The “Big Three” problems in South African Fisheries by Anton Kruger
The “Big Three” problems in South African Fisheries: Amongst conservation circles much thought has gone into the curbing of illegal fishing.I might have somewhat of a unique perspective on this matter, since, while at heart aconservationist, I am also a struggling fisherman in the commercial linefish, abalone and westcoast rock lobster sectors. I am however not a “bunny hugger”, but believe in the sustainableharvesting of our natural resources.The way I see it, right now, the root of the problem in South Africa’s fisheries lies in the following things:
- unviable quotas for the commercial fishermen
- massive amount of paper quotas in all sectors
- ineffective enforcing
These 3 things are interconnected like a balloon partially filled with water. Squeeze the one side
and the other side bulges out between your fingers.
For instance, strain the commercial fishermen by giving them unviable quotas, and many of
them will poach to make ends meet. Since anti poaching measures are largely ineffective, they
will continue to do so indefinitely, thereby systematically destroying the resource.
Others will sell their vessels, find employment and arrange to have their small quotas harvested
for them, thereby turning into paper quota holders.
On the other hand, take away the paper quotas from all sectors and you free up more fish for
the commercial fishermen, thereby reducing the incentive to poach and relieving pressure on
the resource.
Some of these things need to be qualified.
My definition of a “commercial fisherman” is someone who takes on the burden of financing and
maintaining a vessel, towing vehicle and fishing equipment; and spends most of his/her days on
the ocean searching for his/her quarry. Unfortunately our resources are far too depleted to
accommodate anyone else.
No disrespect is meant to the permanent fishing crews- or the hard life they live. Generally they
get compensated relatively well while not carrying the responsibility or the financial risk. For
instance, in the linefish sector they earn half of what they catch. When catches are small, they
often do better than the quota holder, who makes no profit until the fuel cost has been covered.
The department unfortunately does not make this distinction, and gives exactly the same size
quotas to those that once a year hop on someone else’s vessel to watch the crew catch “their”
quota. These quota holders do not carry the financial burden and risk of the vessel or
equipment, not to mention all the red tape involved. In fact, many quota holders do not even put
foot on the vessel.
Strangely enough the department demonstrates a bias on the issue of paper quotas. Officially
they frown on paper quotas, but in reality they accommodate them in their permit conditions. It
would be a simple matter to correct.
From a purely financial perspective the actions of a paper quota holder makes perfect sense,
since most quotas are far too small to justify buying and maintaining a vessel and towing
vehicle. Our marine resources are unfortunately far too depleted, and the fishermen that do the
actual fishing are financially far too strained to carry this extra burden. Remember they are
harvesting someone else’s quota for a fraction of the value of the catch, and this is seldom
viable. They often “supplement” their income by poaching or hiding undersized fish, crayfish and
abalone on the vessel while “officially” catching someone else’s quota.
Taking away paper quotas will generally not increase poaching, since these people often are not
fishermen, they do not have the means or skills to poach and frequently have other
employment.
There is another scenario where a quota holder owns a vessel but never steps foot on it. He/she
has a crew that does the fishing for him/her. These are not fishers but businessmen/women.
This should also not be allowed, and is just another variation on the paper quota theme. The
quota holder should be involved in every aspect of their industry, which should include catching
their own fish.
Large companies that appear to have some sort of a “sweetheart” relationship with the
department should also be mentioned. In the West Coast Rock Lobster(WCRL) Sector, Oceana
and Premier fishing are excellent examples. In 2016 they were conveniently “overlooked” when
our fishing rights were “redistributed”, and they were issued with quotas several magnitudes
larger than any other quota holders. A lot of fishermen could (and should) be accommodated
from these resources.
Regarding the so-called “Small Scale Fisheries.” Traditionally companies have been the
preferred vehicle of paper quota holders, since by its very nature it allows for those that do
nothing to reap the financial benefits from fishing. My research indicates that the Small Scale
Fishery, which consists of a huge number of “co-ops”, is absolutely saturated with non-fishers.
While still in its infancy, this fishery promises to be an absolute can of worms, with many
irregularities already becoming known.
It has also caused massive division amongst coastal communities, since small scale and
commercial fishers are now aggressively competing for a very limited resource. This is purely
the doing of our fisheries department trying to enact some communist wet dream. Also
concerning is the allegations that the department is taking a generous piece of the small scale
pie for themselves.
In my opinion, the real fishers in the small-scale fishery should be identified and given individual
commercial quotas, after which this fishery should be closed down permanently.
The next point l want to make is that all poachers are not equal. You get fishermen that will
poach to put food on the table, and will mostly stop their illegal activities if their quotas are viable
and there is a reasonable amount of enforcement. They are easily dealt with by giving them a
viable quota. The greater problem is those driven by greed, gangsterism or addiction. Crime and
violence has become a way of life for them. The only way to deal with these individuals are
unfortunately to remove them from the system. Many need rehabilitation from drug/alcohol
abuse and some need to be behind bars permanently.
Lastly, I want to mention ineffective enforcement. Many things can be done, but I will mention
only one. Since most poaching happens off vessels, the simplest thing to do that potentially has
the greatest impact is slipway control and monitoring. There are relatively few places where a
vessel can launch, and by policing and monitoring these points 24 hours of the day you could
make a huge impact on illegal fishing. Certainly there are ways around this, but not being able
to launch and land freely will frustrate poachers and act as a deterrent. If a slipway cannot be
policed due to aggressive poachers, it should be closed down by mechanical means. Another
option is periodically closing a slipway by mechanical means, for instance during the early hours
of night, when most poaching occurs.
These ideas have been forwarded to both the minister and the department. Let’s see if the DA
can step up to the plate, and correct where the ANC messed up
Sardines and Sighting Maps
Channels
The Sardine News – neva miss a single sardine
FishBazaruto – 1000 pounds plus
MYDO Tackle Talk – highly technical sport fishing
Surf Launching Southern Africa – getting out there safely
Water Woes – complain about your municipality here
Websites
umzimkulu.co.za – everything Umzimkulu
umzimkuluadrenalin.co.za – will get you right out and onto the edge
thesardine.co.za – never miss a single sardine
masterwatermen.co.za – news from under water
fishbazaruto.com – dreams
brucifire.co.za – surf retorts
