Did DEA Actually Promulgate the Prince Edward Islands MPA?

I cannot believe that I just wasted 4 good pages printing the Notice that proclaims the creation of the Prince Edward Islands Marine Protected Area. Yep, on 5 April 2013, the Minister of Environmental Affairs gazetted the Notice that proclaimed the establishment of South Africa's first offshore marine protected area (GN 36307 of 5 April 2013). 

You must be wondering why I cant bring myself to congratulate the Minister of Environmental Affairs on what appears on paper to be a commendable and much anticipated Notice. Afterall, the establishment of the Prince Edward Islands MPA was mooted some time back - in fact a draft set of MPA regulations for the Islands were prepared in 2004 by yours truly. Feike has been on record calling for the establishment of the MPA after it was repeatedly shelved between 2006 and 2008. 

The lack of our congratulatory ululations and abundance of frustrations stems from the fact that this important MPA is promulgated at a time when South Africa has zero, zilch, nada capacity, ability or resources to implement the objectives and purpose of the Prince Edward Islands marine protected area. 

Why promulgate an offshore MPA or any other type of MPA when you have no intention, ability or resources to implement it? When last has a South African patrol vessel ventured near these waters to monitor and protect fish stocks such as our heavily poached toothfish stocks? I honestly cannot remember! 

Further, this MPA is declared by the Minister of Environmental Affairs who has no legal authority to deploy fishery control officers or fishery patrol vessels - even if we could magically get our R500 million fleet of patrol vessels to sea! The Regulations for the management of the Prince Edward Islands Marine Protected Area for example make it an offence to fish or attempt to fish in the MPA Sanctuary Area. It is an offence to fish or attempt to fish for toothfish without a fishing permit issued by the Minister of Fisheries in the Restricted Zone. The use of bottom trawling and gill netting are declared to be prohibited fishing methods. And what is the point of creating these offences when neither the department of fisheries nor environmental affairs are able to patrol these waters and prevent violations or monitor adherence to this newest law? Will we email these regulations to all IUU fishing vessels around the planet and sternly tell them via email that they had better not poach our toothfish in our new MPA?

We remain unable to even protect inshore marine protected areas such as Betty's Bay which is supposed to be a critical refuge for depleted abalone stocks but in fact is one of the most pillaged marine areas on earth! So why bother declaring an offshore MPA when both the departments of fisheries and environmental affairs are clearly incapable of implementing the most basic objectives and purpose of marine protected areas?

The 4 pages of text that establish the Prince Edward Islands MPA are quite frankly a waste of paper and ink and web space. 

Feike at the Franschoek Literary Festival

Feike's Shaheen Moolla has been invited by Noseweek to talk about the mess that has come to define fisheries governance in South Africa at the Franschoek Literary Festival on 18 May 2013.

The talk and discussion will take place at the Protea Hotel and start at 10am. It is certainly hoped that senior officials from DAFF will attend and debate Shaheen's views and opinions. 

Shaheen will address a broad range of crises afflicting the fisheries department, including the catastrophic impact of ANC policy to deploy its unskilled and unqualified cadres to the two most senior positions in the fisheries department, the nonchalant admission that departmental and ministerial incompetence and bungling has resulted in South African waters being un-patrolled and unmonitored for more than 12 months; the failure to successfully undertake a single fisheries research trip in 12 months; the destruction of R500 million in assets without the slightest of consequences; the ongoing failure to prepare for the upcoming fishing rights allocation process (and the continuous lies and deception surrounding the state of preparedness for this critical process) ... 

Is China Looting West African Oceans?

Writing on 2 April 2013, Christopher Pala for Nature reports that Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia has led a study which uncovers massive unreported catches by China in waters off of West Africa in particular. The study was published in March 2013.

Chinese vessels are renowned for illegal fishing with multiple exposes of huge illegal shark finning having been reported off Mozambique and multiple reports of IUU vessels in South African waters. 

But this study by Pauly et al indicates a level of colonialism and resource stripping not seen since ... well the days of European colonialism! This report must be taken extremely seriously by South Africa especially since our government is desperately cozying up to the Chinese within the BRICS grouping. 

What is particularly concerning is that although the European Union has been criticised for its fisheries agreements (now referred to as partnerships) with African states, its agreements are publicly accessible and one is able to broadly determine the actual value of the arrangements, including catch and effort limits. With the Chinese, nothing is available. These agreements are entirely unaccessible and many doubt they even exist as bilateral agreements. In 2011, Feike was appointed by the African Union to evaluate, assess and review all African fisheries partnership and access agreements. While we were able to access all agreements with "western states" (we were even able to fisheries access agreements between Sudan and Egypt!), the agreements with China and Chinese entities were simply not available under any circumstances. This secrecy only aids corruption and rampant IUU fishing. 

Here is an excerpt from the article. The full article can be accessed here.

"It is a whopper of a catch, in more ways than one: China is under-reporting its overseas fishing catch by more than an order of magnitude, according to a study1 published on 23 March. The problem is particularly acute in the rich fisheries of West Africa, where a lack of transparency in reporting is threatening efforts to evaluate the ecological health of the waters. 

“We can’t assess the state of the oceans without knowing what’s being taken out of them,” says Daniel Pauly, a fisheries scientist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, who led the study. The unreported catch is crippling the artisanal fisheries that help to feed West African populations, he says."

Damen Shipyards Appointed to Repair Vessels

The Department of Fisheries announced this morning that it had appointed Damen Shipyards on a six month "emergency" basis to effect unspecified repairs to and undertake maintenance on the fisheries research and patrol vessels. 

The Department confirmed that it appointed Damen Shipyards on 3 April 2013 in terms of the Public Finance Management Act's (PFMA) provision for the appointment of service providers on an "urgent or emergency case" basis without having to follow the normal public tender procedures. 

It is our view that this is simply nonsense and an abuse of the applicable PFMA provisions. The Department knew by November 2012 that the Navy had completely failed in its mandate. By 19 February 2013, the department confirmed to Parliament that the Navy had failed to put the vessels to sea and that the vessels required substantial repair. Why did the department not commence with a public tender procedure at that stage so that come 1 April 2013 (or even before that date), the properly appointed service provider would have been able to commence work on the vessels? Accordingly, on what basis then does the urgency or emergency arise? Incompetence and poor planning do not constitute grounds for "urgency" or an "emergency"! They constitute grounds for dismissal! 

The contract concluded by the department with Damen may therefore fall foul of the PFMA and thus be unlawful. Will the Public Protector have to be called to intervene in yet another DAFF blunder? 

Does DAFF know what to do with the Patrol and Research Vessels?

The 12 months since South Africa's fisheries department embarrassingly handed over its entire fleet of research and patrol vessels to the Navy have come to an end ... and its been a messy and accusatorial divorce as the fisheries department has accused the Navy of essentially failing South Africa. 

The fisheries research and patrol vessels have for all intents and purposes never sailed. The vessels have been significantly damaged and now require massively costly and unnecessary repairs. The joint Naval and Fisheries blunder has left our oceans completely un-patrolled for more than 12 months now. The only fisheries research that has occurred has been undertaken by industry vessels. 

The flagship research vessel, the Africana, has almost been completely destroyed with much of its cutlery and crockery having been stolen; the ship was overrun with rats and generally uninhabitable. 

The magnificent patrol vessels which are only between 8 and 6 years of age apparently require substantial repair. 

But, as of 1 April 2013, the Navy were no longer responsible for further ruining these once proud and glorious ships. The question is what is DAFF doing with the ships? Where are they? What exactly are the deployment plans for each vessel? What are the repair, maintenance and operational budgets for each of the vessels for the present financial year and beyond? Does DAFF have a clue? 

Feike has been advised that DAFF does not have a clue. Obviously. 

Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Fisheries must shoulder much of the blame for this catestrophe and has failed the South African public as the Committee repeatedly failed to hold the department of fisheries and the Navy to account especially after having been repeatedly lied to and deceived. And why did the Portfolio Committee enter the Easter Holiday recess without first ensuring that the department of fisheries had a substantive and funded plan in place to take possession of the vessels on 1 April 2013, repair them and then deploy them? 

What is clear ... AGAIN (!!) ... is that the department of fisheries once again failed to plan ahead and ensure that come another critical deadline (ie the end of the Naval agreement, this time!), the vessels would actually be responsibly managed. How incompetent are these excessively paid officials?

Russia & SA's Fisheries Statement of Intent

On 27 March, the South African Minister of Fisheries confirmed that she had a signed a "statement of intent" with the Russian Government during the 5th BRICS Summit held in South Africa.

According to the Ministry, the statement of intent was "signed for the conclusion of a future agreement on cooperation in the field of fisheries based on conservation and rational use of living marine resources, prevention, deterrence and elimination of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, exchange of information and data on the fisheries-related issues, which are of interest to both parties, cooperation in matters concerning the activities of the international fisheries organisations, fisheries research and development of scientific programs, aquaculture development, education and training of specialists to meet the needs of the fishing industry, development of joint projects in fisheries, processing and marketing of fish products." (sic)

This is indeed quite a laundry list of broad and rather vague intentions. It is not immediately apparent how realistic any of these intentions are but if the South African fishing industry is able to access the fast-growing Russian seafood market, then this statement of intent will be an important development for the SA fishing industry which requires market diversification, particularly for its hake and tunas. 

Long Term Rights Monitoring: April Edition

According to the Department's own timetable for the allocation of fishing rights later this year, the two sets of service providers to review the present fishing policies and provide administrative support ought have been appointed by March 2013. This has not happened. And as we reported in a previous BLOG,  the tender inviting potential service providers has not yet even been published!

And during March and April, the department ought to have commenced public consultation on the draft  fishing policies and processes that are intended to guide the next rights allocation process. Needless to say, this has not happened either.

Next deadline: The Call for Applications is scheduled for May 2013.