~

Finally the scoresheets for fisheries such as the tuna, squid and line fish sectors are trickling in. An examination of these so-called scoresheets is yet further confirmation of the blatant arbitrariness and unlawfulness of this process!  The scoresheet scores almost nothing of relevance. Firstly, there is zero evaluation of application for compliance with any of the peremptory criteria - ie. compliance with the peremptory lodgement, material defect and exclusionary criteria listed in the 2013 General Fisheries policy and each of the sector policies. So it is safe to infer that applications were not physically evaluated and checked for compliance with these criteria as they are spelt out in the fisheries policies. These peremptory criteria include compliance with the provisions of the MLRA, the form of the applicant, timeous and proper lodgement of the application, whether the form was signed and commissioned and critically, whether the applicant had nominated access to a sui...

The DA's complete policy statement on fisheries and oceans management is available here . We strongly urge any one interested or involved in SA fisheries to read this policy statement, which is also the DA's 2014 election manifesto on fisheries and oceans.  Feike has requested the ruling ANC to make available its election manifesto policy statement on fisheries and oceans governance.  We provide a summary of the key DA fisheries and oceans management policies below. FISHERIES MANAGEMENT The management of South Africa’s fisheries must be based on the best available scientific and local community knowledge systems, coupled with the overarching precautionary management principle. While South Africa’s offshore fisheries are relatively well-managed, our inshore fish stocks, including lobsters, line fishes, abalone and oysters, are in an extremely sensitive biological state. Scientific recovery plans are not adhered to and illegal fishing is decimating stocks. ...

Over the past few days, the Fisheries Department and others like Tony Ehrenreich of COSATU/ANC have been bleating on about how the 2013 fishing right allocation process is all about "transformation".  So, we undertook a rather cursory glance of the entities granted tuna pole fishing rights to only  conclude that what is actually punted as "transformation" looks more like cronyism, nepotism, fishing rights for ANC cadres and fishing rights to wealthy business people.  The timeslive daily newspaper has today already exposed a number of dodgy allocations in the traditional line fishery which only confirm the farcical nature of the allocations process. So it is confirmed that a senior ANC member's entire family landed themselves line fish quotas in Arniston. Nice. Transformation in action we will be told.  We however looked at the tuna pole fishery for a slight change of perspective. This is what we found in only an hour of basic verification.  We ...

Interim relief in the lobster fishery began 8 years ago and has resulted in mass coastal poverty and spectacular resource destruction. Lobster is presently 97% overfished and was removed from the WWF SASSI green list in 2013. Interim relief in the lobster fishery is synonymous with corruption, maladministration, poverty, poaching, coastal community conflict and resource destruction. It is hardly an "interim" measure either given that it has been running for 8 consecutive years. Right holders in this sector dont pay taxes; dont pay fishing levies; dont pay for permit application fees. Interim relief has become a social grant system in the fisheries sector and an opt-out for the fisheries department to actually grant fishing rights and manage the lobster sector coherently and responsibly. Is this what will happen to the line fishery? Of greater immediate concern is that while these interim measures are being put into place allowing line fishers to fish until such time as t...

The decision today by the Fisheries Department to accommodate all traditional line fishers who were wrongly excluded on 30 December 2013 via an interim exemption process is certainly a victory for the line fishers who stood united against a clearly unlawful and unjust decision that summarily excluded 335 of the 450 right holders on the eve that their 8-year long fishing rights expired.  However, the decision to suddenly accommodate line fishers signals a recognition by the Department and its Acting DDG, Desmond Stevens, that the 30 December 2013 decisions were not only unlawful and susceptible to successful judicial review, but these decisions were morally outrageous.  Until late last week, Stevens and officials from DAFF continued to maintain that these disastrous decisions of 30 December 2013 were fair and Stevens himself maintained that he could not understand why fishers were so outraged! The climb-down by Stevens and DAFF however signals that his decisions in...

Where are right holders' scoresheets and evaluation forms? Why have these still not been made available to right holders? Why were these not published on the very day the decisions were made?  Why were right holders told by the rights allocation unit just last week Friday morning that DAFF would not be making these available? Were scoresheets even produced and used by Desmond Stevens prior to 30 December 2013? How were applications scored and ranked and then compared to each other? Why are none of these questions capable of being answered by studying the General Published Reasons (GPR's) documents for any of the fisheries? If each evaluation criterion was scored why were these scores not published in the respective fishery GPR's as they were done in 2005? Similarly, why was the list of successful and unsuccessful applicants not listed with their respective scores in these GPR's? Were any of the applications in fact scored?  Were staff at DAFF busy drafting (ie ...

The Fisheries Department's Acting DDG, Desmond Stevens, is suddenly running along the coast like a headless chicken "consulting" with members of the traditional line fish sector. Quite frankly, these "consultations" are dishonest and too late as Mr Stevens can do absolutely nothing to correct or change his disastrous fishing rights allocations of 30 December 2013 .  What Stevens is desperately doing is trying to buy time and string fishermen along in a bid to falsely placate them. Stevens's decisions of 30 December 2013 prevent him from changing a single decision. In law he said to be functus officio  and cannot change a single decision. Persons who have been denied a right cannot be granted a right by Stevens. Similarly, those new entrants who were granted rights - no matter how underserving - cannot have their rights taken away! Not even the Minister can do this! And the small number of rights available on appeal cannot solve this national crisis.  ...

DAFF's 2013 Fishing Rights Allocation Process is a cowardly and unjust attempt to ruin the livelihoods of hundreds of traditional line fishers, tuna pole, hake handline and shark demersal fishers. These fishers have invested millions of rands over the past 8 years; created 1000 of jobs; paid their taxes and fish levies to this government; religiously complied with fishing permit conditions and DAFF's mundane bureaucratic rules only to be denied long term fishing rights to which they had every lawful and legitimate right when applications were submitted in September 2013.  I witnessed the fear, anger and financial anxiety by dozens of fishermen out in Yzerfontein this morning. I have been fielding dozens more phone calls from fishermen and their spouses. They are grief stricken. What are they going to do this January? How will bonds be paid? What about school fees, groceries and electricity? How can someone who knows nothing about the fishery industry be appointed as a deci...

As applicants for fishing rights, regardless of whether you are successful or not, you are entitled to the following documents in order to prepare an administrative appeal under the MLRA or to prepare an urgent court application: 1. A letter addressed to you, the applicant, informing you of the actual reasons for the decision on your application.  2. A copy of your scoresheet and all other evaluation records used to score your application. 3. Copies of the scoresheets and evaluation sheets for every other applicant in that fishery - both right holder and new entrant applicants. 4. The General Published Reasons, which are largely meaningless documents as they do not specify any reasoning or policies underpinning the decisions.  5. Complete lists of successful applicants, together with the names and registration numbers of their nominated fishing vessels and crew allocations.  In addition, you may request access to any database created and used by t...

The decisions in the shark demersal fishery are truly bizarre! If ever there is a set of decisions ripe for review, it is in this fishery.  Firstly, every long term right holder failed in their bid to have their rights re-allocated despite the fact that at least 3 of the right holders have invested in shark long line gear, harvest and export shark products, sustain many jobs in the sector and importantly created some unique export markets for shark products.  Secondly, BMC Visserye CC is listed as both on the unsuccessful and successful lists! So which one is it?  Thirdly, Fisherman Fresh CC, is also listed on both the unsuccessful and reserved lists!  But without doubt the clearest ground for review is the allocation of a fishing right to the new entrant, Unathi-Wena Fishing CC. Despite the fact that this entity failed to nominate a suitable vessel for this fishery - which should have resulted in its immediate exclusion in terms of the shark policy ...

It appears that the precarious biological status of the squid resource, coupled with the fact that the fishery has a number of large commercial operators such as Premier Fishing, I&J and Pioneer Fishing, saved the fishery from the irrational and nonsensical decisions that have plagued other fisheries such as the shark demersal, tuna and line fish sectors.  No new entrants were granted a right notwithstanding that the squid fishery has historically lagged other commercial fisheries in the area of black economic empowerment. However, decision-making in this sector appears to have recognised that what the fishery required more than anything else is stability, continuity and re-investment by current right holders to ensure that South Africa's share of the lucrative European market for squid is not lost.  What remains a mystery - as is the case with the other decisions - is the effort allocations to right holders. The squid fishery is unique when it comes to the alloca...

The 2013 FRAP line fish decisions have decimated if not destroyed South Africa's traditional line fishery which dates back to the 1500's. Of the 450 traditional line fishers that held rights for the past 8 years (and most even longer for periods of between 30 and 40 years), only 115 were reallocated their fishing rights! That will result in the decimation of the line fishery resulting in huge job losses and business failures. It appears as if traditional line fish strongholds such as Kalk Bay, Arniston and much of the West Coast have been most affected.  As with the tuna pole decisions , the decisions in the line fishery are similarly illegal and should be set aside should a review application be brought.  The decision to exclude more than 330 traditional right holders however who have invested and created jobs over the past 8 years at least while allocating rights to new entrants who have little or no vested interests in the line fishery is particularly egregious. Th...