Report: Study Tours to Saldanha Bay, Kalk Bay and Hout Bay, dated 18 June 2002:

The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, having undertaken study tours to Saldanha Bay, Kalk Bay and Hout Bay on 5 and 7 June 2002, reports as follows:

A. Terms of reference

In terms of sections 70(1)(b) and 72(1)(a) of the Constitution, Parliament must make provision for "representative and participatory democracy, accountability, transparency and public involvement", also "facilitating public involvement in the legislative and other processes" of Parliament.

Furthermore, in terms of Rule 151(1) of the Rules of the National Council of Provinces, the Rules Committee must establish select committees to deal with legislation, oversight and other matters concerning the affairs of Government.

The Committee undertook the above-mentioned study tours as part of its oversight function and to encourage public participation in the affairs of government.

B. Background

On 24 and 25 May 2001, the Committee undertook study tours to Kalk Bay, Hout Bay and Saldanha Bay to ascertain from ordinary fisher folk what the position was with respect to irregularities in the fishing industry that were alleged by Ms A M Versfeld in a letter to the Committee.

On the basis of these visits, a committee report was produced that was published in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports on 2 October 2001.

The Committee then interacted with officials from Marine and Coastal Management (MCM), which is the directorate of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism responsible for regulation of the fishing industry. At these meetings, held on 26 June 2001, 10 October 2001 and 20 May 2002, there was discussion of the MCM's response to the Committee's report as well as progress that had been made with the new round of allocations of fishing rights that had occurred in the last quarter of 2001.

MCM accepted that the concerns raised in the Committee's report were legitimate and stated that all issues raised would be addressed through the new restructuring plan for the Directorate. MCM did not, however, wish to get involved directly in disputes, as these were best settled in the courts.

MCM also claimed that the rights allocated after 13 September 2001 were done according to an open, fair and transparent process into which the newly constituted Verification Unit had introduced professionalism. A rights allocation advisory board consisting of 38 professionals had also played a role in this regard.

The Department had tried to achieve equity in the industry and the needs of previously disadvantaged persons were paramount.

The micro-commercial sector, with its R500 permit, had been a success and would inject R39 million into the impoverished communities.

Against this background, the Committee felt that it was incumbent upon itself to undertake follow-up visits to the communities that had previously been visited in order to report back and ascertain the level of satisfaction with the new process of the allocation of rights.

C. Procedure

The Committee tried to attain its objectives by holding follow-up public meetings in Saldanha Bay on 5 June 2002 and at Kalk Bay and Hout Bay on 7 June 2002. Those attending were again largely drawn from previously disadvantaged communities. Numbers attending were however significantly down from those that had attended the initial meetings, with approximately 35 in Saldanha Bay, 40 in Kalk Bay and 10 in Hout Bay.

The delegation to Saldanha Bay consisted of Rev P Moatshe (Committee chairperson), Mr R Z Nogumla, Ms B N Dlulane, Mr M A Sulliman, Mr V V Z Windvoël, Mr R M Nyakane and Ms A M Versfeld; while only Rev P Moatshe, Mr R M Nyakane, Ms B N Dlulane and Ms A M Versfeld attended the Kalk Bay and Hout Bay meetings. Committee Secretary, Mr K Williams, and Researcher, Ms S Dawood, accompanied the delegation on both days. The Secretary to the Chairperson, Ms M Letago, was also present at Saldanha Bay.

D. Input by Fishing Communities

Members of the Committee provided an opportunity to members of the fishing communities to express their concerns. The following issues were raised:

1. Saldahna Bay

(a) Mr E Solomons of the United Fishing Company said it was impractical to advise that ordinary fisher folk should take on the big companies in court as they did not have the financial resources for this.

Companies such as Sea Harvest were retrenching workers and not paying benefits. This was against the spirit of the Marine and Living Resources Act.

He further pointed out that the United Fishing Company, with 558 shareholders, who were all previously disadvantaged individuals, received no allocation, whereas rights were still being allocated to big companies that had previously been complained about and that were neither owned nor managed by previously disadvantaged persons.

There was a need for a satellite office of MCM on the West Coast, as fishers from this region had to go to Cape Town to find out the reasons for the non-allocation of quotas. Also, this information had to be paid for, which was totally unreasonable.

Officials of MCM were still arrogant, despite previous complaints in this regard.

(b) Mr I Slammie claimed that the process of allocation of rights had not been fair, as certain companies had been rewarded with quotas for having contributed to the coffers of the ANC.

He lodged a specific complaint against the South African Commercial Fishermen's Corporation. He claimed that the directors of this company were corrupt, that they were corrupting politicians, and that they did not pay benefits to ordinary fishers. He also said that ordinary fishers do not have the financial resources to take the company on in court.

Mr Slammie also warned against the cutting of quotas for line-fish and net-fish. He claimed that this would hit the small fishermen who were not responsible for the depletion of stocks. He warned that desperation would force many into crime if these quotas were significantly cut. He suggested the cutting of quotas allocated to those who trawl rather than to those who use hand-lines. Recreational fishers could also rather be penalised if quotas had to be cut.

2. Kalk Bay

(a) Mr S Gray felt that the Committee's report indicated that politicians were unaware of the conditions under which the small hand-line fishers of Kalk Bay existed. He suggested that MPs should accompany these fishermen on their daily round to see how they lived and worked. If this were done, it would become evident that even the R500 that was required to apply for a micro-commercial permit was beyond the reach of most small fishermen. The Department's strategy did therefore not succeed in allowing them to escape the poverty trap.

(b) Mr G de la Cruz of the Kalk Bay Rock Lobster Association considered that it was unfair that his association was only granted an allocation for one species, whereas other companies had received rights to catch several species. He said that they had been advised to limit the amount of species they applied for, as this would strengthen their chances of gaining rights.

(c) Mr T Trimmel said that the amount of R6 000 was too much for some boat owners who could qualify for commercial rights.

He also stated that although some progress had obviously been made, hand-line fishermen who could not afford R500 were still being left out of the system. He appealed to the Minister to accommodate them as a matter of urgency as the four-year time span was too long to wait for a solution.

3. Hout Bay

(a) Mrs S Meter stated that it was not only the unsuccessful applicants who had complaints. After gaining an allocation of West Coast Rock Lobster, her company had been unable to effect a change of boat, even though they had applied for this since January 2002. No one at MCM had been prepared to take a decision on the matter.

In view of the above, she appealed that the season for the catching of West Coast Rock Lobster be extended beyond the end of June, as her company had not been able to utilise its quota.

The situation was worsened by the fact that MCM officials were inaccessible - there were answering machines on most phone lines, but messages were not responded to. When one spoke out against such practices, one was labelled an "enemy".

She appealed that the administration of MCM be strengthened as a matter of urgency and suggested that a forum of MCM officials, political stakeholders and ordinary fishing people be constituted to sort out the problems in the industry.

She also felt that the size of quotas granted should be proportionate to the amount of investment that the company made in the community. This would prevent a situation in which her company's quota was halved despite the large investments that it made in the community. Big companies that did nothing for the community were not penalised in this manner.

(b) Mr T Schoeman felt that the system still allowed the big companies to dominate. He said that black empowerment companies were struggling and that there was little benefit for the small fishermen.

E. Conclusions

1. Some of the allegations made by the public were unsubstantiated.

2. Despite the obvious progress made, there are still problems that have to be resolved.

3. The plight of hand-line fishers has to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

F. Recommendations

The Committee recommended the following strategy for the resolution of perceived problems:

1. Further interaction between the Committee and the MCM on the basis of this Report as matter of urgency. At such a meeting, the following issues, amongst others, could be discussed:

(a) The fact that R6 000 cannot be afforded by some groups that wish to engage in commercial fishing.

(b) The fact that some fishermen cannot afford the R500 required to apply for a micro-commercial permit.

(c) The fact that ordinary fishers do not have the capability to take on the big companies in court.

(d) Rights are still being allocated to big companies that are neither owned nor managed by previously disadvantaged persons, while black empowerment companies are given non-viable quotas or nothing at all (Blue Fin Holdings and United Fishing Company).

(e) It is unreasonable to expect fishermen from the West Coast to travel to Cape Town to ascertain reasons for their failure to access quotas. It is also unreasonable to expect them to pay for this information.

(f) There had been corruption in the awarding of quotas in Saldanha Bay.

(g) The cutting of quotas for net-fish and line-fish would bring hardship to small fishermen, who were not responsible for the depletion of stock and who would be forced to turn to crime as a consequence.

(h) Some companies received the right to catch many species, while others were only granted the right to catch one species after they had been advised to limit the amount of species they had applied for, as this would strengthen their chances of gaining rights.

(i) Hand-line fishermen who could not afford R500 were still being left out of the system. They should be accommodated as a matter of urgency, as the four-year time span was too long to wait for a solution.

(j) Blue Fin Holdings was unable to effect a change of boat as there was no-one at MCM who was prepared to authorise this. As a result, they were not able to utilise their West Coast Rock Lobster quota, and thus sought an extension of the season beyond the end of June.

(k) MCM officials are inaccessible and label members of the community when they complain about this.

(l) The size of quotas should be proportionate to the amount of investment that companies make in the community.

2. A meeting at which delegates from the fishing areas visited could present their problems directly to officials of MCM in the presence of members of both this Committee and the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

3. The Constituency Offices in Kalk Bay are to be encouraged to assist hand-line fishermen to access poverty relief funds and to form companies in order to afford the application fees for permits.

G. Acknowledgements

The Committee heartily thanks Mr A Trimmel of Kalk Bay, Mr D Meter of Hout Bay and Mrs G Kordom of Saldanha Bay for their assistance in arranging the public meetings in their respective areas