Fisheries Portfolio Committee Presentation on MLRA Amendment Bill (2013) - Debunking Myths

1. Presentation to the Fisheries Portfolio Committee on the Second Amendment Bill (2013) to the MLRA 15 October 2013 W: www.feike.co.za B:Feikemanagement.blogspot.com T: @feikemanagement

2. Debunking Two Prevailing Myths Myth 1 • The MLRA (and by implication, SA fisheries policy and law) does not recognise small-scale fishers • Fisheries Policy of 27 July 2001 • Fisheries Policy of June 15 June 2005 (ref Slide 2) • Findings of the PC (May 2012) “Recognise that there are more than 2200 current small-scale fishers who employ thousands of people, pay taxes and contribute to the local economies of the Northern Cape and Western Cape.” • Post 2005, of the 3019 quotas allocated, 2200 were allocated to smalle-scale fishers (Clusters C and D & Linefish) = 73%

3. Fisheries Clusters: 2005 Policy

4. Debunking Two Prevailing Myths (cont) Myth 2 • That fishing rights in the un-defined category of small-scale fishing sector will only be allocated to co-operatives • Unless one is in a co-operative, a fishing right will not be allocated to you. It is of grave concern that small-scale / artisinal right holders are being coerced and forced into co-operatives.

5. Comments on the Proposed MLRA Amendment Bill The Bill seeks to make two key amendments - • Replace “subsistence” fishing with “small-scale” fishing; and • Include the concept of “co-operatives” as a category of “South African Person” which may be allocated a fishing right under section 18

6. The “find-and-replace”: Subsistence Fishing • The amendment Bill seeks to simplistically replace “subsistence” with “small-scale” fishing. • This is not only impractical but also has serious socio-eco consequences • At last count, DAFF has ±7800 subsistence fishers in the EC and KZN • Subsistence fishers target ECRL (2300) / linefish (1900) / oysters (1200) / mussels (1600) & bait (600) • Subsistence fishers don’t pay levies / submit monthly catch returns / complete landing slips etc • Small-scale fishers do. • Other practical and legal realities: • Subsistence v small scale re location & access to DAFF and resources • ECRL may not be sold commercially • Subsistence fish stocks (low value) and fishing technology not artisinal or small-scale commercial (for eg subsistence linefish v small-scale)

7. A Solution? • We do not object to the explicit inclusion of “small scale fishing” in the MLRA but – • Don’t do so by means of a simplistic “find and replace”; and • The category of small-scale fishing must be adequately defined which is not the case at present. • Solution proposed is to maintain the “subsistence fishing” category and instead add a new category “small-scale fishing” and make provision under a new Section 21 A (it then follows “commercial fishing” in section 21).

8. The Inclusion of Co-operatives • Technically, we do not object to theallocated & overexploited and collapsed? • How will co-operatives actually inclusion of “co-operatives” but principally … – • The PC has already determined that co-operatives in SA have been a proven failure (May 2012). The Tragedy of the Commons … • How will co-operatives work in practice given that all near-shore stocks are result in poverty alleviation. If all fish is already allocated how will you share the current TAC amongst 1000’s more? • In Vietnam and other jurisdictions, the findings have been that Co-ops = increased poverty and resource destruction • The SA experience with Co-ops (eg SACFC, Kalk Bay Harbour Lights, Ukondleka). Have these been understood? • National Development Plan & sharing the fish cake • Whether right holders want to pool their quotas in a co-op structure, should be a choice and should not be mandatory.

9. Closing Remarks • The proposed deletion of “subsistence fishing” will directly impact on the rights and obligations of 7000 (±35000 dependents) in rural EC and KZN fishers. These people need to be directly consulted with on the proposed MLRA Amendments. • Do we really understand the practical, social, economic and biological consequences of introducing co-operatives into the fishing industry? Does history teach us nothing? Have we understood why poverty levels and overfishing have not improved in Doringbaai for example. What socio-economic research has been undertaken into co-ops v individual fishing rights? • In Vietnam (And other jurisdictions) it has been found that managing resources under open access or a common pool (or cooperative) typically results in short-term exploitation at the expense of long- term sustainability. No one has tenure. No one has accountability or responsibility.

10. Closing Remarks • The proposed MLRA Amendment Bill proposes amendments (co-operatives & deletion of subsistence) that will have profound social, economic and ecological impacts YET The draft bill has been introduced into Parliament without any socio-economic and ecological research or analyses of these impacts. • Should these certain impacts not be understood first before legislative changes effected? • In my view one cannot responsibly and informatively undertake such a legislative amendment process in the absence of such data. • Finally, do these proposed amendments not conflict with Chapter 6 of the NDP? In my opinion, there is a fundamental conflict with the NDP.