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

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 27 July 2001 Fisheries Policy of June 15 June 2005 (ref Slide 2) 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.” 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 Cluster A (Capital Intensive) Hake Deep Sea Trawl Hake Inshore Trawl Horse Mackerel Small Pelagics Patagonian Toothfish South Coast Rock Lobster Large Pelagics KZN Prawn Trawl Cluster B (Less Capital Intensive) WCRL (Off Shore) Hake Longline Squid Tuna Handline Seaweed Shark Long Line (Demersal) Cluster C (High Value, Small Scale Commercial) Handline Hake WCRL (Near Shore) Traditional Line Fish Abalone Cluster D (Low Value, Marginal) Oysters White Mussels Beach Seine Nets KZN Beach Seine (Pilchards)

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 the allocated & 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.