Feike Natural Resource Management Advisers

Minister Denies WC contributes 80% to Fisheries

2012-03-02T02:37:00.002-08:00

The Minister of Fisheries yesterday flatly denied that the Western Cape accounts for some 80% of commercial fish landings and activity in the country. Her motivation for the unsubstantiated denial is based on her sudden desire to move the administration of fisheries from Cape Town to Pretoria. The depth of her (and those of her advisers and senior officials) ignorance and lack of knowledge is extremely profound.

According to the most recent FAO data on SA fish landings by region /area (and this will be data supplied by her very own department!), the Western Cape in fact accounts for no less than 95.7% of all commercial fish landings (see FAO data table below). We do admit that since 2004/2005 there have been significant migrations of pilchards (for example) further east and the expansion of the squid fishery which is now largely based in the Eastern Cape. This would have contributed to a shift in fisheries economic activity to regions such as Port Elizabeth. This fact is supported by the reduction in fishing economic activity on the West Coast in towns like St Helena and Saldanha for example. On the flip side, fisheries such as the KZN Prawn Trawl fishery based in KwaZulu-Natal has all but collapsed with little or no prawn trawling taking place any longer.

The tuna long line fishery which could have provided an economic boon to Richards Bay, Durban, Port Nolloth and Port Elizabeth has essentially contracted and South Africa's tuna long line fishery is in serious trouble as quota holders cannot even attract foreign vessels and skills required to harvest these tunas due to the Minister's own bureaucratic bungling, ensuring that obstacles remain firmly in place scaring off foreign partnerships and investors which are desperately needed.

So Minister, your populist rant about poor people being denied access to fisheries is caused solely by your own bungling. Why dont you ask the Port Nolloth community why they cannot even get one of their 5 tuna long line fishing permits onto a vessel? To date, South Africa continues to bungle and drag its feet failing to negotiate a larger Souther Bluefin tuna allocation from CCSBT. So we are granted a paltry 40 tons of SBT which is one of the most valuable of all tunas sold on the Japanese market.

I repeat. This Minister and her bungling officials remain the greatest threat to effective and efficient fisheries management in this country. Instead of mouthing off populist and ill-informed rants about "previous governments" and "spreading fish across the country", this Minister should try and learn a bit about fisheries management and she could start by employing some professional experts to advise her and to run the Fisheries Branch. It does not help when the Minister's Special Adviser is an education specialist and the head of the Fisheries Branch is the current senior administrator in the office of the DDG.

In closing, the Minister may want to "apply her mind" to the South African Country profile map on the FAO website (ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/fcp/en/FI_CP_ZA.pdf). This may help her and her advisers picture why the bulk of all commercial and recreational fishing takes place from the Western Cape Province.

The table below is taken from the Food and Agriculture Organisation's website (www.fao.org).

Landing sites (from North West to South and East)
Annual landings
Main fisheries/species
Approx. Tons
%
Port Nolloth
1 200
0.2
Rock lobster/linefish/demersal
Lamberts Bay
31500
5.8
Pelagic fishery/some rock lobster
St Helena Bay
153 000
28.3
Pelagic fishery – anchovy and pilchard
Saldanha Bay
120 000
22.2
Pelagic & demersal some line and rock lobster.
Cape Town
115000
21.3
Demersal - some rock lobster and linefish
Hout Bay
48 000
8.9
Pelagic/demersal/rock lobster/tuna/linefish
Kalk Bay
2 300
0.4
Pilchard/Linefish, rock lobster
Hermanus
2 000
0.4
Abalone/linefish/rock lobster/shark
Gansbaai
23000
4.3
Pelagic/demersal/shark
Mossel Bay
22 000
4.1
Demersal/sole/handline/pilchard
Port St Francis
7 000
1.3
Squid and linefish
Port Elizabeth
11 000
2.0
Demersal/squid/handline/pilchard
East London
1 000
0.2
Linefish
Durban
1 000
0.7
Linefish
Total
538 000
100
All fisheries

The Minister's response to the DA elicits feedback

2012-03-01T10:22:00.003-08:00

Our posting below has a elicited some of the most hilarious commentary which has not been kind to our foolish Minister of Fisheries.

One of the best responses has come from a leading international fisheries scientist who prefers that his name not be published. He states:

"My advice in this matter to your Minister (care of Mark Twain): Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".

A former fisheries minister states:

"Normally such ministerial statement would be something concocted by Evita se Perron or other diabolically funny comedian in order to ridicule and offend someone. And we're dealing with a reality show! Very hard to take in. Is there NOBODY around the poor witless minister who can protect her against herself?"

Another comment received from a Southern African journalist:

"Waiting in anticipation for the announcement of a tender for FISH WHISPERERS to convince the fish species to relocate and distribute themselves fairly across the entire coast of SA!"

Fisheries Minister issues Statement on moving Fisheries to PTA

2012-03-01T02:29:00.002-08:00

The Fisheries Minister today issued a statement in response to the statement issued by the DA yesterday about the proposed relocation of the fisheries branch to Pretoria.

In defending her proposal to move the fisheries branch to Pretoria, the Minister states that -

"Van Dalen's (DA Shadow Deputy Minister for Fisheries) claim that 80 percent of commercial fishing activity took place in the coastal region of the Western Cape was both untrue and unsustainable.

"Yes, historically the previous government concentrated commercial fishing in the Western Cape [and] created this artificial strength," she said.

In the process, KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape were under-developed and the Northern Cape completely ignored.

If the playing field was levelled and fisheries spread across the country, the Western Cape would represent far less than 80 percent of commercial farming.

It was also important to note that the fishing stocks were depleted in the Western Cape and resources were being spread to other parts of the country, including in the rivers for aquaculture."

The Minister's statement is so farcical and far-removed from reality that it boggles the mind! Her statement simply further confirms how removed she is from understanding fisheries management.

Is she suggesting that the "previous" government forced our commercial marine fish species to congregate in the waters off the Western Cape province and that is why commercial fishing is concentrated in the Western Cape (which she incidentally denies initially!).

Is she suggesting that by relocating the Fisheries Branch to Pretoria where all other national government departments are based, that somehow the fish will all decide to swim and live in waters off the Eastern Cape, Kwa-Zulu Natal and Northern Cape so that these provinces are not "ignored"? Is she suggesting that by relocating fisheries to Pretoria, her dysfunctional and failing department will miraculously succeed?

Minister stop being an national embarrassment!

The reason why 80% of all commercial fishing takes place in the Western Cape (and yes this is a fact which you cannot just deny because it does not suite your political ideology!) is because - wait for it - the bulk of all commercial fish species are found in waters off this province! Its not a Democratic Alliance conspiracy! And apartheid is not to blame either!

Blame evolution, God, global warming, ocean currents including that damn horrible Benguela Current which is just so darn productive with all that upwelling nonsense which keeps fish happy and unfairly discriminates against the Eastern Cape and Kwa-Zulu Natal!

So Minister, you cant "level the playing fields" and "spread fisheries across the country"! Perhaps, the Western Cape must start demanding "equitable" access to the Northern Cape's abundant marine diamond fields; And what about all that gold unfairly located in Gauteng- we want gold "spread across the country"!

And Minister, why are Western Cape based fisheries depleted now? Is it because your department has hopelessly failed to combat poaching of line fishes, lobsters and abalone? And if these fisheries are so depleted what are your doing to ensure their recovery? Your department's fancy plans and presentations to Parliament are completely silent on this. Are you planning to expand river-based aquaculture to such an extent that it would "level the commercial playing fields"?

What species of river fish are you going to farm in such large quantities and in which river systems? Are there markets for these species? Or don't you care or even know? Again, none of these plans are evident from any of your department's plans or presentations.

Do you know that South Africa's total farmed abalone production - which is by far the most valuable (and almost entirely located in the Western Cape!) has stagnated at about 1000 tons (worth more than R270 million annually), primarily because of demand stagnation? Our entire freshwater (ie rivers and dams) aquaculture production stands at a mere 1,200 tons worth a paltry R43 million annually.

Our commercial fisheries produced approximately 800,000 tons of fish in 2010, worth more than R5 billion of which some 80% were landed, processed in and marketed from the Western Cape.

Minister, short of convincing fish stocks to migrate to other provinces (is that not what Jimmy Manyi once suggested, albeit not about fish?), the fact is that the Western Cape will remain the heart and sole of commercial and recreational fishing in this country and no amount of foolish and ideologically warped thinking will change that.

Finally, the Minister fails to address any of the substantive criticisms raised about her ridiculous proposal to move fisheries to Pretoria. For one she does not explain how fisheries will be practically managed from land-locked Pretoria (even if all other government departments are based there - though none are responsible for fisheries); she is silent on the transfer of some 700 staff from Cape Town to Pretoria and related costs; she is silent on why this proposal is not in any of the department's multi-year plans or why she made no mention of it in her budget speech especially since the costs of such a move would be astronomical.

Or is this ridiculous proposal just a quick after-thought to detract from the Sekunjalo tender debacle and the many questions she must still answer?

DA issues statement on moving Fisheries to Pretoria

2012-02-29T06:50:00.001-08:00

This statement was issued by the Democratic Alliance's, Pieter van Dalen, DA Deputy Spokesperson on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (see www.da.org.za)

Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Tina Joemat-Pettersson, in her infinite wisdom, has decided that the best way to turn around the performance of the Marine and Coastal Management Unit is to relocate it to Pretoria from Cape Town where it is currently based.

Exactly how taking a coastal management unit away from the coast will help is difficult to fathom. Talk about a fish out of water.

Do we need to remind Minister Joemat-Pettersson that 80% of commercial fishing activity takes place in the coastal region of the Western Cape?

Does she expect fishermen to travel to Pretoria each time they have to apply for a permit?

And what will happen to the 7 00 Marine and Coastal Management staff members who currently reside in Cape Town?

This has clearly not been thought through properly.

The evidence is mounting that Minister Joemat-Pettersson is struggling to manage a portfolio that is so crucial to the quality of life of all South Africans. Her tenure has been marked by a series of gaffes and scandals including:

• A R1.6 million personal hotel bill last year;

• flights to Sweden, where she has a holiday home but stayed in hotels – she failed to declare this or to disclose that she had met with Swedish Arms manufacturer, SAAB;

• the appointment of a close family relation in a directorship position in her Department; and

• the awarding of an R800 million tender to Sekunjalo Consortium, which was clearly incapable of doing the job, but whose directors are politically connected.

The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is clearly in chaos. Our scarce marine resources, which provide a livelihood for thousands of people, cannot be allowed to dissipate just because of one Minister’s unwillingness or inability to lead.

Fisheries should move to Pretoria!

2012-02-28T21:31:00.003-08:00

The Minister of Fisheries proposed yesterday in Parliament that the Fisheries Branch which has always been located in Cape Town be moved to Pretoria! Apparently she thinks that fisheries considers itself a provincial function of sorts and not a national function! Had the minister of fisheries remotely understood fisheries, she would know that more than 80% of all commercial fishing activity happens in the Western Cape! Or did I miss something and do we land fish in Gauteng these days?

More than 90% of all recreational fishing takes place in the Western Cape.

Minister, please explain to us how on earth will fishery managers regulate and manage fisheries from Pretoria?

How will liaison and co-ordination with the fishing industry (which is based in the Western Cape, by the way, minister) take place? How will the scientific and management working group meetings take place with the fishing industry? How will compliance be regulated on the slipways and landings sites? How will administration take place. In any case, all permit applications and other regulatory matters have to take place in person in Cape Town at the offices of the Fisheries Branch. This requires fishermen in any case to travel from the Southern Cape coast, West Coast, Eastern Cape and Northern Cape to Cape Town to hand in applications or appoint Cape Town based consultants to lodge applications on their behalf. Will fishermen have to travel to Pretoria each time they have to make a fishing permit application or apply for export permits. We issue 3000 fishing permits annually and more than 12000 export permits annually. The last time I checked, there were no fisheries experts and administrative consultants based in Pretoria!

Will managers fly down to Cape Town 20 times a month and stay at five star hotels? Will you relocate all 700 staff from Cape Town to Pretoria?

It is frightening how this woman repeatedly spews out nonsense on such a consistent basis! It is inconceivable and an indictment on us that we allow such levels of idiocy and utter stupidity to govern us.

Minister! Do us all a favour and resign.

WHAT NOW THAT THE SEKUNJALO TENDER BONANZA HAS BEEN CANCELLED?

2012-02-27T06:01:00.002-08:00

So what does the Minister and her department do now (besides wipe more egg from their collective faces) that the Sekunjalo tender has been withdrawn/cancelled/trashed?

One option of course is that the tender invitation gets a make-over and potential service providers submit fresh tenders.

Another option would be to actually make use our Navy! Since the procurement of the infamous Corvettes, the Navy has been extremely interested in assisting with combatting IUU fishing on behalf of the Fisheries Branch.

The Navy surely has the skills and resources to manage, maintain and deploy our fisheries patrol and research vessels? In addition to providing the professional skills to man our vessels, their management of our vessels could also serve a broader coast-guard function, combatting piracy and the growing drug-trade by sea.

Not to mention that the Fisheries Department could immediately save a ton of money (or a billion to be more precise)!

How the Sekunjalo Tender Scandal Exploded

2012-02-26T22:43:00.007-08:00

On 27 November 2011, Feike published an article on this BLOG questioning how, just two days previously, the Minister of Fisheries could have conceivably allocated an R800 million vessel management and maintenance tender to Sekunjalo Investments, which owns Premier Fishing.

Premier Fishing holds a range of extremely substantial fishing quotas in a number of South Africa's largest and most lucrative fishing sectors. Premier Fishing, for example, is the single largest holder of South Coast rock lobster fishing quotas.

We questioned how it was possible that a fishing company could be granted a tender to oversee fisheries compliance patrols and fisheries research. The shocking conflict of interest was plain for all to see except Sekunjalo and the Minister.

On 26 November 2011, the Mail & Guardian published a separate and unrelated story about Premier Fishing's decision to pay for the personal security costs of another Cabinet Minister.

Soon thereafter, the Democratic Alliance, together with a host of media, repeatedly highlighted the clear conflict of interest the tender allocation created.

By December, the incumbent service provider, Smit Amandla, had begun legal proceedings against both the Minister and Sekunjalo seeking to interdict the Minister from proceeding to implement her decision to allocate the tender to Sekunjalo.

However, the key reason for the decision to backtrack from the original tender decision would have to have been the February 2012 expose by the Democratic Alliance of a Forensic Report commissioned by the Fisheries Department in 2011 which was kept secret. This report was damning and confirmed that -

There was no evidence that the bid adjudication committee even considered the major conflict of interest in awarding a contract to Sekunjalo. The qualifications of the people on the committee also could not be verified.
The report acknowledges the apparent conflict of interest, repetitively raised by the public.
Premier Fishing, Premier Fishing Consortium and Sekunjalo Marine Services all submitted bids for the same tender, citing one common annual report as their supporting documentation.

The fact is the forensic report, coupled with the interdict application (which Sekunjalo failed to even oppose) would require too many difficult (if not impossible) questions to be answered.

However, a number of very difficult questions remain to be answered publicly by the Minister. For example, who were the members of the evaluation committee; what were their technical skills and qualifications to adjudicate such a complex tender; have they and their family members been subjected to lifestyle audits before and after the adjudication of the tender; what role did the Minister and officials in her department play in this debacle; why did Sekunjalo effectively submit three tenders for the same bid and what were each of these bid amounts; why did the Minister rush to announce the decision when the forensic report highlighted these significant concerns?

The Sekunjalo tender debacle once again exposes a department and Minister lost at sea. Perhaps we need to be reminded that an ANC member of the Fisheries Parliamentary Portfolio Committee has described this department as being "dysfunctional".

Tanzania Goes Heavy on IUU

2012-02-26T08:06:00.001-08:00

This story is taken from www.stopillegalfishing.com

On the 23rd of February 2012, almost three years since its arrest, the High Court of the Republic of Tanzania delivered its verdict in the case of the fishing vessel Tawariq 1; guilty. The Court ordered the vessel to be forfeited to the Government. The Captain of the fishing vessel, Mr. Hsu Chin Tai and the ship's agent Mr. Zhao Hanquing were found guilty of fishing without a licence in the Tanzanian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). They have been sentenced to pay 1 billion Tanzanian shillings each (USD 625,975) or go to jail for twenty years. The Captain was also fined a further of 20 billion Tanzanian shillings (USD 12,519,500) for the offence of pollution.

On the 8th of March 2009, the Tawariq 1, supposedly registered to Oman, was intercepted 180 nautical miles off the Tanzanian coast, and subsequently arrested by a South African Environmental Protection vessel EPV Sarah Baartman. The vessel had no flag visible or hoisted, the radar was switched off, no license or permit was produced and no port of registry was provided. Multiple names were found on the vessel. The name No.68 Bu Young was found embossed on the port and starboard bows as well as on the stern of the vessel and at the upper part of the wheel house. The name Tawariq was painted over the name Buyoung in several places on the hull. Life-rings, the service record of one of the life-rafts and other documents indicated the name of a Korean fishing vessel, namely No.11 Insung. The vessel that uses long-lines, was caught with more than 200 tonnes of fresh and frozen tuna on board.

Read the full story on http://www.stopillegalfishing.com/sifnews_article.php?ID=79

DA Statement on Sekunjalo Tender Withdrawal

2012-02-26T07:03:00.002-08:00

The statement below was issued to day by the Democratic Alliance.

The DA welcomes the withdrawal of the tainted R800 million tender allocated to Sekunjalo Marine Services Consortium. The tender was for policing South Africa's marine resources.

The DA has been fighting for justice on this matter for the last four months. The Department's decision to withdraw the tender was based on a legal opinion and forensics report that I exposed in a letter to the media published on Friday morning. The tender was revoked that afternoon.

It is important now that the withdrawal of the tender must not divert from the serious questions that now have to be asked about the bid adjudication process in the department.

The DA calls on Minister Tina Joemat-Petterssen to ensure that public finance law is followed in all respects. Those responsible for causing this conflict of interest by awarding the tender must be held responsible.

Should the Minister fail to do so, the DA will take steps to involve the Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela, and Auditor-General, Mr Nombembe, in determining who is responsible for this.

A forensic report in the DA's possession exposes bias on behalf of members of the committee in the bid adjudication process.

Irregularities of this kind have far reaching effects for South Africans. The livelihoods of thousands of South Africans are threatened by government's mismanagement of our marine resources.

Disciplinary procedures or criminal charges must be instituted against officials to ensure accountability and to prevent future irregularities and negligence.

The awarding of the infamous 'Sekunjalo tender' was announced in November last year, but Smit Amandla Marine, the previous contract holders, took the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to court, thereby stalling the process.

The forensic report notes an apparent conflict of interest, given that the Sekunjalo Consortium would be patrolling marine resources being fished by their subsidiary company.

Premier Fishing has been granted a large portion of fishing quotas. The company also submitted a bid, citing the same financial statements as Sekunjalo.

Decisions to award tenders in this way puts South Africa's scarce marine heritage at stake. The DA awaits a response from the Minister on what her next move will be...

Media Enquiries:

Pieter van Dalen MP

Shadow Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries

083 655 2203

Tainted Sekunjalo Tender to be Re-advertised

2012-02-25T09:14:00.003-08:00

Feike understands that the tainted R800 million fisheries tender bonanza allocated to Sekunjalo has now been withdrawn and will be re-advertised.

Who Should be in Charge of our Fishing Harbours?

2012-02-22T23:35:00.002-08:00

Section 27(1) of the Marine Living Resources Act of 1998 ("the MLRA") provides for the Minister of Fisheries to proclaim a harbour a "fishing harbour". Since promulgation of the MLRA in 1998, the Fisheries Minister has not proclaimed any harbour to be a fishing harbour.

All 12 of the current fishing harbours were proclaimed prior to the promulgation of the MLRA.

Section 26(1) of the Sea Fisheries Act, 12 of 1988, made identical provision for the declaration of fishing harbours. Although the two sections of the two Acts are identical, the MLRA was promulgated subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa in 1996. The Sea Fisheries Act was promulgated in an era of Parliamentary sovereignty and not Constitutional supremacy.

Schedule 4 (Part B) of the Constitution lists the regulation of, inter alia, pontoons, ferries, jetties, piers and harbours, excluding the regulation of international and national shipping and matters related thereto, as being a local government function.

International and national shipping does not take place in any of the fishing harbours. Fishing harbours are exclusively limited to recreational and fishing boat activities.

Given the parlous state of our fishing harbours caused by the increasing lack of resources available to the national department of fisheries, it is a most opportune time to seriously lobby for fishing harbour management and control to be handed to those local government authorities capable of managing the 12 fishing harbours. Where the local authority lacks the resources to manage a fishing harbour under its jurisdiction, section 155 of the Constitution places the obligation on the provincial government concerned to manage the harbour in question.

The inability by the national department of fisheries to properly and efficiently manage our fishing harbours has a direct and adverse impact on local tourism, crime, grime and general infrastructure decay.

We have focussed on Hout Bay Harbour to date, which is the largest and most important of the fishing harbours but it is in a shocking state of neglect and now a preferred thoroughfare for abalone and lobster poaching; the harbour is littered with abandoned and sunken vessels; crime within the harbour is so rife that unprotected vessels are stripped bare overnight; many of the fish processing buildings stand vacant and look derelict.

It is just sensible that local development plans (focussing on local economic opportunities, job creation, tourism etc) will best complement and support any regeneration strategy for the fishing harbours and communities adjacent to them.

Harbours in Trouble

2012-02-22T02:36:00.003-08:00

The fisheries department's 3rd quarter report bizarrely states that it intends to increase the number of proclaimed fishing harbours from 12 to 19. The names of the possible additional 7 harbours are not mentioned.

Why they would want to increase the number of proclaimed fishing harbours is not explained. The only logical reason is that they could at least be seen to be doing something. But other than that there is no logic to this.

Our fishing harbours are in a disastrous state. DAFF continues to fail to invoice users of the harbours; security is non-existent and harbours like Hout Bay pose a serious threat to safety and security. Hout Bay is now a very convenient thoroughfare for abalone and lobster poaching with rubber ducks landing their illegal catches in broad daylight near the repair jetty. They then leisurely load their illegal take onto vans which are parked not more than a 150 metres from the fishery control offices and off they drive right past a completely inebriated DAFF employee who is supposed to function as some sort of access control officer to the Harbour!

In 2007, DAFF's forerunner, the department of Environmental Affairs' Marine and Coastal Management Branch, commissioned a report on the state of the harbours and remedial measures. The report cost multiple of millions and was kept secret. Feike has however secured access to the report (and will provide access to whoever wants it). It is clear that the report was never read (or understood) as none of its recommendations have been implemented.

A week ago, Feike took these pictures showing about 8 sunken vessels in the Hout Bay Repair Jetty area. These wrecks have been here for years with some wrecks actually resting on top of others below. As a result, less than 20% of the quay space is available in the Jetty Area and not a single boat (whether sunken or not) pays any fees to DAFF.

The only functional and relatively safe berthing areas in the entire harbour are those managed and controlled by private interests, including the Hout Bay Yacht Club.

An abandoned and rotting David Lurie takes up valuable repair space on the slip.

An abandoned vessel at the repair jetty now being used as a squatter area.

A sunken vessel

There are at least three sunken vessels in this view.

Minister fails to Pitch at Portfolio Committee Meeting

2012-02-21T13:28:00.002-08:00

The Fisheries Minister and the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) failed to turn up this morning to brief the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Fisheries.

They apparently failed to even submit formal apologies or explanations for their tardiness. Members of the Portfolio Committee were extremely agitated. Mr Abram, MP (ANC), led the charge describing the DAFF as being a "dysfunctional" department full of "Hollywood actors" referring to the vast numbers of officials who simply "act" in posts and that its Minister and DG are disrespectful of the Committee. He charged further that the documents prepared by the DAFF officials are woeful; that they actually belong in the rubbish bin; and that they contain a lot of information that simply does not exist in reality.

The meeting was postponed to Thursday afternoon. As a taxpayer, I must say thank-you to our so-called fisheries minister and her over-paid DG for wasting more of our money. She does nothing else.

The Minister of Fisheries: "It Wasnt Me"!

2012-02-19T05:04:00.000-08:00

The Minister of Fisheries, Tina Joemat-Pettersson, should be renamed the Minister of "It Wasnt Me"! The Sunday Times today reports (as this Blog has been reporting for some time now) that not only has her department allocated the R800 million Sekunjalo tender in an unlawful and questionable manner, but her department has failed to spend some R800 million intended for poverty relief and flood relief aid.

But as it has become her trademark, Joemat-Pettersson steps firmly to plate and blames her officials for the bungling. This is the umpteenth time that she has blamed her officials for another bungle. However, we have never seen an official fired or demoted for these bungles.

There is no doubt that Joemat-Pettersson is an extremely ineffectual and weak minister who repeatedly refuses to take responsibility for her department's near weekly bungling. There can be nothing worse than a Minister too weak (and possibly conflicted) to be accountable for her own department's decisions.

The Performance Review: A Waste of Time & Money

2012-02-15T22:51:00.004-08:00

Two months have passed since the Department issued individual letters to right holders telling them that no decision was taken with respect to the performance-related data submitted in 2010.

In addition to the "no decision" refrain, the Department produced a series of, frankly, useless data drawing even more useless conclusions such as "It was found that in the Hake Deep Sea Trawl sector, 44% of Right Holders own more than 50% of shares in a vessel; 26% of Right Holders own less than 50% of shares in a vessel; and 30% of Right Holders own no share in a vessel or provided no information in response to the question in their RFI."

Huhh! What is the point of this? How does any of the data "analysis" provided relate to the meeting of sector policy objectives?

For example, have by-catch levels been reduced and what are the average ratios of hake to bycatch takes? What is the average age of trawl vessels (noting that the Policy referred to the need to recapitalise the aging trawl fleet)? What about job numbers and how has the global economic downturn affected the fishery? And what about understanding fisheries trade. For example, what percentage of the TAC is exported (and at what value and in what forms); what percentage is sold domestically (and what value and in what forms) and to which states and regions do we export our fish?

Feike had stated that the performance review process was a failure to start with as the department simply did not appreciate that the purpose of the process was to monitor and evaluate each fishery's performance against the objectives of the respective fishery policies. Afterall what is the purpose of setting policy objectives when you do not intend to measure and monitor meeting of these objectives?

So, we now have a process that cost in the region of R9 million; is hopelessly outdated as the data dates back to 2009; does not contain any decisions (as the department knows that if these were administrative decisions, it would be reviewable by a court of law); and more importantly does not contain any relevant or useful data analysis of the socio-economic and biological state of our major commercial fisheries.

Feike Talks Shop with Deputy Shadow Fisheries Minister

2012-02-15T12:47:00.002-08:00

South Africa's official opposition political party, the Democratic Alliance, has appointed Pieter van Dalen (pictured, right) as its Deputy Shadow Minister for Fisheries. Pieter will also act as the party's spokesperson on fisheries.

Barely two weeks after his official appointment, Pieter van Dalen met with Feike's Shaheen Moolla to discuss the various opportunities, challenges and crises facing fisheries management in South Africa.

Pieter is an avid fisherman himself and by the time he sat down with Feike, he had already identified the principal areas he would like to focus on. As we have already seen, the bizarre and highly questionable R800 million tender bonanza allocated to Sekunjalo is a priority.

In addition, Pieter wants to focus on the ongoing mismanagement of our fishing harbours, the potential crisis facing the next round of quota allocations set for 2013 and looking at ways of growing our commercial and artisinal fisheries as opposed to unsustainably divvying up the current fisheries amongst more and more participants.

Pieter has already begun scheduling meetings with members of the South African fishing industry so as to obtain a broader spectrum of views and opinions.

And this is in month one. We certainly look forward to working with the Deputy Shadow Minister.

Overfishing EU fisheries costs £2.7bn a year and 100,000 jobs

2012-02-13T22:39:00.002-08:00

What is the rampant overfishing of South Africa's inshore lobster, abalone and linefish stocks costing us in terms of taxes, jobs and social cohesion? Six years into the interim relief lobster fishing quotas, DAFF has still failed to produce any analytical study into whether these interim relief quotas has benefitted the quota holders or has a few "connected individuals" been able to exploit the 1500 interim relief fishers for their own financial gain? To who does the money from interim relief quotas flow? How much do interim relief quota holders get paid for every kilogram of lobster landed?

The following article appeared on www.bbc.co.uk on 10 February 2012.

The research, by the UK-based New Economics Foundation, said a third of Britain's fish consumption could be met if stocks were allowed to recover.

Separate research suggests that half of fishermen would not be willing to give up their livelihoods.

Last week, a report said there were reasons to be optimistic that fisheries could recover from past exploitation.

"Overfishing is bad for the economy," said report author Rupert Crilly, environmental economics researcher for the foundation's Ocean2012 initiative.

"With the stroke of pen, European fisheries ministers are wiping out millions of pounds and thousands of jobs each year by allowing overfishing to continue."

The report, Lost at Sea, concluded that the restoring 43 of the continent's fish stocks to their "maximum sustainable yield" (largest annual catch that can be maintained over the long term) would result in an additional 3.5m tonnes of fish reaching markets, "enough to meet the annual demand for almost 160m EU citizens".

It added: "Overfishing is the single most destructive force in the marine environment.

"It has made the fishing industry economically vulnerable and caused coastal communities to crumble. Instead of rebuilding (fish) stocks, the industry has become heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.

"This is a losing battle. In just these (43) sample stocks, the cost of overfishing is five times higher than the value of EU subsidies."

It warned that the proposed reforms to the 27-nation bloc's Common Fisheries Policy did not go far enough to address the problem.

"Restoring fish stocks is within politicians' power, and in the current economic climate, the stakes are higher than ever," Mr Crilly said.

Global problem

Last week, the Prince of Wales launched a report by his think-tank, International Sustainability Unit (ISU), that looked at a way to put fisheries around the globe on a sustainable footing.

The report, Fisheries in Transition, concluded that by regulating the catch in a sensible way, fishermen were able to make more money for less effort, allowing the stock to be safeguarded against exploitation.

"We recognise that there is no 'one size fits all', solution - every fishery is different," said Charlotte Cawthorne, ISU marine programme manager, speaking at the report's launch.

But, she added, three things were essential: scientific understanding of the ecosystem, funding for the transition, and sound management.

A study published this week in the journal Plos One said that half of the fishermen in developing nations would not be willing to give up their livelihoods, regardless of declining catches.

"We found that half of fishermen questioned would not be tempted to seek out a new livelihood, even if their catch declined by 50%," said co-author Dr Tim Daw from the University of East Anglia.

The survey carried out by an international team of researchers questioned almost 600 fishermen in Africa and Asia about how they would respond to declining catches.

"Surprisingly, fishermen in the more vibrant and developed economies were less likely to give up their trade, despite having more economically fruitful opportunities open to them," explained fellow co-author Joshua Cinner from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, Australia.

"This is the reverse of the common belief that poor communities are less likely to adapt than wealthy ones," Dr Cinner added.

"We suspect that this may be in part due to the perverse impacts of subsidies in more developed countries encouraging people to stay in the fishery which would otherwise not be profitable."

Forensic Report into Sekenjalo Tender Exposed

2012-02-13T05:24:00.000-08:00

This statement has been issued by the Democratic Alliance's Pieter van Dalen.

The DA has gained access to a forensic audit into the infamous Sekunjalo tender, announced by Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson last year.

The report exposes significant irregularities in the awarding of a contract to Sekunjalo Holdings to combat illegal fishing on South African coastlines. The contract was awarded even though a Sekunjalo subsidiary, Premier Fishing, has fishing rights for South African waters – a clear conflict of interest.

Sekunjalo has effectively entered into an R800 million contract with the state to be both the player and referee in South African waters.

I will today be writing to the Minister to urge her to release the report and declare the tender process invalid. Steps must be taken to review the contract awarded to Sekunjalo Holdings.

The key findings of the forensic report in the DA’s possession are:

There was no evidence that the bid adjudication committee even considered the major conflict of interest in awarding a contract to Sekunjalo. The qualifications of the people on the committee also could not be verified.
The report acknowledges the apparent conflict of interest, repetitively raised by the DA and other stakeholders. Premier Fishing, as a subsidiary of the Sekunjalo Consortium, has existing fishing rights awarded to it by the State.
Premier Fishing, Premier Fishing Consortium and Sekunjalo Marine Services all submitted bids for the same tender, citing one common annual report as their supporting documentation.

The forensic audit recommended that the conflict of interest be investigated by the MLRF and resolved with the Treasury before the awarding of the tender. This was never done.

The DA has submitted parliamentary questions on the matter and I launched a PAIA application to see the tender documentation referred to in the forensic audit.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the fisheries branch of the Department of Agriculture and Minister Joemat-Pettersson have acted in a way that puts our marine resources, and the people who make their livelihoods out of it, at risk. If the Minister wishes to display a commitment to good governance she will cease implementation of this tender, and open up the process followed to public scrutiny.

Poachers Sentenced to 25 years

2012-01-31T22:20:00.000-08:00

This article appeared on www.timeslive.co.za on 1 February 2012.

Three rhino poachers were sentenced to 25 years each by the Phalaborwa Regional Court on Tuesday, said a SA National Parks (SANParks) spokesman. The three, all Mozambicans, were found guilty of illegally hunting rhino in the Kruger National Park in July 2010.

SANParks CEO David Mabunda said the sentence was harsher than it had been in other similar cases.

"This is an indication that, as a country, we are taking more stringent measures in the fight against rhino poaching," he said.

Aselmo Baloyi, Jawaki Nkuna and Ismael Baloy were also found guilty of possessing an illegal firearm (an automatic rifle), possession of a firearm (a hunting rifle) and possession of ammunition.

They were caught with two freshly chopped rhino horns, an assault rifle, a hunting rifle and an axe.

Mabunda said that last year 232 suspected poachers were arrested, including 26 who died in fights with the authorities.

High Court refuses Interim Interdict

2012-01-27T09:27:00.001-08:00

The Western Cape High Court this morning decided to not extend the temporary interdict granted against certain Zone C and D abalone right holders by Judge Davis last week.

The temporary interdict was applied for by right holders in Zones E, F and G who are seeking a court order to require the Fisheries Minister to adhere to and implement the 2003 Abalone Fishing Policy.

The Minister has essentially admitted that her department no longer implements the abalone fishing policy but believes that the policy is not binding on her or her officials and that it is merely a guideline.

Tuna Long Line & Swordfish Permit Available

2012-01-19T01:40:00.001-08:00

A South African fishing company is urgently seeking a partner who will be able to harvest, process and market its tuna and swordfish long line fishing quota for the current 2012 season.

Interested parties can contact Feike's Shaheen Moolla directly.

Interim Interdict Issued in Abalone Case

2012-01-18T07:26:00.001-08:00

Justice Dennis Davis this afternoon granted an interim interdict against those Zone C and D abalone right holders that were allowed to fish their quotas in Zones F and G.

The interim interdict will apply until such time as a proper determination of the actual interim interdict application can be made. This application will be heard on Thursday 26 January 2012.

The effect of the order is that the Department of Fisheries must ensure that all Zone C and D right holders who were allowed to fish in fishing Zones F (Robben Island; launch site OPBC) and G (West Coast) must be prevented from fishing in these 2 zones.

The Applicants, who are Zone E and G abalone right holders are advised by Feike and are represented by Shaun Hangone of Von Lieres, Cooper, Barlow & Hangone Attorneys. Applicants' counsel is Adv Darryl Cooke of the Cape Bar.

DAFF says there is enough time for rights allocation process

2012-01-17T03:10:00.000-08:00

The fisheries department is clearly seriously peeved by allegations that they will not be ready for the allocation of fishing quotas in 7 fishery sectors involving more than 1000 quota holders in 2013.

They issued a strongly worded statement as follows:

"The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) takes strong exception to any attempt by anyone who knowingly and intentionally spreads misinformation aimed at causing instability in a very important economic sector; the fishing industry. Quoting unnamed “reports” that allegedly “indicate that the Department of Fisheries has made no apparent attempt to commence with the process of renewing fishing licences, despite the renewal date for fishing quota allocations being less than a year away”, is not only far from the truth but also extremely reckless and irresponsible and such fallacies also have the potential to cause panic amongst investors and stakeholders.

We are acutely aware of the timelines and with the rights of six commercial sectors expiring only on 31 December 2013 (KwaZulu-Natal prawn trawl, demersal shark, squid, tuna pole, Hake Hand-line and traditional line fish) – almost two years away - and abalone on 31 July 2014 – almost 30 months away, we have ample time to ensure the kind of allocation process we envision.

DAFF would want to assure the public, and particularly those that have a direct interest in this industry, that there is no “looming crisis” and that the department will again, building on the successes of previous rights allocation processes, be able to deliver a seamless, transparent, fair and open process.

This will not be the first time that the DAFF will embark on this important process, and we are determined to build on the successes of the last rights allocation process.

We are further confident that, following a review of the previous process, the adjustments made to improve our internal arrangements and our resolve to consult regularly and extensively with all who have a direct or indirect stake in the industry, will again ensure a rights allocation process that is credible."

While we no doubt would like to believe them, we CANT! DAFF simply fail time and time again at communicating even the simplest messages. Their website is more than 16 months out of date. They fail to communicate the most basic (and positive messages) such as the opening of the lobster season or the setting of TAC's. We never know who is the current Acting DDG, acting head of Fisheries, Acting head of Research etc. They seem too petrified and lacking of confidence to communicate anything with the fishing industry and members of the public.

I repeat that the fisheries minister - either too busy chartering private flights or living large in 5 star hotels - has NEVER met with any of the fishing industry bodies or addressed the 22 commercial fishery sectors to advise them what her plans, visions or policies are?

Here are a couple of reasons why we cant believe this department and their Minister:

1. It has taken this absent minister and her department more than 2 years to draft a flawed small scale fisheries policy which is stuck at NEDLAC and opposed by every small scale fishing sector and interest body.

2. It took the same department no less than 4 years to get the performance measuring process going and to get a series of right holder "data assessments" issued which are not to be considered "decisions" according to the department.

3. Let us not forget how they failed to get the abalone fishery opened in time despite promise after promise that it would be opened in February 2010; then it was April 2010. The fishery finally opened in June 2010 - slap-bang in the middle of Winter!

4. And then of course they also forgot about re-allocating rights in the oyster and mussel sectors! These two sectors continue to operate on annual exemptions as opposed to bankable long term fishing rights.

5. And what about the numerous transfer of fishing right applications that are still waiting for "urgent" decision-making. There are simple transfer of fishing right applications that have been sitting at the department for more than 2 and 3 years.

And their claim that they had successfully undertaken a rights allocation process before (ie the long term rights allocation process) is empty as the team of professionals that led that process is no longer employed by DAFF. And the process of preparing for the allocation of long term fishing rights commenced in 2002 (for allocation of fishing rights in 2005); was preceded by two test-case allocations in the abalone (inshore sector) and large pelagic (offshore sector) fisheries in 2003 and 2004, respectively; the allocation of long term fishing rights cost in excess of R45 million which required careful budgeting at a time when the Marine Living Resources Fund ran annual budget surpluses - the MLRF is presently run a R50 million deficit.

Instead of issuing bluster, DAFF must make public their process plans and timelines showing how rights will be re-allocated timeously and before 31 December 2013 (and before 31 July 2013 for abalone) and what their budget allocation and costing projections for the allocations processes are.

Hey Minister: Where is the 591 tons of Abalone?

2012-01-17T01:25:00.000-08:00

Feike reported in 2011 that the Minister stated in Parliament that her department confiscated 591 tons of abalone during the 2010/2011 financial year.

As we reported then, this staggering admission destroyed all the department's attempts at whitewashing poaching and confiscation figures. Based on the Department's own repeated admissions that it confiscates between 10 and 15% of all abalone poached, this means that between 4000 tons and 5900 tons are actually poached. This is a simplistic and extremely conservative number as we do not factor in what percentage of the 591 tons of confiscated product is dried or frozen. Based on the Department's average sale price achieved during the secret November 2011 abalone auction, 4000 tons of abalone would be worth an astronomical R8billion.

In a High Court application involving abalone right holders (26160/2011), the Minister and the Acting DDG re-confirmed that the fisheries department confiscated 591 tons of abalone. 591 tons would be worth anything between R200 million and R1 billion depending on what proportion of the confiscated product is dried. Dried abalone auctioned by the department has earned it an average of between R2000 and R2,800/kg.

So here some elementary questions for the Minister and the Acting DDG of Fisheries:

1. Where is the 591 tons of confiscated abalone?

2. What proportion of this is dried?

3. What quantities of the confiscated product have been sold to date, at what prices and to whom?

4. This is a huge income windfall that ought to go directly to abalone management, research and compliance. How exactly will the income be ring-fenced and spent?

Recreational WCRL Season Not Extended

2012-01-17T00:59:00.000-08:00

Feike understands that the Acting DDG of Fisheries has decided to not extend the WCRL recreational fishing season.

Performance Review Notifications

2012-01-16T06:27:00.000-08:00

Right holders in the Cluster A and B sector fisheries would have by now received correspondence from the Fisheries Branch on their performance measuring submissions which were lodged with the department back in 2010.

The correspondence confirms that the results of the performance review do not constitute administrative action for the purposes of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2 of 2000 and that should right holders wish to object to any of the assessment data, that these objections may be lodged with the department and will be kept on file.

Whether or not the assessments constitute "administrative action" that is reviewable is debatable. The assessments would not constitute administrative action only if the assessments are not used to directly affect the rights of quota holders.

In other words, should the department use the assessment results to reduce, cancel or revoke a quota subsequent to a section 28 process or not re-allocate a fishing permit, then the assessment results would be reviewable under PAJA.

Our advice to right holders would be to -

carefully scrutinize the assessment results and ensure that these accord with the submissions made in terms of the RFI application process; and
where there are any anomalies, that these are communicated to the department in detail and in writing and a record of the objections carefully stored.

AFRI-OCEANS exposes Illegal MPA Fishing

2012-01-13T08:07:00.000-08:00

Read the expose on illegal fishing permitted by DAFF and its Fisheries Minister on the Afri-Oceans page - http://www.aoca.org.za/pages/3722/minister-allows-illegal-fishing-in-mpa - and leave your comment which will be sent to the Minister.

Minister of Fisheries Allows Illegal Fishing in MPA's

2012-01-11T08:55:00.000-08:00

Feike and AfriOceans are in possession of a series of emails between staff at the Fisheries Branch confirming that a request by an unknown person or group came via the Fisheries "Ministry" in December 2011 seeking permission to use gillnets for fishing in Zone B of the Langebaan Marine Protected Area (MPA) until 31 January 2012. Zone B of the MPA is closed to fishing except to a limited number treknetters who hold long term fishing rights.

The emails confirm that there was no consultation by the Fisheries Branch on the decision to permit fishing in the MPA. Critically of course, the Fisheries Branch and its Minister does not have any legal jurisdiction over MPA management as this authority vests with the Department of Environmental Affairs.

It would clearly appear that the rule of law, legality and responsible fisheries practices are simply of no interest to the Fisheries Branch and its increasingly woeful, absent and irresponsible Minister.

The Minister and her department's illegal decision is clearly not supported by the scientific component of the Fisheries Branch based on the emails we have.

This is the view of an official in the Department which was provided anonymously to AfriOceans:

"The Department has just given gillnet users in Langebaan permission to fish within the closed area of the MPA without consultation or research.

DAFF (for the second time) has provided the Langebaan gillnet fishers with permission to fish in the restricted area of the national park (MPA) over the festive season. The rationale is that effort levels are too high over Christmas so the fishers need somewhere else to fish. The irony is that DAFF is partly responsible for that increase in effort by issuing interim-relief gillnet permits in Langebaan. One of the main purposes of the restricted area is to control fishing effort in Langebaan Lagoon which was the result of extensive consultation with fishers to accommodate as many as possible during the (2005) rights allocation process. Whatever the perspective, allowing gillnetters access to the restricted zone of a protected area is an extremely irresponsible management practice and opens the gap for fisher access to Dwesa-Cwebe, Tsitsikamma and other “contested” MPAs.

Here is an excellent example of an MPA with design elements specifically for fisheries management objectives, and yet the fisheries management authority is itself taking actions which negate those fisheries management objectives. This MPA is a nursery ground and only protection for smoothhound sharks that are heavily fished by commercial shark fisheries. Sharks usually pup within the MPA during November."

Feike has previously stated that the greatest threat to inshore fisheries management in South Africa remains our absent and uninformed Fisheries Minister. This is just another example.

WCRL Season Extension Requested

2012-01-09T23:35:00.000-08:00

The Recreational Fishing Services, which is a voluntary association of recreational lobster and angling fishers, has requested that the Fisheries Minister extend the current recreational lobster season.

Their request is motivated by three reasons, being the following:

1. The public has never been properly advised of the new lobster fishing season. To date the Fisheries Department's website only reflects the 2010/2011 season and the Minister has never made any public statement on the new lobster season.

2. It would appear that DAFF failed to issue recreational lobster permits to all Post Offices. The Recreational Fishing Services undertook a snap survey and found only 3 of 16 Western Cape Post Offices with recreational lobster permits.

3. The bad weather experienced since the opening of the season has cut fishing time by between 50% and 60%, which means a large proportion of the recreational lobster TAC remains in the water.

There is no reason why the season should not be extended. It however remains the Minister's prerogative to extend the current regulatory timeframes for the season.

Abalone Industry NOT Being Shut Down

2012-01-09T08:27:00.000-08:00

It would appear that officials at the Fisheries Department are either willfully or through ignorance incorrectly advising right holders that the "abalone fishery will be closed on 17 January 2012".

This is not correct. The interim interdict that is being applied for seeks to stop those Zone C and Zone D right holders who fish in Zones F and G ONLY from fishing in Zones F and G.

In other words, right holders in Zones A, B, C (those that dont fish in Zones F and G), E and G will not be affected and regardless of whether the interdict is granted, they will be entitled to fish their quotas as per their current permit conditions.

Performance Review Notifications Issued

2012-01-06T02:07:00.000-08:00

On 23 December 2011, the Fisheries Branch issued to right holders in the Cluster A and B fishery sectors correspondence regarding the outcome of the performance review process.

Abalone Right Holders Take Minister to Court

2012-01-05T23:58:00.000-08:00

Abalone right holders in Zones E, F and G have applied on an urgent basis to review and set aside the decision of the Minister of Fisheries to allocate the 2011/2012 abalone TAC in contravention of the abalone policy.

The abalone right holders from Zones E, F and G appointed Feike and attorneys firm Von Lieres Cooper Barlow Hangone to advise them on their application. The right holders are represented by Advocate Darryl Cooke.

The application will initially seek an interim interdict against certain Zone C (Hawston and Hermanus) and Zone D (Kleinmond) abalone right holders who are allowed to fish abalone in Zones F and G. The interim interdict application will be heard on 17 January 2012.

Noseweek Story on Abalone Poaching

2011-12-21T00:53:00.000-08:00

The January edition of Noseweek has a good story on the continued reliance by the fisheries department on the sale of confiscated abalone and the dismal state of management at the Fisheries Branch.

Check it out at www.noseweek.co.za

MaritimeSA Rates Minister of Fisheries

2011-12-20T01:54:00.000-08:00

The latest issue of Maritime Review Southern Africa (www.maritimesa.co.za) reviews the Minister of Fisheries' performance during 2011. Suffice it to say, it was woeful.

Read the latest edition of Maritime SA and the performance review on page 20 on http://maritimesa.co.za/CurrentIssue/tabid/79/Default.aspx

More Trouble for the Fisheries Minister

2011-12-08T03:56:00.000-08:00

The Business Report (www.iol.co.za) today reports that Smit Amandla, the local subsidiary of the powerful Dutch-based multinational ship-handling group Smit, has served a notice of motion on the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries seeking to interdict it from awarding a R1 billion tender to a consortium led by Sekunjalo.

This BLOG has reported extensively on this increasingly problematic and questionable tender. At the heart of the problem is a clear (to all but blinded government officials) conflict of interest where a fishing company is in charge of the fisheries patrol fleet.

In a bizarre response to the allegations of a conflict of interest is Sekunjalo's (and one assumes government's) bottom-of the-barrel-scraping defence that -

“When they are on patrol the vessels are commanded by government inspectors who are appointed by the department. The crew and the skipper have no idea where the vessel will patrol until they are out at sea and given the GPS co-ordinates by the inspector. And once they are out at sea no one is allowed to communicate,”

The stupidity and outright deceit of such a statement should be criminal!

Lie 1: The patrol vessels are "commanded" by fishery control officers. As the former chief director of compliance, I can assure you a fishery control officer is neither allowed to nor authorised under our maritime laws to command a vessel. The skipper and the officers are in charge of the vessel. This statement is akin to stating that a police officer on board an airplane is the commander of that aircraft!

Lie 2: The crew and skipper have no idea where the vessel will patrol until they are out at sea! This statement is so outrageous I could not believe it was uttered as a defence! This statement merely aggravates the stupidity of the decision to allocate the tender to Sekunjalo. Picture it, a blind-folded skipper and crew get on the vessel, not knowing where on earth they are going! Who decided on the fuel; the food; the budget for the trip? Did the fisheries control officers who are also "commanding the vessels" also fill up the tanks; buy the food; load the stores!

Lie 3: And once out at sea, no is allowed to communicate! What absolute crap! Why do the vessels have state of the art communication systems? Is this lot actually from Planet Earth?

So, if the FCO's are in fact "commanding the vessel", responsible for deployment, bunkers, stores and all else, what the hell are we paying Sekunjalo R800 million for? Will they just wash the vessels?

DA Seeks Access to Sekunjalo Tender Documents

2011-12-04T10:33:00.000-08:00

This is a statement issued by the Democratic Alliance's Deputy Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries on 4 December 2011.

Reports today indicate that a politically-linked company has been awarded a nearly R1 billion tender by Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tina Joemat-Pettersson’s department.

The tender recipient, Sekunjalo Investments, will be responsible for managing the country’s fishing patrol fleet. The fleet is responsible for research, inspections of fishing trawlers and anti-poaching patrols.

I will be submitting an application, under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), to access all documentation relating to Sekunjalo Investments’ bid.

Minister Joemat-Pettersson’s department must provide the public with all information relevant to this tender process to explain why Sekunjalo was selected as the preferred bidder.

In awarding this tender, the Department is spending almost R1 billion of state funds. The South African people have a right to know that their money is being spent responsibly.

The selection of Sekunjalo Investments as the recipient of this tender is an interesting decision, given the following:

• Its links to cabinet members: Premier Fishing, a subsidiary of Sekunjalo Investments, reportedly paid a R100 000 private security bill belonging to Minister Joemat-Pettersson’s cabinet colleague, Minister of International Relations and Co-operation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane. Minister Nkoana-Mashabane failed to declare this payment to Parliament;

• Its chairman’s political connections: Sekunjalo’s Chairman, Iqbal Survé, is a regular member of official business delegations accompanying President Jacob Zuma and other government leaders on overseas state visits; and

• Its role as player and referee: Industry stakeholders are reportedly shocked at the decision to award the major fishing company a tender to police our fishing industry. They have raised concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest, given that Sekunjalo will now be both a “player” in the fishing industry, and a “referee”.

The DA wants to know:

• Why Sekunjalo was selected as the preferred bidder;

• Why Minister Joemat-Pettersson last week reportedly announced that Sekunjalo had won the tender, without the full tender process having been completed;

• What the “control measures” are that the Department has said it will put in place to prevent any conflict of interest arising from Sekunjalo’s role as “player” and “referee”;

• What steps the Department took to address the concerns reportedly raised by the tender committee about any potential conflict of interest.

In addition to submitting a PAIA application, I will also be writing to the Chair of the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Portfolio Committee to ask that Minister Joemat-Pettersson appears before the committee at the beginning of next year to answer these questions.

The South African public deserve to know that public money is being spent responsibly, and that it is their best interests, not those of politically connected businesspeople, which are government’s top priority.

Media Enquiries:

Deetlefs du Toit MP

Shadow Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

082 471 0465

Kelly Miller

DA Media Officer

072 226 9759

Something Fishy in R1bn Patrol Tender

2011-12-03T23:09:00.000-08:00

Something fishy in R1bn patrol tender

BOBBY JORDAN | 04 December, 2011

See www.timeslive.co.za for the full story.

A POLITICALLY connected consortium which owns one of the country's biggest fishing companies has secured a nearly R1-billion tender to police South Africa's fishing industry at sea.

Top empowerment firm Sekunjalo Investments heads the consortium.

This has triggered concerns that the company is set to become both player and referee in the policing of the country's R2-billion-a-year fishing industry.

Sekunjalo owns a majority stake in Premier Fishing, which is active in several fisheries including rock lobster, anchovies, pilchard, hake and squid.

A senior industry source said giving a fishing company influence over the country's patrol fleet was a case of "the wolf guarding the hen house".

Support this BLOG!

2011-11-27T11:53:00.000-08:00

The Feike BLOG has brought you many a breaking news story and analyses of issues affecting the South African fishing industry.

Between January 2011 and November 2011, we published 89 articles and opinions. Since our BLOG started in 2009, we have published 182 articles and opinions, some of which have resulted in headlines news in national and Cape-based newspapers and radio shows.

In order for this BLOG to continue, we are asking our readers to support the blog by making a monthly or even once off financial donation. This will enable us to provide you with more breaking news stories and allow for better sharing of information affecting the South African fishing industry in 2012.

Our daily readership averages 105 visitors. Our audience is diverse with top ten visitors by country as follows:

1. South Africa

2. United States of America

3. United Kingdom

4. Mexico

5. Russia

6. Norway

7. Sweden

8. India

9. France

10 Italy

Financial contributions can be made to the following account:

Account: Feike

Bank: ABSA, Heerengracht

Account No: 406 530 2647

Swift Code: ABSAZAJJ

DAFF is in Shambles!

2011-11-27T08:51:00.000-08:00

Timeslive.co.za reports today (27 November 2011) that ANC member of the parliamentary portfolio committee on agriculture, forestry and fisheries, Salam Abram, stated that the department is in "shambles". Timeslive reports as follows:

"Joematt-Pettersson, who has been in the spotlight over her hotel bills and travels, has also been criticised by an ANC MP serving on the agriculture, forestry and fisheries portfolio committee, who described the department as a "shambles".

"It is common knowledge that the department is in shambles, it is very far from carrying out what it is supposed to do. It is not visible on the ground. They come with beautiful slides and put them on the screen, but when it comes to oversight, you see very little of what they do," said Salam Abram.

[Selby] Bokaba (the Minister's spokesperson) refused to comment on Abram's claims."

Questions that need answering

2011-11-27T06:51:00.000-08:00

Our political environment is so polluted by corruption, maladministration and mind-numbing levels of incompetence that when we hear about a fishing company (and its holding company) being awarded an R800m tender to essentially manage South Africa's entire fleet of fishery patrol and research vessels and then also exposed for paying for the personal security costs of a senior ANC minister's home in the northern Limpopo province, questions just keep popping up.

Firstly, with respect to the fisheries research and patrol tenders. How is it possible for a fishing company to be responsible for the management and maintenance of patrol and research vessels. Its akin to insider trading; the fox looking after the henhouse; essentially, Premier fishing will know where and when patrol vessels are to be deployed and may even be able to influence deployment strategies whether directly or indirectly. To deny this, is to deny the earth is round or that man landed on the moon.

Regardless of how one looks at it, there is a reason why there is no comparable example of a fishing company being charged with managing a fleet of fisheries enforcement and research vessels.

Questions that need answering are:

1. Who were the other bidders?

2. What were scores of each of the bidding companies?

3. What were the evaluation criteria?

4. What were the financial proposals of each of the bidding companies?

5. Who constituted the tender evaluation committee? A copy of their actual recommendation report should be made public.

Secondly, Premier Fishing's sponsorship of security costs for the Minister of International Relation's private home in the northern Limpopo Province can at best be described as questionable. There is no doubt that when a commercial entity decides to sponsor an event or cause, it does so either because the event or cause is linked to its business strategy (and will result in exposure and therefore increased profits) or the cause is worthy of commercial investment. So what is the benefit for Premier to foot the personal security bill for an ANC Minister?

Why is Premier Fishing Paying for a Minister's Security?

2011-11-26T23:40:00.000-08:00

The Mail and Guardian reports the following very strange story about Premier Fishing, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sekunjalo who was just awarded an R800m contract by the Department of Fisheries. Why is Premier Fishing paying for the security of the Minister of International Relations?

International Relations Minister failed to declare a R100 000 benefit.

International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane has not declared to Parliament a R100 000 payment for around-the-clock private security at her private residence in Polokwane.

Cape Town-based Premier Fishing picked up Nkoana-Mashabane's R8 655-a-month security tab for 12 months in 2010-2011.

Premier Fishing is a subsidiary of JSE-listed Sekunjalo Investments.

Its executive chairperson, Iqbal Survé, has travelled overseas with the official business delegation accompanying President Jacob Zuma, Nkoana-Mashabane and other ministers on state visits and other government business. Survé is also a director of Premier Fishing.

The benefit is absent from the minister's declaration of interests released by Parliament's registrar of members' interests last week.

Nkoana-Mashabane, through spokesperson Clayson Monyela, said that her brother, Harry Nkoana, was the "caretaker" of the property and that she was obliged to declare only benefits accruing to herself and her children. She referred all further questions to her brother.

For the full story, see http://amabhungane.co.za/article/2011-11-25-tycoon-pays-for-ministers-guards

Sekunjalo to Maintain Fisheries Research & Patrol Vessels

2011-11-25T00:06:00.000-08:00

Published to www.bday.co.za on 25 November 2011.

BLACK-empowered Sekunjalo Investments has won a five-year, R800m government contract it says will improve profitability and broad-based participation in SA’s maritime sector.

Sekunjalo led a consortium including ship-builder KND to maintain eight state-owned research and patrol vessels, including the Algoa, the Ellen Khuzwayo and the Sarah Baartman.

The contract, awarded by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, is expected to accelerate broad-based participation in Cape Town’s highly concentrated maritime industry.

Sekunjalo said yesterday the contract would significantly improve the group’s profitability and cash flow through subsidiary Sekunjalo Industrial.

Sekunjalo CEO Khalid Abdulla said the unit was one of the only black-owned companies in Africa with the technical and engineering expertise to manage a contract of this magnitude.

"Today, Sekunjalo not only manages technical maintenance of its own fleet, but conducts maintenance and provides technical services to vessels from around the world," he said.

Sekunjalo chairman Iqbal Survé said the deal would accelerate enterprise development and skills transfer in SA’s maritime industry. "Our goal is to provide as many job opportunities through this deal as possible," he said.

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson said the contract was the first of its kind awarded to a black-owned company.

"I am confident that Sekunjalo Industrial Holdings has the requisite skills and capabilities to fulfil this contract based on its fleet management experience, and its experience in managing maintenance projects on international vessels," she said.

The company last week came under fire from some of its shareholders after it announced it would sue two former executives for R65m for losses relating to major subsidiary Premier Fishing, which accounts for about half of group revenue.

Oceana Buys Lusitania

2011-11-22T08:57:00.001-08:00

It has been confirmed that the Oceana Group Ltd has agreed to purchase all assets and interests held by the Lusitania Fishing group. The purchase will mean that Oceana will gain control over substantial additional hake, horse mackerel and South Coast rock lobster fishing interests.

The purchase would increase Oceana's interest in the hake industry from 1.1% to 4.4%, in horse mackerel from 18.8% to 22.8%, in south coast lobster from 3.1% to 22.6% and increase the commercial cold storage capacity of the group by 4.1%.

The purchase is subject to obtaining regulatory approval from the Minister of Fisheries under section 21 of the Marine Living Resources Act and Competition Commission approval. Oceana anticipates that the transaction would be effective from 1 March 2012.

See www.oceana.co.za for more.

Black Tuesday

2011-11-21T23:34:00.000-08:00

Today we face the prospect that the African National Congress completes its slide into the very deepest and darkest depths of corruption, sleaze and moral decay. And as it "celebrates" its centenary. The Party that spearheaded the Peoples Congress at Kliptown now chooses to flatly ignore the voices of hundreds and thousands, if not millions, as it appears completely desperate to pass the Protection of State Information Bill - the Secrecy Bill. How tragic that this great African movement has morphed into the National Party, seeing the same ghosts of "foreign spies" and varying shades of "gevaar" (fear) used so well by the Apartheid regime to scare its sheepish followers into towing the party line.

Despite the ANC's protestations to the contrary, the Bill's sole aim - like the collapsing of the Scorpions - is to shield the party and its officials from their uncontrollable lust to plunder the public coffer and undermine the rule of law.

And make no mistake, it will affect each and everyone of us in a significant way. In the fisheries sector, we have already seen the programming of civil servants into secrecy and deception mode. Essentially, the Bill will allow almost any official any DAFF to decide whether a document of process is classified.

Want to Know More About SA Fisheries?

2011-11-17T01:56:00.000-08:00

Feike has invested in the development of a dedicated blog on South African fisheries where we will provide regular but brief news updates on issues affecting the commercial fisheries sector. The blog also provides important socio-economic facts and figures on some of our major commercial and small-scale (artisinal) fishery sectors.

go to safisheries.wordpress.com

Permit Threats by DAFF Unlawful

2011-11-16T23:50:00.001-08:00

Feike has been provided with copies of correspondence issued by the Fisheries Department threatening small-scale commercial right holders in the lobster and abalone sectors with the "termination" of their permits if these right holders do not make levy payments by 15 December 2011.

Feike wishes to confirm that this threat is unlawful and amounts to extortion.

It is most alarming that the department continues to unlawfully threaten right holders with withholding (and now “termination”) of their permits and/or section 28 Notices for failing to make levy payments despite the fact that the department continues to not issue proper and valid tax invoices to right holders.

Earlier this year, the Minister confirmed to Parliament (Question 159 of 2011) that her department has never collected any levy without a tax invoice. She was of course not telling the truth. Her department has for some time been too inefficient to issue tax invoices and instead extorts levy payment from right holders by threatening to withhold their fishing permits and now the threat is to "terminate" the poor, helpless permit.

Further, that the Marine Living Resources Act of 1998 does not make any provision for the “termination” or “withholding” of permits is of course not relevant to our fisheries civil servants.

Accordingly, (bold text) -

1. The department cannot lawfully "terminate", murder, destroy or torture any permit; and

2. If the department wants you to pay your levy, they must do what the law says they must do. They must open up Excel and compile a tax invoice which must state the following -

* the name of the right holder, together with the right holder's address and VAT number (if VAT registered);

* the precise reasons for raising the invoice (such as for the 2010/2011 abalone levy)

* the exact amount owed and how this amount is calculated (for example: 400kg x R31)

*the date by which payment must be made and the bank details into which the payment must be made.

Launch of the Anti-Poaching Chase Vessels in Pics

2011-11-16T10:09:00.001-08:00

The pictures provided below are courtesy of Mr Scott Russell, a commercial abalone diver and spokesperson for the South African Abalone Industry Association.

Attendees at the Launch

The Minister addresses the gathering at the launch

The newly trained military veterans on parade

The "Leervis" Chase Vessel

The "Galjoen" Chase Vessel

The "Galjoen"

300HP Engines on each of the Chase Vessels

DAFF Admits to Shortcomings

2011-11-16T03:00:00.000-08:00

Over the course of the past few days, Feike has received requests for assistance from a number of right holders in the abalone and lobster fisheries who had attempted to uplift their annual fishing permits only to be told that levies were outstanding and levy returns were not submitted.

After Feike addressed correspondence to the department reminding them of what the legal position is regarding the "withholding" of permits and the payment of levies, right holders have been contacted to inform them their permits are now ready for collection.

One of our clients confirmed that the DAFF official who phoned him confirmed serious "shortcomings" in the administration of levy returns and levies. Although this is not news to the fishing industry, it once again confirms the parlous state of management at the fisheries branch.

Questions that need to be answered are:

1. What "administrative shortcomings" are being experienced?

2. Does the department know exactly which right holders have paid their levies and which have not?

3. What is the rand value of outstanding levies and what amounts have been collected to date?

4. Why is the department still unable to issue proper tax invoices?

5. Why does the department continue to oblige right holders to tell it what they owe the department in levies?

6. With respect to levy returns, does the department know which right holders have submitted returns and which have not?

7. Has the department lost levy returns for right holders?

Minister Launches Anti-Poaching Vessels

2011-11-14T23:00:00.000-08:00

The Minister of Fisheries launched 3 anti-paoching vessels on 14 November 2011 in Hermanus. The function also noted the completion of a fisheries compliance training course for a number of military veterans who are to be deployed to combat abalone poaching between Rooi-Els and Arniston.

The launch of these anti-poaching "chase" vessels and the deployment of a team of committed "military veterans" as fishery control officers has to be welcomed as a step in the right direction in battle against rampant abalone poaching in the Overberg region.

A number of right holders did however express their concerns that the "chase" vessels were not equipped for night operations and that the average poaching RIB is easily capable of speeds of in excess of 60 knots - the chase vessels have a maximum speed of 48 knots. This is however a huge improvement over the use of the inshore and offshore patrol vessels which were never intended for use in the abalone fishery.

The Minister also noted that the much maligned "military veterans" needed the cooperation of members of the local community to apprehend poachers. However, many abalone right holders will scoff at this request as right holders have too often risked their own lives to repeatedly warn the department of ongoing poaching activities (as this BLOG has noted as well) in areas such as Hout Bay, Llandadno, Buffeljags, Perly Beach, Hawston, Robben Island etc only to be ignored. Furthermore, the department does not have an effective reporting mechanism, particularly as fishery control officers do not work after 4pm and over weekends. And no right-minded quota holder would dare approach their local police station with information about poaching.

WCRL Recreational Season Announced

2011-11-10T05:12:00.000-08:00

The Fisheries Department has announced the new recreational lobster fishing season which will commence on 15 November 2011. The season will close on the 15th of January 2012. Thereafter, the season will open again from the 6th of April 2012 and close on the 9th of April 2012.

The following conditions for the WCRL recreational fishing season will apply:

From the 15th of November 2011 to the 15th of January 2012, fishing will be allowed every day;
From the 6th of April 2012 to the 9th of April 2012 fishing will also be allowed every day;
Recreational permit-holders collecting and landing WCRL may do so only between 08h00 – 16h00. The rock lobsters must be landed by 16:00;
The bag limit has been set at four per-person-per-day and the size restriction is 80mm carapace length. Any WCRL caught, collected or transported must be kept in a whole state;
A maximum of 20 rock lobsters may be transported per day, on condition that all the persons who caught such rock lobster are present. Such persons should also be in possession of their recreational rock lobster permits;
The sale of recreationally harvested lobsters is prohibited.

Permits are obtainable from the Post Office. Permits will only be issued to persons above the age of 12 years.

590 TONS OF ABALONE CONFISCATED IN 2010-2011

2011-11-07T02:39:00.000-08:00

The Minister of Fisheries has admitted in Parliament that a staggering 590 tons of abalone was confiscated by the department of fisheries during the 2010/2011 financial year. While this admission is jaw-dropping, what is even more alarming is her further confirmation that during the same financial period, the department is recorded to have earned R11,3 million from the sale of confiscated abalone.

590 tons of abalone is conservatively valued at R185 million (@R350/kg). This valuation is however based on what right holders can earn from the sale of abalone to South African marketers who then market the product internationally for substantially higher amounts. All confiscated abalone is sold directly to buyers in Hong Kong and China and so the department should be earning substantially higher amounts than what quota holders would ordinarily earn.

The Minister's response of course raises two extremely concerning issues. The first is that the 590 ton figure is 4-times the legal quota allocated to the legal commercial abalone fishery. This places the department firmly as a serious commercial competitor to the legal commercial abalone fishery. Furthermore, based on the department's own compliance data, only some 10% of all poached abalone is confiscated. This will then mean that South Africa is actually losing anything up to 5000 tons of abalone each year to poachers.

The second concern is the significant discrepancy between the amount of abalone confiscated (590 tons) and the amount of income earned (R11,3 million), which is completely inexplicable. Could the department have sold 590 tons of abalone at R18/kg?

Feike, together with the abalone industry, has been repeatedly requesting information pertaining to the quantum of abalone confiscated, the quanta sold each year and for what amounts. Needless to say, the department has simply refused to make this information available despite it being in the public interest to know how much abalone is being confiscated, who is buying the abalone and at what prices.

Perhaps the Minister's response to Parliament could explain the motive behind her department's refusal to make the information available to the public.

Lobster TAC Remains Stable

2011-11-03T03:31:00.000-07:00

Despite initial suggestions and proposed recommendations for a cut to the commercial lobster catch limits (TAC), the Minister has set the TAC for nearshore commercial (artisinal) at 451 tons (451 tons in 2010/2011) and offshore commercial at 1540,7 tons (1528 tons in 2010/2011) according to the WCRL Industry Association. The catch limit for the interim relief sector has been increased by 50 tons to 250 tons.

The TAC limits will come as a huge relief to the commercial and artisinal fisheries as they were contemplating cuts to their quotas of between 6% and 10%.

Abalone Fishers Hand Second Memorandum to Minister

2011-11-03T00:24:00.001-07:00

On 3 November 2011, abalone fishers will hand a second memorandum to the Minister of Fisheries who - despite promising to reply to the first memorandum handed to her officials on 13 October - has once again failed to communicate with members of the fishing industry.

The second memorandum reads as follows:

Dear Minister Tina Joemat Petterson

Unfortunately you have failed to address our URGENT memorandum of 13 October 2011. Are we to understand that you have decided to treat us with contempt?

What has happened to the concept of "People First" (Batho Pele) ?

What has happened to the promise of "a better life for all" ?

This does not mean a better life for Government officials; Ministers and Abalone poachers - while we your clients are ignored and neglected!

You are our minister - the buck stops with you - our issues require you urgent attention - we do not want your continued absence or to hear about your excessive lifestyle in luxury hotels - we want you to take action and show proper leadership.

Your Fisheries Department is ailing

We are not receiving proper service from DAFF's fisheries department! Besides the issues already raised - here are some more:

A) Your staff has unlawfully withheld information from us.

Regarding confiscated abalone for the financial year ended 31 March 2011

We still have an outstanding request for a detailed breakdown of the following:

1) The total number of abalone confiscated, as well as the respective totals a) by DAFF; b) by SAPS

2) All the reports of the forensic audit team that oversees the processing of confiscated product, confirming the quanta, size, grading and type of abalone confiscated.

3) Full details regarding each auction for the sale of confiscated abalone - including: the form; number; mass; quality and selling price.

4)The number and mass of confiscated abalone destroyed and manner of destruction.

5)The number of individual abalone & mass & form provided to SAPS/Hawks for enforcement operations.

Please see to it that this information is made available to us immediately.

B) Your staff cannot produce proper Invoices or Statements for us.

You would do well to appoint properly qualified accounting staff to rectify your faulty Invoicing and Statements.

C) Your staff still unlawfully withhold our fishing permits.

While some abalone fishers have already received their permits for the 2011/12 season others are being prejudiced by DAFF's is refusal to issue until the experimental fishing permits have first been issued. Staff are also refusing to release permits in cases where they believe levies are outstanding, because of improper invoicing this is unlawful.

Some suggestions:

- Closely supervise and evaluate your existing staff on an ongoing basis.

- Fill all vacant posts with suitably experienced and properly qualified staff who possess an aptitude for public service.

Foundation for the Protection and Management of South African Abalone

While DAFF should be properly protecting and managing our abalone resource, unfortunately this is no the case. Now such a foundation has become necessary. Abalone fishers will be involved in this foundation and it is hoped that with government assistance great progress can soon be made.

Small Scale fishing Policy

We would like to make it clear that we have not been properly consulted on this policy and how it may affect us in the future. We are however strongly opposed to community quotas.

We again request that you our Minister URGENTLY address us on each of the issues raised in our original memorandum of 13 October 2011 and also those raised above . Kindly address your written reply to asa@abalone.org.za. It is our sincere hope that we will not be required to take further action, however should your reply not reach us by close of business on 10 November 2011, we will be left with little choice.

Feike Develops Fisheries Experts Database

2011-11-01T09:16:00.000-07:00

Feike has developed a database for the African Union allowing for various categories of fisheries and aquaculture experts to register their details with the AU for future tenders and consultative processes. The database has been built to be scaleable, searchable and updatable.

The database identifies various categories of experts and stakeholders involved in African fisheries and aquaculture, including RFMO's, private expert consultants, tertiary and research institutions, fish worker unions and industrial bodies.

Feike Develops New Fishery Management Modules

2011-10-30T08:02:00.000-07:00

Feike has complemented the current fishery information and statistical systems (FINSS) database by developing a series of integrated web-based fishery management modules for the Mozambique Ministry of Fisheries.

We have developed the following 3 management modules:

Administration Module, which monitors and tracks budgets, income and expenditure within a fisheries administration department;
Trade Module, which monitors all imports and exports by regulating the issuing of import and export licences/permits. This module is integrated to the FINSS vessel registry, species and compliance modules to enhance the ability of staff to eliminate IUU trade; and
Aquaculture Module, which comprehensively records all data relevant to the management of small-scale and industrial-scale fish farms.

Each module can be adapted to meet client specific needs and can exist independently of each other and of FINSS itself. Because the modules are web-based tools, they can be installed, administered, updated and managed remotely.

Abalone Right Holders to Protest Again

2011-10-30T07:24:00.000-07:00

Abalone right holders have planned a second protest at the offices of Department of Fisheries on 3 November 2011 at 10am. The right holders will deliver a second memorandum to the Minister of Fisheries.

The Minister of Fisheries has failed to respond to the memorandum handed to her officials during the first protest.

Abalone TAC to Remain at 150 Tons

2011-10-14T03:58:00.000-07:00

The fisheries department announced via email that the Minister has decided to set the abalone TAC at 150 tons for the 2011/2012 season - the same as for the 2010/2011 season. It is unclear whether the Minister's decision on the abalone TAC, which precedes an announcement on the lobster TAC even though the lobster season opens on 15 October 2011 for Zone A (Port Nolloth), is in response to the protest action and demands by abalone right holders yesterday (13 October). She will undoubtedly deny that this is the case.

The department has also hurriedly convened an abalone management working group for 19 October 2011 having previously postponed an initial working group meeting indefinitely.

It is understood that although many right holders in Zones E and G are pleased with the announcement, they still want the Minister to respond to the issues raised in the Memorandum handed to her Acting Deputy Director-General of Fisheries on 13 October 2011.

Abalone Protest Goes Ahead

2011-10-13T04:59:00.000-07:00

On 13 October 2011 abalone right holders who are almost exclusively from Zones E and G protested against the department of fisheries and its Minister. Almost no right holders from Zones A, B, C and D - which are the zones threatened with complete closure - bothered to attend the protest. The reason for the non-attendance is unclear although one zonal representative is believed to have been in a meeting with departmental officials when he instructed another representative to inform Scott Russell of Abalone South Africa to immediately cancel the protest! Why would right holders who face a zero abalone allocation so fundamentally oppose protesting against the proposed closure of their fishing zones? Does 1 plus 1 add up to 2?

The memorandum (see article below) was handed over to the Acting DDG of the fisheries department, Mr Wickness Rooifontein. The Minister continues to be the most absent minister in the history of fisheries management!

Below are some pictures of the protest, the protestors and their colourful placards.

Memorandum Presented to Fisheries Minister

2011-10-12T12:16:00.000-07:00

MEMORANDUM BY COMMERCIAL ABALONE FISHERS

TO THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE FORESTRY & FISHERIES: 13 OCT 2011

We are legal and law-abiding commercial abalone fishers who have been completely ignored by you and your officials at the Department of Fisheries. Even though you were appointed as the Minister of Fisheries in June 2009, you have NEVER EVER met with the abalone industry; consulted with us regarding compliance, management or recovery of abalone stocks. You and your department have completely forsaken our social and economic well-being.

This memorandum raises only our most critical concerns and we demand that as the Minister responsible for fisheries, you now finally take responsibility for implementing measures to address these concerns.

DAFF STILL BENEFITS IMMORALLY FROM POACHING

Your department (DAFF) continues to rely on the sale of confiscated abalone to fund a substantial part of its operational budget. This is extremely immoral IF NOT illegal. It is a fact that it is in DAFF’S financial interests to ensure that large scale poaching continues and more and more product is stolen and then confiscated so that DAFF can sell the poached product for PROFIT.

It is a shocking fact that the legal abalone fishery must compete with DAFF for buyers especially since DAFF continues to sell sub-standard product at substantial discounts to export markets. This is ruining BRAND SOUTH AFRICA and the ability of law-abiding abalone right holders to earn a living and to continue to provide employment.

We demand that:

• DAFF's financial interest in poaching be terminated immediately!

• Confiscated abalone be made available to the legal abalone rightsholders so that it can benefit the industry that rightfully should have harvested it (if DAFF had done their job and protected it from poaching in the first place)

COMPLIANCE IN COLLAPSE

One of the key “conditions” imposed by Cabinet for the re-opening of the commercial abalone fishery was the reduction in poaching levels and improved compliance. Yet, the Chief Directorate: MCS is in a state of implosion and does not even have a permanent head of MCS. Your own officials have admitted in a recent (January 2011) publication that the department has no compliance strategy in place to protect abalone.

• Despite numerous regular “tip-offs” provided by abalone divers and members of the public of day-light poaching in areas such as Llandadno, Hout Bay, Buffels Bay, Perly Beach etc, your officials have NEVER responded effectively to any complaints.

• The so-called Overberg abalone “hotline” is never answered and just rings. It serves no point at all.

• Due to the mismanagement of the Marine Living Resources Fund, your department no longer has the budget required to implement a compliance strategy. Despite requests for access to the Compliance budget, we have still not been provided with this.

• Fishery control officers are poorly trained and lack basic understanding of the law and what is required of abalone right holders under permit conditions. Proof of this is the number of prosecutions your department has lost and the number of cases prosecutors & magistrates have thrown out of court.

• Fishery control officers are not allowed to work over weekends and after 4pm! This is ludicrous in the extreme. Slipways and harbours are routinely being left un-monitored, allowing for large-scale poaching of abalone, lobsters and line fish.

• Although we regularly hear of “arrests” of poachers and syndicates (such as the 19 poachers recently arrested and the 29 arrested years ago for poaching at Robben Island), they are not prosecuted, fined the maximum of R800,000 and their assets are never confiscated. Arrest of poachers is meaningless if they simply walk free.

• The use of the environmental protection vessels is a waste of time and money. They were not designed for inshore patrolling. They are huge, costly and too slow to stop abalone poachers who use high-speed RIBS.

• The continued use of the “military vets” for compliance is an embarrassment and smacks of nothing more than cadre deployment. They are shockingly trained and lack basic knowledge about abalone enforcement strategy and monitoring. We are not aware of a single case where they have apprehended poachers or stopped poaching.

We demand that you and your staff urgently engage with abalone right holders to immediately develop an effective multi-faceted compliance strategy. We want –

• the Green Courts back;

• effective monitoring and surveillance of hot-spot areas and slip ways;

• the deployment of high-speed rubber ducks to combat sea-based poaching;

• to work with well-trained and competent FCO’s to reduce poaching.

ABALONE RESEARCH? WHAT RESEARCH?

Has your researchers provided you with comprehensive research analysis and data on the non-existent abalone fishery recovery strategy?

Your researchers have NEVER undertaken any proper underwater research on abalone fishing zones such as Zones E and G. How is this possible? How can they provide you with any form of reliable and adequate data on our abalone resource?

Have you received annual data analyses on how abalone stocks are doing in protected areas such as the Betty’s Bay MPA? We assume not.

Why is industry excluded from studying any of the ‘’research reports” that inform the TAC proposals you receive. Do you get to read and study these research reports? The abalone industry has repeatedly tried to obtain access to these “secret reports”. Why are they a secret? Perhaps because they are based on such factual fallacies that they fear industry would expose?

We demand that you and your staff urgently engage with abalone right holders to immediately develop an effective abalone research and recovery strategy which should have been put in place in 2009! We want –

• to partner with your researchers to provide them with the support (including free use of our vessels as we understand they do not have the funds to hire vessels) needed to undertake proper research in EACH of the 7 fishing zones; and

• to participate in and be consulted adequately (as required by law) on the annual TAC proposals.

THE ABALONE FISHING POLICY OF 2003 IS STILL LAW: WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR TURFs?

The abalone fishery is governed by the Abalone Fishery Policy of 2003 which requires abalone right holders to be allocated fish based on the TURF system.

• Why have you and your department unilaterally and unlawfully abandoned implementation of legally binding policy?

• Why are officials employed who cannot produce the proper inter area schedules and who claim that it would take months were they to attempt to do so?

• Where is the co-management of the fishery that you speak of all the time? Why is DAFF so unwilling to cooperate with the abalone fishing industry?

• Why do your officials act as obstacles to the effective management of the abalone fishery? For example, why has it taken more than 2 seasons for them to implement the East False Bay Experimental TAC?

We demand that you and your staff urgently engage with abalone right holders to immediately develop an effective management strategy which should have been put in place in 2009! We want –

• You and your officials to respect the rule of law and properly implement the Abalone Fishery policy of 2003;

• To move away from using TAC decreases as the only management mechanism as this has failed hopelessly. Why can’t we increase the TAC to displace poachers? Poachers are being allowed by your department to steal between 2000 and 3000 tons of abalone annually! Decreases in our 150 ton TAC can never help with the recovery of abalone in these circumstances!

ABALONE FISHING LEVIES

In 2003 our levy was increased 4-fold! - on the understanding that –

• The increase was temporary;

• The increase would fund the establishment of the Green Courts; and

• The increase would fund a comprehensive compliance strategy – Operation Trident.

In 2005, the Green Courts were closed and Operation Trident was terminated AND nothing replaced these. Since then however our levies have only been further increased! - while we receive nothing except incompetence and failure in return.

On 31 May 2011 we addressed an urgent letter to you regarding our objections to paying the current inequitable and unjust levy. You have failed to respond to this letter and continue to ignore our concerns and objections.

We will now withhold payments of our levies to the Marine Living Resources Fund until such time as you have the decency to reply to our letter and we can agree on a reasonable levy that is in line with levies payable in the other commercial fishery sectors.

We now require you – as the Minister – to address us on each of the issues we raised above as a matter of extreme urgency and by no later than 20 October 2011, failing which we continue to publicly protest outside your offices. Your written reply can be submitted to Abalone South Africa asa@abalone.org.za

Why is Industry Not Consulted on TAC's?

2011-10-07T04:43:00.000-07:00

A few weeks back Feike, together with the Abalone Industry Association, requested that the department of fisheries make available certain reports that were used to inform the scientific recommendations on the 2011/2012 abalone total allowable catch (TAC). The department's officials initially refused access to these documents as they were deemed "confidential". When Feike noted that as the "Secrecy Bill" was not law (yet), officials did not have a right to simply decide what is "secret" or confidential, the officials changed tack stating that application for the documents should be made under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA)!

Feike then requested access to the department's PAIA Manual which, we noted was not available on the DAFF website and could not be found anywhere. Every department must have a PAIA Manual stating, amongst other things, which categories and types of information are freely available without having to adhere to the normal PAIA request for information process. We also pointed out that all TAC documents must be made available on request in terms of the General Fisheries Policy of 2005.

Our requests for the Manual were fobbed off and of course the officials pretended to not know about that policy of 2005. Then suddenly, a couple of days after we demanded access to the PAIA Manual noting that a refusal to provide the Manual constituted a criminal offence, a brand new PAIA Manual suddenly appeared on the DAFF website, specifically excluding public access to current TAC documents! How convenient!

And how incredibly dishonest! But by unjustifiably "classifying" as secret such critical documents that directly inform the how and why TAC's are set, DAFF has now in effect forced the Minister of Fisheries to first consult adequately with the abalone fishing industry (and for that matter other fishing industries) BEFORE she unilaterally publishes TAC's, especially where the TAC results in quota decreases.

Lobster Fishing in the Closed Season?

2011-10-06T02:26:00.000-07:00

It would appear that the commercial lobster fishing sector is abuzz with corridor talk about the fact that two Gansbaai fishing companies have been allowed to harvest an offshore lobster fishing quota in the lobster closed season (1 October 2011-15 October 2011).

Feike, together with Shaun Hangone of Cape Town law firm, Von Lieres Cooper Barlow Hangone Attorneys, was appointed by Dyer Eiland Visserye and Scenematic 16 in September to urgently protect their respective commercial contractual interests involving a lobster quota they were entitled to harvest, process and market. During late August, the right holder concerned proceeded to breach certain contractual obligations and demanded that the Minister of Fisheries cancel its fishing permits which were held by Dyer Eiland and Scenematic 16. The Minister duly cancelled the permits in late August and despite efforts to convince the quota holder to respect its contractual obligations, it became clear that the quota holder was intent on double dipping by selling its quota twice!

So, off to court we went seeking an urgent interdict against the right holder. The Minister was joined as a respondent but as the matter was a commercial dispute, she agreed to abide the court's decision and agreed to "immediately issue permits" to Dyer Eiland Visserye and Scenematic 16 should the court grant the interdict. On 27 September 2011, the Western Cape High Court issued an interdict against the right holder. The application was completely unopposed as the right holder failed to oppose the application. The Minister agreed to issue permits immediately on the 27th.

By the 30th of September - the last day of the season - the Minister had still not issued the permits in terms of the court order of 27 September 2011. Accordingly, at about 3:30pm on 30 September 2011, the WC High Court heard an urgent application to hold the Minister of Fisheries in contempt of court. The court was particularly concerned with how the court order of 27 September 2011 could be given effect and the dignity of the High Court protected and thus granted Dyer Eiland Visserye and Scenematic 16 the right to harvest the lobster quota until 18 October 2011 (which is the date on which the court will hear argument on the Minister's contempt of court allegation). It is important to note that on 30 September 2011, the Court again ordered the Minister to issue permits to Dyer Eiland Visserye and Scenematic by 8am on 3 October 2011. The Minister had failed again to comply with this order and could thus be said to be in "double" contempt if such a concept exists.

If one recalls, in January 2011, this Minister narrowly escaped contempt of court charges by issuing permits to a Feike client at the very last minute. What is deeply concerning is that we are increasingly facing a Minister and a department who simply appear to be above the law. They appear committed to simply do as they wish regardless of the impact it has on commercial fishing companies and the ability to go fishing.

We of course remain committed to holding these public servants to account. The rule of law cannot be sacrificed at the alter of arrogance and incompetence.

MaritimeSA Industry Headline News

2011-09-16T02:06:00.000-07:00

MaritimeSA (www.maritimesa.co.za) reports a number of important industry headline news. Log onto their site for further info on the following headlines:

Oceana converts seasonal employment to permanent jobs
Sub-saharan trade starting to suffer from piracy
Working for the Coast project launched
SADC to host anti-piracy summit
SA Navy in Zanzibar in search and rescue ops
SA helps Tanzania after ferry capsizes
Maritime University on the cards for South Africa
Deputy Minister open Nautical Command Seminar
Transnet buys new equipment for Durban Port
Seli 1 continues to cause concern
New truck entrance at the port of Cape Town

DAFF Moves to Clean Up Interim Relief List

2011-09-16T01:07:00.000-07:00

The fraudster and con-man known as Yusuf Achmat (Malafa Fishing CC) has been removed as a beneficiary of an interim relief lobster quota, making way for a deserving and honest fisherman who actually relies on fishing for a living.

In July, Feike was alerted to the fact that Mr Achmat's name appeared on the proposed Interim Relief List for 2011/2012. Feike addressed correspondence to the Department advising that Achmat could not qualify for an interim relief quota as he does not satisfy the department's published criteria. Feike noted, inter alia, that -

1. Mr Achmat is known to have defrauded a number of commercial fishing companies by posing as the holder/owner/authorised representative of commercial fishing rights in the lobster offshore and small pelagic fisheries. Feike provided copies of bank statements showing Achmat's receipt of funds totaling more than R200 000 and his fraudulent signature on a number of agreements.

2. Mr Achmat poses as the owner of Malafa Fishing Fishing CC (a defunct entity of which he is not a member) and fraudulently advertises that he/Malafa owns an offshore lobster commercial fishing right amounting to 15 tons.

The department advises that it had attempted to obtain Achmat's response to the allegations put forward by Feike but refused to answer his mobile phone and refused to respond to written requests to attend a meeting of the verification team. The Department has also advised that all fishery control officers have been informed that Achmat is not permitted to lawfully harvest any fish.

Government Accepts Feike's Analysis of Fisheries

2011-09-05T12:22:00.000-07:00

The South African government's Service Delivery Review publication, which aims to publicise examples of service delivery by state departments, provides an in-depth analysis of the success of broad based black economic empowerment in the South African commercial fisheries with particular reference to the hake deep sea trawl fishery.

The publication can be accessed via http://www.dpsa.gov.za/dpsa2g/documents/service_delivery_review/sdr_Vol_8_No_3_2011.pdf

SELI 1 Leaks Oil onto Blouberg Beach

2011-09-03T10:15:00.000-07:00

The Seli 1 leaked more oil on 3 September 2011 which washed up onto Blouberg Beach today. The smell of oil was still very pungent by 14h00 but had largely dissipated by 17h00. The City of Cape Town had cordoned off access to the beach and had largely cleaned up the beach of significant oil deposits by 17h00.

Although not a substantial spill, some sea life has been affected with the City reporting the death of 4 gulls and seals. The beach has been closed to all recreational activity.

The Seli 1 is a Turkish bulk carrier, operated by TEB Maritime of Istanbul, and was en route to Gibraltar when it was driven aground off Blouberg beach by strong westerly winds shortly after midnight on 18 September 2009, having reported engine failure and a snapped anchor chain.

The ship was carrying a cargo of 30 000 tons of coal, and 660 tonnes of heavy fuel oil with 60 tons of diesel fuel. The vessel was essentially abandoned by its insurers, the Russian P&I Pool and its owner.

Seafarer of the Year Nominations

2011-09-01T05:39:00.000-07:00

The second SAMSA Seafarer of the Year call for nominations has been published. The maritime industry will once again recognise the significant contribution made by South African seafarers when they come together in October to announce the SAMSA Seafarer of the Year. This year’s winner will be chosen from the thousands of men and women who have followed their vocation to sea. Fishermen, salvors, merchant mariners, offshore riggers, engineers, harbour pilots and rescue crew all play a major role in moving trade, harvesting resources and keeping our waters safe. The South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) has once again stepped up to honour the commitment made by these individuals and promises to host a memorable evening on 22 October where winners will be chosen in the following categories:

Fishing
Commercial
Shore-based
Overall SAMSA Seafarer of the Year

Having established the Centre for Seafarers in 2010 (The International Year of the Seafarer), SAMSA continued their support for this sector in 2011 when they launched the SAMSA Cadet Programme that aims to secure training berths for young South Africans keen to embark on a career at sea. Smit Amandla Marine, Grindrod Group, Business Partners and Maritime Southern Africa have all joined up to honour seafarers at this year’s function. For more information, including accessing the nomination form, please see http://maritimesa.co.za/SOYA/tabid/88/Default.aspx

Not Minding the Information Gap

2011-08-29T23:35:00.001-07:00

Ever since the installation of Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson as Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in 2009, we have had a growing number of statements and questions over the levels of black ownership, empowerment and transformation in the fishing industry by members of government, including the Portfolio Committee on Fisheries. What is apparent is that the department of fisheries and the Minister simply don't know or understand the fisheries economy of this country.

The institutional meltdown at the department of fisheries has contributed greatly to the lack of any discernible information on, analysis or performance measuring of our commercial fisheries. Just consider the utter nonsense that was published as "data" from the evaluation of the Cluster C and Cluster D fisheries - and the millions of rands that was wasted on that useless and error-ridden data.

Without accurate and reliable socio-economic data it is impossible to properly regulate commercial or recreational fisheries. Feike has over the years invested substantial resources and energy into understanding the socio-economic relevance of our commercial fishery sectors. In 2008, we published an in-depth analysis of the socio-economic profiles of some of South Africa’s most important commercial fisheries. In addition, we monitor the total and individual fishery sector values on an annual basis based on the average landed values of the principal target resources.

Here are some of the more significant headline statistics on fisheries.

In 2006, the commercial fisheries landed approximately 630 000 tons of fish worth an estimated R4,4 billion. By 2010, some 745 000 tons of fish was landed worth an estimated R5,4 billion. The hake deep-sea trawl fishery has consistently been South Africa’s most important commercial fishery, accounting for 53% of the total value of the commercial fisheries. The small pelagic fishery, comprising pilchards and anchovies, has consistently been the largest fishery by volume, accounting for more than 550 000 tons of fish in 2010.

If one considers the significant level of social transformation of the commercial fisheries since 1994, it ought to serve as the benchmark of black economic empowerment and social transformation for most of our economic sectors. Whereas black ownership of the commercial fisheries was almost non-existent in 1994, with quotas divided amongst some 400 operators, by 2005 (when long term commercial fishing rights were allocated), more than 3000 fishing rights were allocated with black ownership of fisheries at 60.9%. Between 2001 and 2005, the commercial fisheries increased employment numbers from approximately 29 000 to more than 43 000.

And South Africa’s most valuable and important commercial fishery, the hake deep-sea trawl fishery, has led by example. In 1994, of the 21 quota holders, black ownership was measured at less than 0.5%. Five quota holders shared 92% of the catch allocation. By 2001, black owned and managed quota holders controlled 25% of hake trawl catch. The number of right holders more than doubled to 53 quota holders and the quota held by the five largest quota holders was reduced to 74%. By 2005 when the trawl fishery was allocated 15-year long commercial fishing rights, black owned and managed quota holders controlled 43% of hake trawl catch and the five largest quota holders controlled a further reduced 70% of the catch.

The fishery directly employs some 8000 people and 75% of all hake deep-sea trawl skippers are black. Right holders in the trawl fishery employ an average of 70 persons per 1000 tons of fish; while their international counterparts employ about 40 persons per 1000 tons of fish.

Without a cogent and rational understanding of the socio-economy of the fisheries sector as a whole and of individual sectors, how is the department possibly going to even begin preparing for the allocation of commercial fishing rights in 13 commercial fisheries in 2013 and 2015? How does the department even begin to develop policy to manage the next round of fishing rights allocation without having monitored and evaluated performance of fishery sectors and right holders against the legally binding policy objectives set out in each of the fishery policies?

What to do with a Problem called Abalone?

2011-08-18T00:55:00.000-07:00

Based on anecdotal evidence from fishers along the coast, some recent (conservative) research analysis - to balance the anecdotes, the near weekly reports of significant abalone busts by the South African Police and conversations with fishery control officers, there is little doubt that abalone poaching continues unabated. The recent arrest of 19 members of a local syndicate appears to have done little to dent the poaching thirst. Then of course we know that the department of fisheries is not particularly interested in curbing poaching. They continue to rely on the proceeds from the sale of confiscated abalone to fund the administration of the Marine Living Resources Fund and fishery control officers are not permitted to work after 4pm or on weekends!

The department also lacks the funds to implement any (even a half decent one) abalone anti-poaching strategy and continues to waste substantial funds on the "military veterans" that they use as additional "fishery control officers".

Now rumours are awash along the Overberg coast that the department's abalone scientists are recommending the closure of two further abalone zones - Zones A and B, which will effectively close all abalone fishing in the Overberg leaving that entire coast free for poachers to plunder. There is no doubt that our scientific advisers are dead right in their biological analysis that because of rampant and unchecked poaching in the Overberg, closure of the last two zones in the area is needed to save abalone.

But is closure the answer? I reckon that what we should be doing is the opposite. I would in fact increase the commercial abalone TAC ... dramatically. I would perhaps start with doubling the TAC for the 2011/2012 season to about 250 tons and do the same again in 2012. I would look at what my fishery control officers (ie those troops on the ground) and organisations such as TRAFFIC and SEAWATCH are saying about poaching trends in Zones A, B, C and D (the closed zones and zones proposed for closure) and increase allocations in those zones. For example, I would allocate no less than 10 tons in Zone A, 145 tons in Zone B, 10 tons in Zone C and 10 tons in Zone D.

I know what you are thinking. I have not lost my marbles. The reality is that since I was head of fisheries management, the "best advice" I received has always been to cut quotas when a resource is not doing well for whatever reason. The same applied and continues to apply to abalone. The small difference back then was that we had the resources to start reducing abalone poaching. Not now. DAFF is resourceless with no known options to reduce poaching.

In 2004, all scientific advice pointed to the need to reduce catch limitations in the Patagonian Toothfishery which was being subjected to significant levels of poaching. However, based on consultations with toothfish right holders, the South African government elected to instead leave the TAC unchanged in order to encourage year-round legal fishing in the area in order to try and displace illegal fishing.

It is along these lines that I am suggesting that instead of abandoning an entire coastline to poachers, keep the legal fishery active in a bid to displace poachers and particularly syndicates. The reality is that after some 8 years of being closed to abalone fishing, Zones C and D have shown no recovery. Yet, it is known that significant poaching of lobsters and abalone continues in these zones.

My proposal would be to establish a formal working relationship between the abalone industries located east and west of hangklip, on the one hand, and DAFF, TRAFFIC and SEAWATCH on the other, with the latter organisations providing a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation capacity monitoring fishing and poaching trends on a weekly basis to determine the trajectory of this project. Should the M&E system indicate potential biological calamity (the criteria for which are agreed to beforehand of course), the Minister always has the authority to suspend fishing, reduce effort or reduce the TAC on a zonal basis on an emergency basis under section 16 of the Marine Living Resources Act.

The usual approach of reducing TAC's and closing the legal fishery has only served up more and more of our abalone to syndicated poachers. I reckon its time for a radical option. What do we have to lose?

Feike Profiled in Maritime SA

2011-08-12T03:22:00.000-07:00

Feike and some of the work we do in South Africa is featured in the July/August edition of Maritime Southern Africa (pages 56-57). The electronic version can be viewed on http://maritimesa.co.za/CurrentIssue/tabid/79/Default.aspx then simply click on the magazine and flip to page 56.

Feike on The Money Show with Bruce Whitfield

2011-08-08T07:04:00.000-07:00

Feike's Shaheen Moolla will be chatting to Bruce Whitfield on The Money Show between 19:30 and 20h00 on Thursday 11 August 2011. We will be talking about the state of the SA fishing industry with particular emphasis on the larger commercial fisheries such as hake deep sea trawl and the small pelagic fisheries.

The facts about Fraud and Conning in the Fishing Industry

2011-07-31T05:39:00.000-07:00

The Sunday Times of 31 July 2011 reported on the fraudster and con-artist, Yusuf Achmat. The article however seems to create an air of ambiguity regarding the role that Feike played in the matter. These are the facts:

1. Feike was approached by both Ixia Trading and Gansbaai Marine (via Marine Admin Consultants) to urgently source pilchard quota for them for the 2011 season.

2. Feike was advised that a person called Yusuf Achmat who represented 4 pilchard quota holding companies was prepared to sell the pilchards belonging to these entities for the 2011 season for a specified price on certain terms and conditions, which were communicated to Feike by Achmat in writing.

3. Feike communicated these terms to the both Ixia and Gansbaai whose respective managing directors confirmed their concurrence and that Feike must proceed with the drafting of the agreements. The agreements were subsequently drafted and presented to Achmat for signature. As the quota holders he represented are close corporations, the contracts drafted by Feike explicitly required Achmat to warrant that he was properly authorised to represent and bind the quota holders and sell the fish concerned. Achmat further warranted his authority to bind and represent the corporations when he signed each agreement. Feike was not requested to or required to conduct any due diligence on Achmat or any of the close corporations. Indeed, based on the urgency of the parties to conclude the contracts, any due diligence would have been impossible.

4. The applicable agreements were then counter-signed by Ixia and Gansbaai Marine's respective managing directors.

5. In terms of the agreements, Ixia and Gansbaai would pay "deposits" to Achmat on signature of the agreements. These deposits varied from 5% to 10% of the total purchase price. A portion of Feike's legal fees and commissions were payable on signature of the agreements. The deposits were paid by Feike to Achmat between 29 April & 3 May as required by Achmat.

6. During the subsequent 2 weeks, it became apparent that Achmat could not produce the requisite tax clearance certificates and other documents required to uplift the fishing permits for the four corporations. At this stage, Feike alerted both Gansbaai and Ixia to the fact that Achmat may not be able to produce the documents he was obliged to produce in terms of the contracts.

7. During informal correspondence with a director of another Cape Town based fishing company, the director mentioned how his company was recently conned by two separate persons - the one being a Yusuf Achmat. At this stage, Feike informed both Ixia and Gansbaai Marine of the possibility that Achmat was a con-man and a fraud who may have signed the sale agreements with any legal mandate or authority.

8. With the concurrence of both Ixia and Gansbaai, Feike appointed a firm of attorneys to urgently issue summons to recover the deposits paid to Achmat. Feike also appointed a debt collecting agency to attempt to recover the deposits. Further, Feike reported Achmat to SARS for violations of the Income Tax Act and VAT Act - as Achmat had issued fraudulent VAT invoices for the receipt of the deposits and would not have declared these deposits to SARS as income.

9. For reasons only known to Gansbaai Marine and Ixia Trading, they suddenly decided to not sue Achmat for the deposits he received and invoiced for. Feike remains committed to suing Achmat for the damage caused by his fraud, misrepresentation and deceit by signing agreements for which he had no legal mandate or authority.

The only reason fraudsters and con-artists like Achmat continue to operate in the fishing industry is because companies like Ixia Trading and Gansbaai Marine refuse to expose and sue these types of people. How often did a certain Mr W (now deceased) operate in a similar fashion, selling his quota 3 and four times over in the same season collecting illicit deposits on his quotas without anyone (other than the Grim Reeper) putting an end to the practice?

Another ANC official bust for abalone poaching

2011-07-27T03:34:00.000-07:00

The Cape Times (26 July 2011) reports that one of the 19 people arrested as part of an abalone poaching syndicate is Samuel (Sammy) Brett, 42. Brett was an ANC candidate for ward councillor in the recent local government elections. A senior ANC source confirms that Brett stood as the ANC’s official candidate during the recent municipal elections for Ward 2 in the Gansbaai area. The source also says Brett’s name was on the list that was submitted to the IEC ahead of the elections.

Brett has a number of previous convictions relating to transgressions of the Marine Living Resources Act.

Brett is by no means the only senior local ANC caught poaching abalone. If we recall, in 2009 a local ANC leader was caught with 2 474 fresh abalone outside Hermanus, after a short chase in a vehicle covered with stickers of the ruling party and its leader, Jacob Zuma.

There is no news on whether this ANC leader was ever prosecuted or what happened to the 2474 freshly shucked abalone. Was this ANC leader ever expelled from the party? Will Mr Brett's membership of the ANC be terminated? It is noted that Mr Brett has prior criminal convictions.

WSCD APPEALS ANNOUNCED

2011-07-25T06:58:00.000-07:00

The Minister of Environmental Affairs finally issued her decisions on the appeals in the white shark cage diving sector on 25 July 2011. It took the Minister some 12 months to decide a mere 16 appeals.

The permits issued are valid for five years, renewable annually in terms of section 13 of the Marine Living Resources Act.

Of Feike's 5 clients in the white shark cage diving and boat-based whale watching sectors, four have been successful (2 new entrants and 2 exemption holders).

The DAFF website is the answer to our questions!

2011-07-20T02:51:00.000-07:00

There can be no doubt that an organisation's public profile today is defined by its various e-platforms. Whether the platform is the "traditional" website, an interactive blog, Facebook, Twitter... these tell the world what you are thinking and where you are at. Used cleverly, these platforms market the organisation's vision and instills confidence in it.

So the department of fisheries' website (it has no other e-platform to profile itself and speak to fishing industry) is a comical tragedy. Under "BREAKING NEWS", the latest news item is from October 2010! Has nothing remotely relevant happened in the fishing industry since October 2010?

And don't bother with trying to open any of the other pages as they are still all under "construction"! Remember the "new" department of fisheries came into being in June 2009 - that is, in the previous decade! It took less time to build entire soccer stadiums.

Under the "Management" link (which does exist), we are told that the acting DDG is Richard Seleke. Seleke is ancient history. There have been about 4 acting DDG's since him. We cant even remember who he is or when he "acted".

But the website does accurately reflect who and what DAFF is... out-dated, irrelevant and not remotely interested in or concerned with fisheries.

"Police-Run" Abalone Syndicate Members Arrested

2011-07-20T00:27:00.000-07:00

The Cape Times this morning reports of a significant series of arrests of 19 people, including serving police officers alleged to be involved in the illegal harvesting and trade of wild abalone. It has been reported that the investigations into the syndicate's illegal activities spanned some three years and involved the Department of Fisheries (and its predecessor, MCM) and the South African Police Service.

The arrest of serving police officers will come as little surprise to fishers who have been alleging police and fishery compliance officer complicity in the illegal harvesting of abalone for some time, having cited numerous examples in public and to the department.

While we must recognise the important and invaluable work of the department of fisheries' compliance officers in the specialised unit for this important step forward, we must however caution against complacency. We read of literally dozens of arrests of poachers and syndicate members with little news of any successful prosecutions, substantial jail terms for syndicate leaders and the financial destruction of syndicates. It is - as previous cases have shown - the financial implosion of a syndicate that ultimately leads to a turning of the corner.

For one, we need the return of our specialised green courts, specialised prosecutors and magistrates who understand fisheries and environmental laws and the need to efficiently and effectively deal with each case without the burden of other "priority crimes" such as murder, rape and robbery. And then we need significantly more regular arrests, prosecutions and guilty findings of poaching syndicate members.

But these arrests are an important step forward and we must support DAFF in the successful prosecution of those implicated.

New EU FPA Protocols for Mozambique & Guinea Bissau

2011-07-19T02:02:00.000-07:00

The European Union has initialled a new Protocol to the fisheries agreement with Guinea Bissau, which maintains the conditions of the present Protocol i.e. fishing possibilities for 4,400 GRT for shrimp trawlers, 4,400 GRT (gross register tonnage) for fin-fish and cephalopod trawlers, 23 tuna seiners and longliners, and 14 pole-and-line vessels. The EU financial counterpart amounts to 4,550,000 EUR for the right to fish and 2,950,000 EUR for the support of the fisheries sector in Guinea Bissau. A new clause was added to allow for the suspension of the protocol if there is a breach of human rights and democratic principles. This fisheries agreement allows vessels mainly from Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and France to fish in the Guinea-Bissau waters. The duration of the Protocol is for only one year since negotiations were delayed by the consultations held in 2011 between the EU and Guinea Bissau under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement. The Parties expect to have a new protocol negotiated by March 2012.

The Commission and the Government of Mozambique have initialled a new Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement to come into force from I January 2012. The Protocol will provide a reduced reference tonnage of 8,000 tonnes/year of highly migratory species (due to the impact of piracy on EU fleet activities in the region). However, the financial contribution paid by the EU has increased from EUR900,000 to EUR980,000/year, due to a substantial increase in the financial support for implementation of a sustainable fisheries policy. Fishing possibilities will be offered for a total of 75 vessels, comprising 43 purse seine vessels and 32 surface longliners.

Regulation of High Seas Mooted

2011-07-19T01:29:00.000-07:00

A working group of the United Nations General Assembly in June recommended the establishment of a process that could lead to a multilateral agreement on high seas conservation and sustainable use. Specifically the recommendations call for crafting a legal regime under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to conserve marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdictions, including by designating MPAs. Currently no mechanism exists to designate MPAs on the high seas that would apply to all nations. High seas presently comprise 64% of the world's oceans. For more see www.iucn.org/?uNewsID=7612

FRAUDSTER WARNING: YUSUF ACHMAT

2011-07-18T00:56:00.000-07:00

Fishing Industry News has already reported on the fraudulent conduct of a con-man called Yusuf Achmat who presents himself as the "owner" of a defunct close corporation called MALAFA FISHING CC. Achmat is neither the "owner" nor a member of Malafa Fishing. Malafa does not own any assets and does not have any fishing quotas. Achmat himself owns nothing accept what he has recently purchased from his criminal proceeds (a car, expensive watches etc). He lives in Fairways on the Cape Flats in his mother-in-law's house.

Achmat has gone on a prolific defrauding spree in the fishing industry this year alone. Relying on the fact that (for some odd reason) many industry operators will happily accept being defrauded without even reporting the fraud to the SAPS, let alone suing for the recovery of the money, Mr Achmat appears to have stolen approximately R355,000 from commercial operators in the fishing industry and has become bolder as he continues to escape sanction, until now at least.

Achmat's ruse is a simple one. He pretends that his "company", Malafa Fishing, owns or controls or has shares in quota holders and that he is authorised to sell these quotas either outright or for the season BUT requires an upfront deposit on signature of any agreement (which he happily albeit fraudulently signs even warranting that he is duly authorised to sell the fish concerned). Once the fraudulent agreement is concluded and the funds deposited, he cancels the contracts or simply switches off his mobile phone as he is unable to produce any of the documents required to obtain the fishing permits he "sold".

He then moves on to his next prey.

In his latest scam, he tries to de-fraud a foreign buyer of fish looking to purchase west coast rock lobsters. The entire record of his fraud is eloquently captured in a series of emails where Achmat commits a series of frauds and other criminal offences. Achmat claims to "own" a 15 ton lobster quota and has 2 tons of purged lobsters immediately ready for export. But he requires an immediate US$4,000 deposit for which he issues a fraudulent invoice in violation of the VAT Act. In a bid to convince the buyer that he actually has 2 tons of lobsters, Achmat issues to the buyer a series of pictures of lobsters and traps which are just bad cut-and-pastes from Google Images!

Once the buyer confirmed that the US$4000 deposit was made, Achmat promptly issued an email canceling the agreement to provide the 2 tons of lobsters.

It is a criminal offence under the Marine Living Resources Act to in any way front oneself as a harvester, processor or exporter of fish or fish products without being in possession of the requisite permits and rights.

In a bid to further legitimise his claims and to conclude the fraudulent transaction, Achmat even criminally impersonates Feike's Shaheen Moolla by issuing an email to the buyer in Moolla's name claiming that Moolla is his marketer! This amounted to a further crime - that of criminal impersonation which is an extremely serious fraud affecting large parts of our economy.

Our message is to avoid Malafa Fishing CC and Yusuf Achmat like the plague. Feike has identified a number of international websites on which Achmat has placed adverts that he "harvests, processes and exports" South African lobsters and have informed the administrators of these sites that Achmat is a known fraudster and con-man who does not have any right to harvest, process or export any South African fish and fish products. In order to protect the South African fishing industry, legitimate right holders and marketers in the industry may also want to warn their foreign colleagues to not enter into correspondence with this fraudster. (Of course one ought to never conduct business with people whose sole contact points are a cell phone and an email address with yahoo, hotmail or google!)

Feike has reported Achmat and Malafa Fishing CC to both the Department of Fisheries for criminal violations of the MLRA and to SARS for violations of the Income Tax Act and the VAT Act.

Understanding the IUCN Red List

2011-07-12T02:39:00.000-07:00

This opinion was originally posted by Victor Restrepo and Bill Fox on http://iss-foundation.org/2011/07/07/understanding-the-iucn-redlist/ on Thursday, 7 July 2011

On July 7, 2011, a group of scientists published an article in Science magazine, reflecting the status of various tuna and billfish populations according to the criteria used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The so-called “Red List” can be used to identify populations of that face long-term sustainability issues according to IUCN. The Red List puts populations in six different categories: Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened, Least Concern, and Data Deficient; the first three are known as the “Threatened” categories in the Red List. Evaluations are based on a standard IUCN formula that classifies populations according to several considerations, such as changes in population size.

The two of us were participating members of the IUCN review team, which – for the first time ever – used information on the global distribution, ecology, population trends, and impact of major threats for all known species of tunas, bonitos, Spanish mackerels, and mackerels and billfishes in order to evaluate their status relative to IUCN categories. The IUCN evaluations rank three of the most highly valued tuna species – southern bluefin, Atlantic bluefin, and bigeye – in the Threatened categories.

However, it is important to note that the formula IUCN uses in its classifications is also applied to a broad range of terrestrial and aquatic species. In other words, it’s a “one-size-fits-all” method; it’s not tailored for assessing specific species.

The main indicator used with the IUCN method to classify fish species is the so-called “rate of decline criterion”. It looks at how much the abundance of mature individuals has declined over a period of time that is related to the age when maturity is reached. If during this period of time (between five and twenty years for tunas) the mature population has declined by at least 50%, it is classified as Vulnerable; if the decline is of 70%-89%, it is classified as Endangered; and, if the decline is 90% or more, it is classified as Critically Endangered.

While there are positive aspects to using a consistent formula, when IUCN lists a fish as “Threatened,” it does not necessarily mean that the species is in real and immediate danger of extinction or collapse. It just means that there has been a drop in the population size that meets the formula used in IUCN classifications. Very often, these IUCN classifications are at odds with what is considered to be successful fisheries management to ensure sustainable seafood production. For example, in a study of 89 fish populations conducted by Rice and Legace[1], use of the IUCN formula suggested that 87% of them were Threatened when, in reality, most of the stocks were not depleted from a fisheries management perspective.

Consider this: Tuna species are actually most productive when they are at 40% to 50% of their maximum population size – this is the population abundance that supports Maximum Sustainable Yield, the management objective of all tuna Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs). Therefore, a 50% drop in population size from the maximum can be reasonable from a fisheries management viewpoint, but still result in a Threatened classification by IUCN.

And now consider another, opposite, possibility: The case where a fish population has been heavily overfished and has remained severely depleted – but stable – for decades. In this case, the IUCN “rate of decline” criterion would not detect a major drop in abundance and would result in a classification of “Least Concern” (not Threatened). This IUCN classification would be at odds with what fisheries management would consider to be a failure to ensure the sustainability of this stock.

These considerations were actually addressed by a group of scientists who participated in the IUCN assessment process for tunas and billfishes in Brazil last year, who called on IUCN to address these differences (click here to view the statement made by that group).

Still, the IUCN approach can be an important tool for setting conservation priorities, particularly at a global level. In the case of tunas, the conclusions of the IUCN review team were consistent with what the majority of fisheries scientists believe to be true: that the longer-lived bluefin tuna stocks are more vulnerable to overfishing, followed by bigeye, and then by albacore, yellowfin and, finally, the shorter-lived skipjack. The publication in Science magazine calls on RFMOs and fishing nations to properly manage species of concern, a call that we wholeheartedly support.

How to Properly Screw Over Artisinal Fishers: A lesson by DAFF

2011-07-11T02:13:00.000-07:00

Why DAFF has not officially published a guideline on "How to screw over artisinal fishers", we don't know. Especially since no one else in the business can so completely frustrate and jeopardise many hundreds of businesses because of incompetent and red-taped "officials".

Take a very recent example in the abalone sector. Here, repeated bungling and utter incompetence by DAFF officials has resulted in the failure to properly implement the allocation of 14 tons of abalone in the False Bay and the eastern part of False Bay (Zone E1). Despite the fact that the abalone industry had provided a complete implementation strategy and timetable which has been accepted by right holders - something the department of fisheries ought to have done but simply could not understand - DAFF officials responded to the industry request with this gem of a response -

"Applications or requests like your one are normally submitted at Customer Service Center where they would get registered and forwarded to the relevant authorities for their consideration. Your motivation for the application for an extension of the season needs to be detailed as this will assist the department in making informed decision. It is also important for you to know that the turnaround time for such applications is 20 working days."
So instead of dealing with an urgent request to extend a fishing season (which could be done within a day if there were any competent or non-acting officials around), DAFF officials expose their own extreme incompetence by instead insisting on some pointless bureaucratic procedure of submitting documents to the "customer service center"! Remember, the only reason the extension is being requested in the first place is because of initial DAFF incompetence!

DA CALLS FOR COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY FOR SMALL BOAT FISHING HARBOURS IN WESTERN CAPE

2011-07-05T00:42:00.000-07:00

This is a replication of a press statement issued by the DA's Mark Wiley last week.

Following a debate in the Western Cape Parliament last week, I have called for a Commission of Enquiry into the mismanagement of the small boat fishing harbours and fisheries along the Western Cape coast and the impact this is having on the surrounding traditional communities.

With one exception, all of South Africa’s small harbours are found along the dangerous Western Cape coastline. They service the fishing fleet, exploiting the vital fish stocks, with some 95% of all commercial species being found off this coast.

Since their construction in the 1920’s and 30’s these harbours, some in desolate areas, have served as the lifeline for the fishing communities that have developed around them. Hundreds of thousands of people, mainly in the lower income group, are dependent on this industry.

It is common knowledge, backed by expert opinion, that the current ANC National government, has neglected both the harbours and the fisheries to such an extent that both are in a state of collapse. In several harbours management is simply absent, sunken trawler wrecks block working quays and fees are not collected. Port lights do not work, toilets are a disgrace and there is no accountable supervision after 4pm and before 8am. Three National departments are involved in this management disaster, none want to take responsibility.

A report, commissioned to find ways to improve the situation in the harbours, has been kept a secret for two years. Why?

Lawlessness prevails in many harbours, and on the seas, as a result of maladministration and corruption in the handling of fishing quotas which has seen the further impoverishment of the traditional communities, with devastating social impact. The National Minister has not met with the formal industry in the over two years she has been in office. Virtually every senior Fisheries management post is either not filled or the incumbent, often acting, has no knowledge of the industry.

Only a Commission of Enquiry, convened by the Western Cape Premier, will have any chance of shedding light on this debacle that is so affecting the lives of so many residents of this Province.

Enquiries: Mark Wiley 0824525712

Mart-Marie Haasbroek 0729103724

Fishing Industry Unites under FISHSA

2011-07-01T03:17:00.000-07:00

At a meeting of Recognised Fishing Industry Associations held in Cape Town on Tuesday the 14th of June, 2011, the motivation for establishing an overarching Association to be known as FishSA, was discussed. It was unanimously agreed that a core Association would be able to most effectively liaise with and assist various institutions, including the Branch Fisheries, the South African Maritime Safety Authority and the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications, in addressing matters of common interest to the commercial fishing industry.

The establishment of FishSA will not erode the status of the existing Recognised Fishing Industry Associations, who will continue to represent and participate fully in matters particular and pertinent to their specific industry sectors. Tim Reddell was unanimously elected Chair, as was Suleiman Salie as Vice-Chair. Messrs. Richard Ball, Mike Copeland, Craig Bacon and Andrew Kaye, were elected to serve on the Management Committee of FishSA. Roy Bross was appointed as Secretary.

The following Registered Industrial Bodies subscribed to and are the Founder Members of FishSA:

South African Deep-Sea Trawl Industry Association
South African Pelagic Fishing Industry Association
South East Coast Inshore Fishing Association
South Coast Rock Lobster Industry Association
West Coast Rock Lobster Industry Association
South African Midwater Trawling Association
South African Tuna Association
South African Squid Management Industrial Associatio

The following associations were also admitted as members:

Fresh Tuna Exporters Association
The Patagonian Toothfish Industry Association
South African Hake Longline Association

FishSA has adopted the following as its logo:

Branch Fisheries: The Extortionist

2011-06-30T11:50:00.000-07:00

Is the Fisheries Branch of DAFF acting as an extortioner? Dozens of small-scale artisinal right holders have complained to Feike that they are being illegally threatened by DAFF with the non-issue of their fishing permits until they pay their levies.

An extortionist is commonly defined as a person (or organisation) who illegally uses their position of power to obtain property, funds or other assets from another. Which is exactly what DAFF is doing and they target small-scale fishers who they know they can terrify and who will run off to the ABSA around the corner and withdraw money and pay the extortioner, DAFF.

The law is clear. Payment of levies is only due to DAFF once they have issued an invoice that complies fully with the VAT Act. If they have not issued an invoice, the levy is not due and DAFF does not have the authority in law to withhold any permit or licence.

What makes DAFF's extortion even more problematic is that its non-existent Minister confirmed in Parliament that her department does not collect any levy without first issuing an invoice (which Feike showed to be a lie and her department continues to prove their own minister as a deceiver) and Minister Joemat-Pettersson acknowledged that to collect a levy without having first issued an invoice is unlawful.

Having regard to the Minister's statement to Parliament and her department's ongoing unlawful and extortionist conduct, Feike is of the view that criminal charges must be laid against the Minister and her Deputy Director-General under the VAT Act. (We do quietly acknowledge that we simply cannot keep up with who is the current ACTING Deputy Director-General as we understand the last stand-in has already given up and returned to the cushy surroundings of Pretoria from where he hailed.)

Kader Passes On...

2011-06-22T23:32:00.000-07:00

It is with profound sadness that we heard yesterday of Professor Kader Asmal's passing. He truly did represent a generation of true heroes who always spoke truth to power. He was a member of the generation of leaders that represented the core historic values of the African National Congress, our Constitution and our Anthem. He was dedicated to the causes of democracy, the rule of law and equality.

We could not afford to lose him at this increasingly dangerous time in our political history as those who represent the very antithesis of what Kader and his generation stand for, now worryingly take centre stage of our increasingly racist, populist, unaccountable and intellectually devoid body politik.

Younger South Africans owe it to the memory of Kader Asmal to take accept the baton he passes on now.

Are You an Expert in African Fisheries?

2011-06-20T08:08:00.000-07:00

Feike has been appointed by the African Union to design a fisheries experts database. If you or your organisation has undertaken any consulting work in Africa on fisheries and coastal management, and you wish to be registered on the African Union's fisheries experts database, kindly contact Feike's Shaheen Moolla by email.

The WSCD Appeals: Liar Liar?

2011-06-12T08:56:00.000-07:00

The Weekend Argus (Sunday Edition) of 12 June 2011 reports that after almost a year, the Minister of Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, has yet to finalise her decisions for permits in the lucrative white shark cage diving sector.

The full article can be read by linking to http://capeargus.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

The Minister's response is essentially the usual sleight of hand; if not just plain dishonesty. When this issue of the appeals was last raised in March, her excuse was that she had only recently received the appeals and a process of information verification had been completed in February. And she stated that her decisions would be announced in a few weeks - that was on 24 March 2011! Guess what her nonsensical excuse is this time?

She is still apparently considering the appeals having received the "appeal documentation only in March" and "This meant “a lot of detailed work” including verification of the applicants’ assets and investments." Unfortunately the Minister's spokesperson must have "forgotten" that when the Minister was last quizzed about the state of the appeals process, she confirmed that the verification process was completed in February and she stated in Parliament that her decisions would be made known "within weeks". Why the lies now? How long is a "few weeks"? And what exactly is the status of the appeals?

Does the Minister and her department simply not give a damn about this industry, the jobs it sustains or the international goodwill of the industry? We unfortunately see the same "don't give a damn" attitude by the Minister of Fisheries.

We know that she has been "considering" no more than 35 appeals (which is not a substantial number of appeals). We know that the Minister received the appeal documentation in March and not recently. And we know that the information verification process was completed in February and is not ongoing.

THE MINISTER RESPONDS

2011-06-10T00:37:00.000-07:00

The Minister, through her media liaison officer, Mr Selby Bokaba, has responded to the opinion piece published by me in the Cape Times on 3 June 2011. The Minister's response is published in the Cape Times of 10 June 2011 on page 11.

The Minister, as can be expected, attempts to refute the various grounds upon which we motivate for an assignment of her powers to the Western Cape government. The Minister's response however does not address any of the substantive issues we raise and in fact confirms that our inshore fisheries are in crisis and that a section 78 assignment under the Marine Living Resources Act is desperately required in order to rescue fisheries management.

1. The response confirms that all the senior management posts we referred to in our opinion piece are in fact filled on a temporary basis and that there has not been a permanent DDG of fisheries since the resignation of Monde Mayekiso in 2009. Accordingly, for almost two years, the fisheries branch under the current minister has been without a permanent head and accounting officer. The fact that the minister considers regular changes of DDG's as a positive is alarming to say the least! The fact that none of the acting DDG's had any fisheries management knowledge or experience appears irrelevant.

2. The response also confirms that the minister has never met with the fishing industry since her appointment in June 2009. The response does state that the minister has met with "fisheries management" on numerous occasions. It does not however explain why the minister remains completely out of touch with the realities of mismanagement on the ground. Perhaps the most embarrassing and concerning case is her false response to Parliament about her department's illegal collection of fish levies without issuing any invoices - a practice which continues to this very day despite it being a criminal offence under the VAT Act!

3. The response furthermore confirms the crisis affecting our inshore fisheries but notes that "a plan is in place" to rebuild stocks such as lobster. Well, that is news to us all especially as the mismanagement of the interim relief lobster "sector" continues unabated and unchecked. One needs to only pop into one of the many west coast fishing villages to witness unregulated and unmanaged interim relief lobster landings. And the Minister intends rewarding the illegality and rampant overfishing yet again by increasing the interim relief TAC by another 50 tons.

4. The response does not dispute a number of damning failures including the fact the department failed (ie forgot) to re-allocate commercial fishing rights in the oyster and mussel sectors - sectors aimed at empowering rural women in particular.

5. The response alleges successes in the fight against illegal fishing but fails to provide any statistics yet baldly alleges that "poaching of abalone worsened dramatically" under "Moolla". However if one has regard to the relevant statistics, the views of industry, academics and NGO's in the fisheries sector at the time, then the minister will yet again be proved to be out of touch with reality. It is common cause that between 2003 and March 2005 the successes of the now defunct environmental courts coupled with the TRIDENT anti-poaching project yielded massive successes that included a 75% conviction rate and the collapse of two regional abalone poaching syndicates led by Marx (Overberg) and Ross (Eastern Cape). Both syndicate leaders received lengthy jail sentences and forfeited millions in assets and cash to the state. The minister fails to tell us how many syndicates have been collapsed or syndicate leaders jailed since 2005 (or since 2009). She also conveniently fails to tell us how many of the hundreds of poachers that are arrested, have been CONVICTED and sent to jail and how many in fact have simply walked free to continue poaching.

6. The use of the military veterans has not bolstered fisheries compliance as any right holder would testify. Just consider the examples of blatant poaching in Buffels Bay and Pearly Beach and the failure of the fisheries branch to even respond to right holder pleas for support. If one considers the latest budget for the fisheries branch (as we have on this blog), the parlous state of the marine living resources fund remains undeniable. Why does DAFF not publish the complete budget for the fisheries branch, including allocations for research, administration, compliance, management and vessel deployment? Further, departmental staff have themselves confirmed as co-authors of a recent 2011 publication on the abalone fishery that "...no stock rebuilding strategy, cooperative law enforcement and compliance plan had been announced." The department simply does not have a compliance strategy or plan in place for inshore fisheries management.

7. Finally, the minister's response makes certain personal allegations against me. For example, the response refers to me as a "self-styled sole fishery expert". I have never styled or described myself as such. The Minister in fact described me as a fisheries expert in a memorandum to Cabinet where she used my advices and opinions to support a particular position of hers. She may want to refresh her memory in that regard. Secondly, the minister makes the bizarre statement that during my tenure at MCM, we were never supportive of artisinal or small-scale fisheries! The entire policy framework that is currently in force in South Africa was adopted by (an ANC) Cabinet (not me or Horst Kleinschmidt!). Further, this policy framework has ensured that of the 3000 commercial fishing rights allocated more than 2200 are exclusively allocated to small- scale commercial fishers; that their long term application fees were pegged at a few hundred rand (such as R400 for a 10 year lobster right) while a company like I&J paid in excess of R2,5 million for the hake trawl application alone! In addition, we did not provide right holders with the shocking levels of (mis)-management, (mal)-administration and disrespect that small-scale right holders are served on a daily basis.

Thirdly, it was her staff who approached me repeatedly for advice and assistance with regard to the management of abalone, the processes to be followed to reopen the fishery and for solutions to address the parlous state of her fisheries branch. If my views and opinions are so irrelevant and incorrect, perhaps Mr Bokaba could advise why in a recent email to me, he wrote -

"Shaheen,

We need to have a follow-up chat with a view to making serious changes in the way fisheries is being run".

DAFF to Brief NCOP on "Transformation" in the Fishing Sector

2011-06-07T05:50:00.000-07:00

Feike understands that the Department of Fisheries (DAFF) is scheduled to brief the National Council on Provinces on the state of transformation in the fishing sector as well as a broader debate on DAFF's budget vote.

The briefing is set for 15 June 2011 at 14h00.

Making a Case for the Review of the Abalone Fish Levy

2011-06-01T04:05:00.000-07:00

The levy charged by the Department of Fisheries on commercial wild harvested abalone is more than R31/kg, which is about 10% of the landed value of abalone. The abalone levy is substantially higher (as a percentage of the landed value of the fish) than all other commercial fish levies. In 2003/2004 the abalone levy was increased from R6/kg to R25/kg in order to fund a dedicated abalone management and compliance strategy aimed at reducing abalone poaching.

The increase which was authorised by both the Minister of Environmental Affairs (who was in charge of fisheries - Marine and Coastal Management (MCM) at that time) and the Minister of Finance (as is required under the Sea Fishery Act of 1988) was premised and justified on the following bases:

1. The commercial abalone industry had been consulted and had largely agreed to the increase in the levy;

2. The increase was necessitated at the time to fund an important interdepartmental initiative to combat illegal harvesting of abalone. This interdepartmental initiative was dubbed Operation Trident and had an operational budget in 2004 of R18 million (or 20% of the entire fisheries compliance budget at the time);

3. Operation Trident involved the participation of the department’s of justice and safety and security. The justice department would provide specialised environmental courts in Hermanus and Port Elizabeth while the safety and security department would deploy an additional 70 police officers to the Overberg region who would focus efforts on combatting abalone poaching.

4. Due to the lack of budget provision by the departments of justice and safety and security for these additional costs, it was agreed that MCM would fund the establishment and operation of the environmental courts and the deployment of the extra police officials on an interim basis until the respective departments had properly budgeted for these extra costs.

The increase in the abalone levy was always intended to be a temporary but emergency stop-gap measure aimed at the immediate funding of Operation Trident. For reasons that were never explained to the public, Operation Trident was abruptly terminated by MCM in 2005. The environmental courts ceased to operate and the deployment of the 70 additional police officials failed to materialize. There is presently no form abalone compliance or management strategy in place justifying the current levy of more than R32 per kilogram.

It is now long overdue that the abalone levy be adjusted downward. To continue charging the current levy must amount to irrational and unjustifiable administrative action and therefore unlawful.

Abalone Poaching is Rampant & Compliance in Chaos

2011-05-26T01:31:00.001-07:00

The first abalone management working group meeting for the year was held on 26 May 2011. Attended by the abalone zonal representatives and departmental officials, it emerged during the course of the meeting that fisheries compliance remained the most problematic. Rather, as one zonal representative put it, there in fact is no compliance at all and where fisheries control officers were seen (at least in the Buffels Bay area) they were always talking to or helping known abalone poachers.

The department's muted response to the raft of allegations and examples of compliance failures was that it was developing a comprehensive integrated fisheries compliance strategy! Another representative noted that like everything else the strategy would stay in the boardroom. And that is true especially since the department does not have the financial resources to implement any effective compliance strategy, the industry was never asked to contribute to the development of the strategy and neither does DAFF have the support and trust of right holders.

The department's refrain that right holders must "work with" and "partner with" the department was rightly scoffed at. The representatives repeated example after example of reports of poaching submitted to the department but to date none have been followed up on or investigated.

There is little doubt that the department's direct financial interest in large scale abalone poaching to fund its coffers clouds its role as a regulator and protector of our resources.

The representatives present at the meeting noted significant concerns with compliance officers' lack of knowledge and understanding of the law (as this blog has noted previously), a growing sense that fishery officers are more concerned with the absolute mundane such as the colour and size of lettering on vessels than with size of fish caught etc (as this would clearly require more work and understanding of the law and permit conditions) and the comical state of resources at the disposal of officers. In particular, some officers are so incompetent that when they arrive at slipways to monitor and weigh landings (if they bother arriving at all), they forget to ensure that the scale batteries are charged. The ensuing delays seriously threaten the value of the abalone.

Scales purchased just 12 months ago have been irreparably broken, which results in either officers bringing broken scales to slipways or none at all. The Department confirmed that it has ordered more scales (but it would help to also employ competent staff who don't break the scales!).

Finally and perhaps most worrying was the continuing number of abalone poaching incidences. Two examples provided by representatives showed the serious extent of poaching. The first has been reported to the department for years but repeatedly ignored. Approximately 50 poachers launch from Pearly Beach on a regular basis with each diver known to harvest no less than 30kg of flesh weight (100kg of whole weight) on each trip. If one estimates that they fish 3 times a month on average (considering that they may not fish at all during a bad winter month but may fish almost daily during good summer months), this one group could harvest about 180 tons of abalone illegally on an annual basis. A smaller group of 20 poachers operates at Buffels Bay. Using similar assumptions, they could illegally harvest 70 tons annually. So just two groups who have been given free reign by DAFF to poach, are taking more than twice the legal TAC.

And DAFF refuses to do anything about it.

To Assign or Not to Assign Fisheries Management to the Western Cape Government

2011-05-25T04:52:00.000-07:00

Given the shocking levels of mismanagement, the lack of fisheries and institutional knowledge and increasing unhappiness of the industry (big, small and artisinal) with the fisheries branch and the (absent) Minister of Fisheries, we believe that the only way to arrest the terminal decline of fisheries management in our country is to invoke section 78 of the Marine Living Resources Act.

Section 78 of the Marine Living Resources Act makes explicit provision for the assignment of ministerial powers and functions to provincial MEC's. We hold the view that the current Minister should urgently consider the assignment of her fisheries management powers and functions to the Western Cape government (we certainly would not recommend any assignment to the Eastern Cape which is effectively a failed state) in so far as -

governance and administration of fisheries in the territorial waters of the Western Cape is concerned;
the management of fish processing, compliance, trade and general management of fisheries in Western Cape based harbours and on vessels and in factories operating out of the Western Cape.

Essentially this proposal seeks to save our most important and valuable inshore fisheries (both commercial and recreational) from complete collapse which is where they are fast heading under the incompetent management of the Department of Fisheries. Just consider the dire state of inshore rock lobster (compounded by the Department's open access interim relief project), abalone, line fish, oysters, trek nets...).

At the heart of the collapse of our inshore fisheries is a combination of factors (ANC cadre deployment, ill-conceived populist policies such as the subsistence fisheries policy which seeks to take fisheries management back to the previous century - literally and critically a lack of any policy or vision by the ruling ANC on fisheries - their manifestos and policy documents are silent on fisheries). An assignment of powers and functions to manage fisheries, fish farming and fisheries-related activities to the Western Cape government would essentially remove these key threats.

The assignment will be psychologically easier if one accepts that fisheries is irrelevant to national socio-economy but it is of critical relevance to the socio-economic well-being of the Western Cape. After-all it has been estimated that at least 80% of all commercial fisheries activity (catching, processing, marketing, operational management etc) occurs in the Western Cape. The Western Cape further accounts for perhaps 90% of all marine-based recreational fishing activity.

Fisheries management is currently at his nadir; it can't hurt to try an assignment as we suggest here. If the DA-led provincial administration stuff it up (and frankly can it get any worse?), at least the ANC could use this as their campaign in the next provincial government elections in 2014.

Another Unlawful Arrest for DAFF

2011-05-23T06:42:00.000-07:00

Yes, it is sounding like the proverbial stuck record but DAFF can be counted on ill-informed and just bad decision-making almost like clock-work.

On 13 May 2011 the skipper of a foreign flagged vessel landed his fishing vessel at Cape Town harbour and offloaded the vessel's fish and took on stores and bunkers as per the foreign vessel licence and permit issued under the Marine Living Resources Act. As is increasingly the norm, there were no fishery control officers in sight to monitor or record any landings (not that foreign fish landings are required to be in the presence of an FCO).

The catch logs and the separate cold store reports confirmed that what was declared was in order. However, without warning on 19 May 2011, the skipper of the vessel was summarily arrested, detained, his passport confiscated and then released on payment of bail. The alleged "charge" was that the vessel offloaded fish to a cold store not listed on the permit and accordingly, breached the permit conditions which are set out in Annexure B to the permit conditions.

It must be noted that at this stage, the vessel owner had retained the services of a leading Cape Town law firm and Feike was subsequently contacted for further advice.

What became immediately apparent was that the skipper was arrested on a bogus charge - there is no legal obligation under the MLRA, the regulations or the permit conditions that the skipper or any person must stipulate where the fish is to be offloaded. Despite this rather simple observation (assuming the FCO could read ... and we know all about assumptions...) being pointed out to the DAFF officials concerned, they seemed unperturbed. The arrest continued!

In the end, the senior public prosecutor was approached by the vessel agent's attorney and the case was withdrawn because there was no law that was breached.

Feike has advised the vessel owner to pursue a damages claim against the Minister of DAFF and each of the officials responsible for this unlawful and ill-advised arrest and detention of the skipper.

MINISTER MAKES R25 MILLION PROMISES

2011-05-16T06:08:00.000-07:00

Feike has reported that the Minister of Fisheries made a series of sudden appearances in local fishing communities brandishing R25 million in cheques for fisheries projects. Co-incidentally, her appearance from obscurity happened days before the 2011 Local Government Elections.

The Minister is now on record as stating that her R15 million project cheque give to the Gansbaai community is intended for an abalone hatchery and abalone cage ranching project (involving a further R10 million) which will employ in the region of 300 people and turn fishers in fish farmers!

Just when you think this Minister cant make more ridiculous and populist statements, she proves you wrong! Is she happy to deceive the desperately poor fishers and members of these communities or does she just mouth off without question the nonsense fed to her by her officials? Either way, her comments are shocking.

Firstly, fishermen are not fish farmers, let alone farmers of abalone, which is a highly complex, high risk science (especially in the Overberg). Further, hatcheries generally require highly skilled personnel such as hatchery managers and technicians and a group of low skilled employees who are responsible for sorting and general maintenance. Where do fishers fit into the hatchery employment structure? And secondly, could she please explain how she plans on creating 300 jobs based on her department's investment of R10 million in ranching and R15 million in a hatchery? We can confidently state that like her government's commitment of creating 500 000 jobs last year (when 1 million were in fact lost), the Minister's "300 jobs" promise is unfortunately more fairytales coupled with a bit of vote-buying.

MINISTER OF DAFF GIVES AWAY R15M CHEQUE

2011-05-12T08:09:00.000-07:00

With a week to go to the local government elections, the Minister of Fisheries (ANC) popped up out of the blue to hand a whopping R15 million of taxpayers' money to the "Gansbaai Community".

Most people we spoke to from the fishing community of Gansbaai did not know about the cheque, who the "Gansbaai Community" is or what the intended purpose of the R15 million hand-out was. There is no press statement explaining this hand-out of taxpayers' money but it can be safe to assume that considering the Minister's anathema to fisheries management (remember that this Minister has never bothered to address South Africa's commercial fishing industry of 3000 quota holders who employ more than 40 000 people since her appointment in 2009), her sudden appearance with a R15 million freebie (is it going to support tik habits, abalone poaching, who knows) appears to be nothing more than an abuse of power and public funds.

And we understand that on 12 May the Minister continued with her generosity by handing out R10 million cheques for the Kleinmond community and others.

But of course using taxpayers' money and civil servants to fund the ANC's election campaign is unlawful. The Minister will no doubt deny this abuse but once again the ubiquitous Facebook ensures that the truth will prevail! The Minister's director of "stakeholder liaison", Mr Desmond the civil servant, cadre leaching on the public purse and of course ANC Military Veterans secretary Stevens thankfully provides us with the actual and honest reason for the handouts of public funds.

His Facebook page entry for today records the following pertaining to events on 12 May 2011 -

"Cmde Tina Joemat-Pettersson adressing thousands of fisher men nd women in Struisbaai, launching R10m projects in overberg. ANC leads ANC together building better communities"

So here we have a "civil servant" and a "minister" unashamedly using our taxes to further the political election strategy of the ANC. And they don't give a damn either by posting the fact on Facebook. Banana Republic anyone?

Annual DAFF Budget Vote: A Vote of No-Confidence

2011-05-05T03:36:00.000-07:00

On 19 April 2011, the Minister of Fisheries addressed the National Assembly on her department's annual budget vote. Of the department's total budget of over R4 billion, the fisheries branch is allocated R324 million for the 2010/2011 financial year. Although less than 10% of the global departmental budget, the allocation may signal a relative return to health for the marine living resources fund as this amount is slightly less than the 2004/2005 operational budget. However, it is unclear from the budget vote if the R324 million includes staff salaries - if it does, then the MLRF remains in a desperate downward spiral as salaries would consume at least 50% of the operational budget, which will explain the parlous state of management, the chaotic administration and the lack of strategic fisheries compliance, particularly in our offshore waters.

The budget vote also confirms a Minister and her senior staff to be completely out of touch with the fishing sector. We all know that despite having been appointed as the Minister of Fisheries in June 2009, this Minister has carried her title in name only having never met or briefed either the fishing industry or her staff at Foretrust on her policy objectives and intentions!

Perhaps she has neither objectives nor intentions for the successful management of the sector. Her knowledge base of the industry is near zero. Contemplate this quote from her budget speech-

"I am pleased to announce that our increasingly scarce sea resources, under huge international threat, will be better protected by having declared 9% of our coastline as prohibited zones, and up to 3% of our offshore zone as no-fishing areas."

Firstly of course our sea resources are hardly under "huge international threat". Rather, our marine resources are under greatest threat from extensive mis-management, disastrous (populist) policy statements (such as the draft small-scale fisheries policy) and the abandonment of inshore fisheries management by DAFF. Just check which fish stocks are either overexploited, subject to open access unregulated fishing or have collapsed and all of them are inshore stocks like abalone, lobsters, some 50 species of linefish, east coast rock lobsters, oysters, sharks etc.

Secondly, we don't have any "prohibited zones" - there is no such thing in our fisheries laws. We assume the Minister is talking about marine protected areas and in this regard just over 20% of our coastline is protected by MPA's while we still do not have any offshore MPA's in place! Where the Minister gets her stats from remains a mystery. Maybe the lack of any institutional knowledge and professional fisheries managers around her?

Perhaps of greater concern is that this budget vote is silent on critical management issues such as the performance review process for which tax payers paid more than R9 million two years ago, the lack of any indication as to the allocation of commercial fishing rights in a host of fisheries where rights are due to expire in 2013, how large-scale poaching in the inshore sectors such as the interim relief lobster sector will be curbed, the future of vulnerable fisheries such as abalone and hake long line, which are just two of the most transformed and empowered high value fisheries or how the administrative chaos afflicting the issuing of permits and collection of levies will be addressed.

Here's hoping that before the next budget vote, this Minister will have taken the time to meet with her staff at DAFF and with quota holders in the 22 commercial fisheries in this country that employ over 40 000 people and contribute substantially to black economic empowerment and regional socio-economic well-being.

CLUSTERS C & D PERFORMANCE REVIEW NOTICE

2011-05-03T06:03:00.000-07:00

The fisheries department announced in April that it had completed the analysis of the performance-related data submitted by the cluster C and D fisheries in 2009 - yes it was all the way back in 2009! In a rather complex worded letter for these sectors, the DAFF notes that as the results of the performance review do not constitute "decisions", they are not reviewable and instead only once "decisions" are taken to act in terms of section 28 of the Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA), can right holders invoke their respective rights to appeal or review decisions taken, as the case may be.

It has been brought to our attention that the performance review results for a number of right holders contain substantial errors. In addition, as these results are now completely out-of-date and largely irrelevant, right holders will have to be vigilant and ensure that all errors are addressed as there is little doubt that as the DAFF continues to display the hallmarks of a failed government regulator, these outdated and error-filled analyses will harm future quota applications.

Why has DAFF failed to notify the public about possible risks?

2011-04-20T01:31:00.000-07:00

This article appeared on www.health24.com on 20 April 2011.

Hundreds of dead abalone have washed up on Melkbos beach near Cape Town in recent weeks, prompting fears that the ocean in the area between Bloubergstrand and Melkbosstrand is toxic.

The Department of Agriculture and Forestry & Fisheries has allegedly alerted all abalone quota holders that the Melkbos area is a no-dive zone until further notice.

This is a particularly worrying as the upcoming Easter weekend would normally bring hordes of families, surfers and fishermen to the area. To date, no official notice has been publicly broadcast warning the public of the concerns.

Melkbos resident Beatrix McLaughlin, who is an abalone quota holder for the Melkbos area, first became concerned about the quality of the water on March 25 when a marlin weighing roughly 240kg washed up on shore. According to McLaughlin this fish is uncommon for the area.

Marine Coastal Management (MCM) was called to collect the fish. However, McLaughin says that despite repeated e-mails and phone calls to try and find out whether the fish was tested and what the results were, she has not heard anything back.

Then last week ,on April 11, McLaughlin says that two commercial abalone fishing boats “working in the Melkbos area Zone G, came across thousands of dead abalone and other sea organisms. They had to abort [the dive] as it was not safe to collect”, as they suspected the deaths were due to toxins. They immediately phoned MCM from the water to inform them of the problem and were told to abort the dive and that the Melkbos area was a ‘no dive’ zone. This information had not been shared before.

To add to the mystery, McLaughlin says that at this point they came across a Koeberg Research Boat with divers who told her they had “not come across anything like this” before. The fishermen handed over samples of the dead abalone, after which McLaughlin said the boat “headed back to Koeberg very quickly”.

People have been photographed collecting dead abalone to eat, which may be extremely dangerous but DAFF continues to remain silent.

Concern continued to grow amongst commercial fishermen that the water in the Blouberg, Big Bay and Melkbos areas was perhaps toxic, and on the morning of the April 12, when McLaughlin came across dead abalone and eel on the Melkbos beach, she decided to bag as many of the dead creatures as possible and made an appointment at the MCM offices to get to the bottom of the problem. “While I was picking up the dead abalone to take them to MCM, there were dozens of other people also collecting them off the beach to take home and eat. I tried to tell them not to but they looked at me like I was crazy. But the kelp is dead too, and even bottom feeders like eels are washing up on shore so something is going on. When I got home my hands were burning from touching the abalone,” she says.

Yet when she finally had her meeting with MCM management and presented them with the now-foul smelling dead abalone, she claims that she was merely congratulated for “looking after the coast and bringing this to their attention”.

“They said they didn’t realise the situation was so bad, despite my numerous e-mails and phone calls to them before that, and said they would make measures to alert the relevant municipalities.”

With only a few days to go until the Easter weekend, the beaches in this area are already teeming with surfers, children swimming in the sea, people fishing from land and people walking their dogs.

The real question is what is happening to the water, and if it’s killing sea-life, is it a threat to human health? Is the water toxic? Does the Koeberg Nuclear Power Station have anything to do with it? Is it a result of sewage being pumped into the sea?

We attempted to put these questions to MCM but were told they were unavailable.

“I would like to know why the public is not being made aware of what’s happening here; and if the water is toxic - which I do believe it is - the public should be made aware,” says McLaughlin.

PE Herald Article on BBWW

2011-04-18T12:19:00.000-07:00

Chumming fines co-incide with issuing of whale permit
18 April 2011
Guy Rogers

NELSON Mandela Bay Municipality has issued four fines to marine tourism operator Lloyd Edwards related to the controversial chumming incident off Humewood Beach last month. The issuing of the fines at the Port Elizabeth beach office on Friday co-incides with the issuing this week of the long-awaited boat-based whale watching (BBWW) license for Algoa Bay – to Edwards.

It also runs parallel to a process launched in Cape Town last week in which the marine consultancy Feike has called on the public protector to scrutinise Edwards’ operation and the response of the environment department.

See www.peherald.com for the full article.

Minister of DEA confirms her Support for Illegality

2011-04-17T10:04:00.000-07:00

On Thursday 14 April 2011, the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism confirmed her department's support for illegal and reckless behavior by marine tour operators when she confirmed a boat based whale watching permit for the illegal BBWW operator, Raggy Charters.

The Minister allocated Raggy Charters a BBWW permit for the PE area despite a plethora of illegal conduct and violations of the BBWW Regulations and Policy which ought to have disqualified the application by Raggy Charters.

Raggy Charters has long advertised its illegal BBWW and dolphin watching business which was repeatedly brought to the attention of the Minister. This was ignored and instead it became clear that Raggy Charters was told to amend its website and stop advertising its illegal BBWW services but it continued providing illegal BBWW services via a host of alternative advertising channels. When Raggy Charters made application for a BBWW permit, its black partner was a senior employee at SANParks. In terms of the BBWW regulations and policy this ought to have resulted in the exclusion of the application as the conflict constituted a material defect. Instead, the Minister allowed Raggy Charters to secretly change its black partner and correct the material defect in violation of South African law. And most recently, the Minister sat quietly and buried her head in the sand of Hobie beach when Raggy Charters admitted to chumming illegally within 200m of a Hobie Beach which then resulted in the closure of the beach due to the prevalence of sharks. This illegal conduct ought to have caused the immediate exclusion of Raggy Charters' application as its owner admitted to the media that he was chumming without a permit for seabirds. This admission amounts to at least three criminal offences which carry penalties of up to R5 million and imprisonment of up to 10 years... but the Minister of DEA who is charged with enforcing these laws, elected to ignore these violations.

So how does an openly illegal operator still get the sole permit to conduct BBWW in PE? How is it that Raggy Charters can confidently make admissions which amount to multiple criminal offences knowing that it will not affect its BBWW permit application?

Would any other operator be able to openly advertise that it is an illegal BBWW operator? Would any other operator be able to openly admit to the media that it chums for seabirds (and sharks) without any permit within 200m of a swimming beach without suffering the serious consequences provided for under various laws? Was any other operator allowed to secretly amend its application and change its ownership profile? No.

Feike has lodged a formal complaint with the Public Protector (PP) about the preferential and illegal conduct shown by the Minister and her department to Raggy Charters and its owner Lloyd Edwards. We are requesting the PP to investigate why such serious violations have been ignored by the Minister and her department.

On Solid Ground - In Support of an Important Cause

2011-04-17T09:58:00.000-07:00

Gabrielle Lubowski's book, "On Solid Ground", is available online at amazon.com. This book is self published and funded with the help of close family only. Also all proceeds are going to the Anton Lubowski Educational Trust, a fully registered PBO and NPO.

"On Solid Ground" tells the story of Gabrielle Lubowski's life after her husband, SWAPO activist Anton Lubowski, was murdered by the Apartheid regime in September 1989.

The book is now available on Amazon and available to the public worldwide by logging onto http://www.amazon.com/Solid-Ground-Gabrielle-Lubowski/dp/1456475290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302598459&sr=1-1

Landing sites (from North West to South and East)	Annual landings		Main fisheries/species
Landing sites (from North West to South and East)	Approx. Tons	%	Main fisheries/species
Port Nolloth	1 200	0.2	Rock lobster/linefish/demersal
Lamberts Bay	31500	5.8	Pelagic fishery/some rock lobster
St Helena Bay	153 000	28.3	Pelagic fishery – anchovy and pilchard
Saldanha Bay	120 000	22.2	Pelagic & demersal some line and rock lobster.
Cape Town	115000	21.3	Demersal - some rock lobster and linefish
Hout Bay	48 000	8.9	Pelagic/demersal/rock lobster/tuna/linefish
Kalk Bay	2 300	0.4	Pilchard/Linefish, rock lobster
Hermanus	2 000	0.4	Abalone/linefish/rock lobster/shark
Gansbaai	23000	4.3	Pelagic/demersal/shark
Mossel Bay	22 000	4.1	Demersal/sole/handline/pilchard
Port St Francis	7 000	1.3	Squid and linefish
Port Elizabeth	11 000	2.0	Demersal/squid/handline/pilchard
East London	1 000	0.2	Linefish
Durban	1 000	0.7	Linefish
Total	538 000	100	All fisheries