and energetically dictated to the rest of the world, regardless of regional differences and traditional economies. After decimating their own fish stocks, these Northern countries are increasingly looking to the waters of the Third World to supply their insatiable demand for seafood.

These global pressures are manifest in South Africa’s primarily export fishing industry. First, South Africans themselves, whether companies or individuals, respond to the general export market demand by increasing their fishing effort and compromising the resource. The hake trade with Spain and the tuna market to Japan are two examples. Second, foreigners obtain direct access to South Africa’s marine living resources, either through legal or illegal fishing by foreign fleets, or through "joint ventures" created by foreign companies in order to catch a share of the country’s quotas. Some foreigners are also involved criminally, such as the link between abalone poaching and Far Eastern organized crime syndicates. Lucrative exports like hake, tuna, or abalone, face the most intense pressure from foreigners and their domestic counterparts.

The South African economy and ecosystems hold up better under these international pressures than other nearby countries like Namibia, where the aggressive pursuance of access agreements amounts to a kind of economic neo-colonialism, or Senegal, where foreign trawlers from Europe and Asia are decimating fish stocks and often illegally interfering with traditional fishing operations. South Africa has been involved in industrial fishing for decades, and its relatively stable economy and political situation, at least in comparison with other African nations, decrease its susceptibility to the extreme pressures faced by other developing countries. However, the overall pattern amounts to a plundering of the natural resources and non-human life of South Africa by the wealthy countries of the world.

The question begs to be asked: does South Africa and its people benefit from these practices? Most economists would argue that all exports improve the balance of trade and raise the country’s level of production, as well as its GNP. Presumably, this means more industrial development, jobs and poverty alleviation, and subsequently more money to the government and an increase in social services such as education, infrastructure, and environmental regulation. The assumption is that through all these avenues, the overall quality of life will improve for the citizens of the country. These economists are forgetting that the development of an industrial economy tends to create problems at a faster rate than can be addressed by the government of developing countries and economic forces alone. The promotion of an industrial economy tends to erode traditional economies and long-standing cultural institutions that provide basic social services for free. Full integration into the global free market economy results in fewer jobs in domestic industries rather than more, since international competition requires increased technology and efficiency that reduce the number of workers needed. By following the corporate pattern, wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, those who are already in power or new opportunists, rather than benefiting the majority of citizens.

Some will argue that all these negative aspects of industrial development will be balanced by benefits in the long run, and that full conversion to a Northern economic model, and integration into a free-market global economy, are both necessary and inevitable. But they are not taking account of what any environmental scientist knows for fact, that the biophysical systems of the earth, upon which any economy is based, will not support such changes. In the fishing industry, the only exploitable species left in many parts of the world, including South Africa, are those that can sustain heavy annual losses and lend themselves well to government regulation. The long-term future of even these species in uncertain, while human use of the rest is compromised as long as industrial fishing persists, with some stocks not likely to rebuild any time in the foreseeable future. Although the precise ecosystem effects of fishing have proved difficult to model, we can be assured that we are effecting profound changes to life the oceans through altered trophic energy flow, decreased biodiversity, and habitat destruction. The implications of these changes for the future of marine life remain to be seen, but they are certain not to be positive.

Ultimately, the Third World or "developing" countries need to ask themselves if the economic productivist model of the North is what they really want to strive towards. It has been said that if all the countries of the world had the same levels of production and consumption as Europe or the United States, it would take five or six planets to provide all the raw materials and sinks for waste and pollution. Across the world, ecosystems are damaged and the poor are further marginalized by the development policies of institutions such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. Global warming and erratic weather patterns, most likely caused by the emissions of Northern fossil fuel economies, threaten to wreak havoc in myriad areas of natural and human life. The countries of the economic North have made many mistakes, with far-reaching global consequences, and hopefully they will have the good sense to use their resources and brainpower to make the necessary changes in their own practices. But the burden falls upon the Third World to resist the destructive aspects of the Northern economic model and create viable alternatives within healthy domestic economies.

There is great potential for South Africa to set an example for the rest of the developing world. South Africa has cities with First World infrastructure, relative political and economic stability, a wealth of human resources in its population, and a spirit of leadership and change stemming from its years of struggle. Perhaps most importantly, South Africa possesses a government that seems willing, at least on paper, to work towards the overarching goals of sustainability and social equity. The Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP), although still looking through the Northern lens of economic growth, aims to accomplish improvements in quality of life and the redistribution of wealth. Some of its goals are to ensure equitable access to natural resources, to improve access to marine resources for impoverished coastal communities, to provide safe and healthy living and working environments, to support the expansion of the small- and micro-enterprise sector, and to expand tourism and integrate it into local development programs. All of these directives fall into the portfolio of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, and it remains to be seen if this arm of the government will be given the capacity it deserves in order to foster viable alternatives to industrial use of the country’s natural resources.

The government of South Africa has the responsibility and the potential to: combat the pressures of foreign demand and direct foreign use; safeguard domestic industry and traditional fishermen; and protect a natural national heritage. MCM must limit the catch of certain species no matter what the demand, foreign or domestic. To the degree that rising prices make illegal harvesting of certain species increasingly attractive, the government will have to create tougher enforcement mechanisms. As for legal foreign fishing, South Africa must resist entering into international agreements (such as trade agreements) that open national waters up to foreign interests. For illegal foreign fishing, there is no solution except rigorous enforcement. DEAT and Parliament must oversee the quota allocation process to be certain that foreign fleets do not get into the industry under the cover of "joint ventures" with South African companies. Poaching can only be deterred through strict enforcement and severe criminal penalties. Lastly, The government should, wherever possible, promote sustainable alternatives to the current models of export industry.

Tourism is often touted as the country’s best hope for creating jobs and strengthening the economy in a sustainable fashion. But tourism contains a deadly paradox. Travelers come to South Africa to experience those aspects of the country that are unique; otherwise, they might as well stay in their own country. These attractions include unspoiled areas of natural beauty, as well as the country’s rich heritage of history, art, and human culture. One can argue that these things are the heart and soul of a country, the components of its national identity, much more than the shape of its international politics or its levels of production. The paradox lies in the fact that these are the very aspects of the country most changed or threatened by tourism and entry into the world market. An economy based on tourism is subject to the whims of global consumer culture. While local culture and environment are packaged and sold to foreigners along a well-traveled tourist track, the rest of the country sees a proliferation of shopping malls, brand names, and new developments that change the natural landscape. The many pitfalls of mismanaged tourism include environmental degradation from increased use, conflict between locals over scarce resources, loss of cultural identity, and loss of local control over resources. A successful tourism industry depends on maintenance of natural environment and local culture, the very things it tends to degrade.

As long as these negative aspects of tourism are avoided, it remains a viable solution to some of South Africa’s development challenges. Tourism could play are large role in the future of South Africa’s fishing industry. Even now, recreational fishing is so popular that annual investment therein is though to exceed the annual wholesale value of all the country’s marine resources. In a recent study, shore-angling was found to contribute 76% of the GGP attributable to the South African linefishery. In Florida, where commercial fishing has been banned from inshore areas, commercial boats have become recreational fishing vessels, catering to tourists who end up spending 30 times more to catch their own fish than they would have paid to buy the fish in a store. A coastal economy based on tourism, with its restaurants, hotels, and resorts, would ensure a steady demand for fresh fish caught by local traditional fishermen. Both local markets for fish and emerging markets for eco-tourism depend on the protection and maintenance of local, indigenous fish stocks.

Two years after the passing of the MLRA, the country still has a long way to go towards fulfilling the Act’s ideals. The following are some recommended steps to be taken:

Political leadership. The politicians must continue to do everything in their power to delegate responsibility, streamline and build the capacity of the pertinent departments, and stabilize the fishing industry. Bringing stability and rationality to the industry should be the short-term priorities. However, it is crucially important that the long-term objectives of the MLRA with regards to both sustainability of the resource and transformation (broadening of access and empowerment of non-white participants) must guide the process. Transformation should be "defined" by reference to specific targets for specific timeframes.

Management and regulation. The scientists at MCM and the others responsible for management, although forced to operate with severe limitations, must be willing to rise to the challenges before them. Management of a natural resource, especially one as complex and crucial as marine life, is no longer simply a scientific operation. Proper management requires knowledge of the users of the resource as well as the flexibility to respond to changing social realities. Socio-economic data must be gathered along with biological data such as fish populations and spawning ratios. For example, in order to legitimize and regulate the practices of "informal" fishing communities along the coast, a team of surveyors should be assigned to gather the necessary socio-economic data.

As has already begun, established industry stakeholders should play a role in sectoral planning for the industry.

Subsidized and/or non-commercial effort must be reduced for critically endangered species or sectors.

As recommended by the SFTG, a new subcategory, within commercial fishing, should be created to accommodate small-scale commercial fisheries. If possible, significant rights for exploitation of rock lobster, abalone, and handline hake should be set aside for fishers in these communities

Communication. The challenges of management demand both improved coordination between officials and a heightened sense of personal responsibility on the part of all who share management responsibilities. Better, often more formal, channels of communication must be established within DEAT, among higher levels of government (i.e., Parliament), and between the politicians and the managers with industry stakeholders.

Corruption. The responsibility to manage marine resources, whether at a local level or from an office in the city, is a responsibility not only to all the people directly involved in the industry, but also to the nation as a whole. Elimination of corruption within the industry should be a national priority. All efforts towards implementation of the MLRA ideals of sustainability and transformation will fail if critical parties in government and/or industry are illegally or unethically acting in their own self-interest.

Public Education. Public awareness about the threatened state of the resources, especially the linefishery, must be increased. This can only be accomplished through a focused and concerted public education programme.

* * *

 

It is the judgment of this author that the fishing industry of South Africa presents a real potential for constructive change. The old system was corrupt and unfair. Hopefully, we will be able to look back on the current confusion and instability as growing pains on the road to greater equity and sustainability.