dau gia , the gioi smartphone , download game mobile , smartphone , tang truong , khoa hoc cong nghe thong cong , mua ban sim , Smartphone gia re , cong nghe tuong lai , cong nghe 360 , giai tri guongmat.org , su kien trong ngay , thoi trang hi tech , thong tin 360 , may tinh bang , perfect body , kasuman.com , gia vang hom nay , tin tuc an toan , kinh te viet nam , xay dung viet nam , thoi trang , thoi trang , phu nu viet nam , tin tuc moi online , dich vu bao ve viet nam , bao ve viet nam , cong ty bao ve viet nam , tin tuc moi online , giai tri 24h , tin tuc 24h

Archive for February, 2017

Can SA’s Lobster and Abalone Fisheries be Saved?

Can South Africa's famed West Coast Rock Lobster and abalone fisheries be saved from economic collapse caused by rampant illegal fishing? Quite simply, there is no option but to ensure their recovery and pull-back from complete decimation. 

The nagging question is how this pull-back can be achieved. With regard to lobster, there is a growing tension between environmental lobby groups such as WWF and the Fisheries Department since the Department elected to maintain the lobster TAC at 2016 levels as opposed to reducing the TAC by 34% in terms of a scientifically proposed recovery plan. The Department's fishery managers and ultimately the Deputy Director-General elected to adopt an alternative management strategy that is premised on the understanding that it makes little sense to punish law-abiding quota holders by reducing their TAC's while poachers continue fishing. 

Abalone is the obvious case in point. The legal catch limit has been reduced to 95 tons while poachers continue to harvest upward of 3000 tons annually! 

Given the demand for both abalone and lobsters which outstrips supply (legal and illegal) by some measure, the obvious ease with which IUU fish can be exported and the lack of alternative income sources for most poachers in fishing communities along our coast, the recovery plan mooted by WWF and co was doomed to fail. The only parties who would have been affected by the plan would have been legal quota holders who would have seen a 70% cut to quotas over the next two seasons. 

Think about it again. Imagine you are a small scale lobster fisherman or a local lobster fishing company whose sole quota and income is a 5 ton, 4 ton or 3 ton lobster quota and your sole income is to be cut by 70% over the next two seasons. I am quite certain a significant number of these fishers would join the poaching class using the legal quotas to launder illegal catches. 

However, there is also no doubt that both lobsters and abalone are in a dismal biological state with lobsters generally thought to be at 2% of pre-fished levels. Recovery is a non-negotiable. The question remains how can South Africa successfully recover these mega value, high demand nearshore fisheries while simultaneously balancing the socio-economic needs of fishers who rely on them for their livelihoods. 

The solution is neither novel nor complex. The solution has been stated on these pages on numerous occasions over the last few years. But essentially we need a combination of upgrades and updates to the fisheries compliance and management toolbox. 

For one, we need to bring back dedicated regional environmental courts whose sole business is the prosecution of environmental and marine crimes. Not only will this allow for the faster processing of criminal matters, but dedicated prosecutors and magistrates who know and understand the social, economic and ecological gravity of environmental crimes will ensure swift and visible justice. The success of these courts were proven when they existed between 2003 and 2005. 

The way we currently manage fisheries requires updating to the 21st Century. Hard copy paper records managed by individuals at landing sites and remote harbours are not only corruptible but do not allow for proper and real time management of catches, landings, processing of fish or sales. By the time these records are eventually collated and analysed the poached products have long been consumed and digested in South East Asia. 

Further, in a fishery such as abalone where the amount of fish poached exceeds the legal quota by more than 40 fold, I would instead increase the legal catch limits substantially to encourage greater levels of compliance by current right holders and to displace illegal fishing. Displacement can work in a fishery like abalone simply because its geographic distribution is confined to specific fishing zones over a relatively short coastline between Paternoster and Pearly Beach. 

Finally, we need to increase the number of commercial available and exploitable nearshore resources to begin a reduction of right holder reliance on abalone and lobsters. New and alternative fisheries development is critical if we are to substantially and seriously increase coastal community incomes and reduce fishing reliance on abalone and lobsters. 



Can SA’s Lobster and Abalone Fisheries be Saved?

Can South Africa's famed West Coast Rock Lobster and abalone fisheries be saved from economic collapse caused by rampant illegal fishing? Quite simply, there is no option but to ensure their recovery and pull-back from complete decimation. 

The nagging question is how this pull-back can be achieved. With regard to lobster, there is a growing tension between environmental lobby groups such as WWF and the Fisheries Department since the Department elected to maintain the lobster TAC at 2016 levels as opposed to reducing the TAC by 34% in terms of a scientifically proposed recovery plan. The Department's fishery managers and ultimately the Deputy Director-General elected to adopt an alternative management strategy that is premised on the understanding that it makes little sense to punish law-abiding quota holders by reducing their TAC's while poachers continue fishing. 

Abalone is the obvious case in point. The legal catch limit has been reduced to 95 tons while poachers continue to harvest upward of 3000 tons annually! 

Given the demand for both abalone and lobsters which outstrips supply (legal and illegal) by some measure, the obvious ease with which IUU fish can be exported and the lack of alternative income sources for most poachers in fishing communities along our coast, the recovery plan mooted by WWF and co was doomed to fail. The only parties who would have been affected by the plan would have been legal quota holders who would have seen a 70% cut to quotas over the next two seasons. 

Think about it again. Imagine you are a small scale lobster fisherman or a local lobster fishing company whose sole quota and income is a 5 ton, 4 ton or 3 ton lobster quota and your sole income is to be cut by 70% over the next two seasons. I am quite certain a significant number of these fishers would join the poaching class using the legal quotas to launder illegal catches. 

However, there is also no doubt that both lobsters and abalone are in a dismal biological state with lobsters generally thought to be at 2% of pre-fished levels. Recovery is a non-negotiable. The question remains how can South Africa successfully recover these mega value, high demand nearshore fisheries while simultaneously balancing the socio-economic needs of fishers who rely on them for their livelihoods. 

The solution is neither novel nor complex. The solution has been stated on these pages on numerous occasions over the last few years. But essentially we need a combination of upgrades and updates to the fisheries compliance and management toolbox. 

For one, we need to bring back dedicated regional environmental courts whose sole business is the prosecution of environmental and marine crimes. Not only will this allow for the faster processing of criminal matters, but dedicated prosecutors and magistrates who know and understand the social, economic and ecological gravity of environmental crimes will ensure swift and visible justice. The success of these courts were proven when they existed between 2003 and 2005. 

The way we currently manage fisheries requires updating to the 21st Century. Hard copy paper records managed by individuals at landing sites and remote harbours are not only corruptible but do not allow for proper and real time management of catches, landings, processing of fish or sales. By the time these records are eventually collated and analysed the poached products have long been consumed and digested in South East Asia. 

Further, in a fishery such as abalone where the amount of fish poached exceeds the legal quota by more than 40 fold, I would instead increase the legal catch limits substantially to encourage greater levels of compliance by current right holders and to displace illegal fishing. Displacement can work in a fishery like abalone simply because its geographic distribution is confined to specific fishing zones over a relatively short coastline between Paternoster and Pearly Beach. 

Finally, we need to increase the number of commercial available and exploitable nearshore resources to begin a reduction of right holder reliance on abalone and lobsters. New and alternative fisheries development is critical if we are to substantially and seriously increase coastal community incomes and reduce fishing reliance on abalone and lobsters. 



Appeal Deadlines for 2016 FRAP Fishing Sectors

Deadlines for the filing of appeals against decisions taken during the FRAP 2016 process are as follows:

1. Patagonian Toothfish: 16h00 on 15 February 2017

2. Fish Processing Establishments: 28 February 2017

3. Hake Inshore Trawl & Sole: 16h00 on 17 March 2017

4. Horse Mackerel: 16h00 on 17 March 2017

5. KZN Beach Seine: 16h00 on 21 April 2017

6. Seaweed: 16h00 on 21 April 2017

7. Large Pelagics: 16h00 on 21 April 2017

8. Net fishery: Appeals are closed.

Applications in the West Coast Rock Lobster and abalone fishery sectors are being evaluated and decisions are anticipated before the start of the 2017/2018 abalone fishery season.

Appeal Deadlines for 2016 FRAP Fishing Sectors

Deadlines for the filing of appeals against decisions taken during the FRAP 2016 process are as follows:

1. Patagonian Toothfish: 16h00 on 15 February 2017

2. Fish Processing Establishments: 28 February 2017

3. Hake Inshore Trawl & Sole: 16h00 on 17 March 2017

4. Horse Mackerel: 16h00 on 17 March 2017

5. KZN Beach Seine: 16h00 on 21 April 2017

6. Seaweed: 16h00 on 21 April 2017

7. Large Pelagics: 16h00 on 21 April 2017

8. Net fishery: Appeals are closed.

Applications in the West Coast Rock Lobster and abalone fishery sectors are being evaluated and decisions are anticipated before the start of the 2017/2018 abalone fishery season.

The Hake Inshore Trawl Fishery in Limbo

On 3 January 2017, Viking Inshore Fishing (Pty) Ltd (Viking) secured an urgent interim interdict against, amongst others, the Minister of Fisheries and the Deputy Director-General of the Fisheries Management Branch. My next article on Maritime Review Africa will provide a relatively detailed analysis of the prospects of this matter going forward. Suffice it to say, I do not believe that Viking will succeed in obtaining the relief it seeks, which is essentially to - 

  • force the minister to grant it and 15 other "historic right holders" an exemption to continue fishing until the Minister decides the appeals; and
  • obtain a declaratory order allowing these historic right holders to continue fishing whilst the appeals are being decided. 
However, on 6 February 2017 the Western Cape High Court decided to postpone the matter until 18 April 2017 for a full bench of the court to hear the matter over 3 days (18-20 April 2017). Incidentally, representatives of the SA Deep Sea Trawl Industry Association (which does not represent the hake inshore trawl fishery sector) have been blogging and publicly describing the Viking matter as a review application ... which it is not. Viking's legal papers (including heads of argument) seem to have also demonstrated a level of ambiguity as to whether the application is a review application or not. [As an aside, the postponement of the matter to 18 April could very well render the Viking application entirely moot because appeals in this fishery must be filed by 16h00 on 17 March 2017 at the latest. It is entirely possible that the Minister could have decided the appeals by 18 April 2017]. 

SADSTIA - apparently now speaking for the inshore trawl hake right holders (but only the historic ones) - seems to be suggesting that the Minister should urgently grant the 16 historic right holders  (including one who was excluded for failing a peremptory exclusionary criterion) BUT not the 12 new entrant right holders, an exemption under Section 81 of the MLRA to operate while this matter is resolved by the courts. 

The obvious tragic irony is that this entire mess and the current hardships being faced by small and medium sized businesses in the fishery who are entirely reliant on hake inshore trawling could have been avoided had Viking simply followed the ordinary appeal procedures laid down under the MLRA  and appealed the DDG's decision of 21 December 2016. Had this process been followed, all 27 right holders could have been fishing their respective initial portions of the 2017 TAC until the appeals procedure was finalised. 

The reality is that the order sought by Viking on 29 December 2016 and granted on 3 January 2017 prevents the Minister and Fisheries Department from issuing any fishing permits under Section 13 and furthermore interdicts any right holder from exercising their section 18 rights in this fishery. On a narrow reading of the order, there may be a possibility of allowing the historic right holders to fish under exemption until such time as the appeals procedure is completed but there are at least 4 arguments against this.

Firstly, the historic right holders' fishing rights are no longer. These rights terminated and reverted to the state at midnight on 31 December 2015. There is accordingly no prima facie right or other basis in law to permit them to fish any portion of the 2017 TAC other than in terms of the 21 December 2016 decision. Secondly, a valid and legally binding rights allocation was concluded on 21 December 2016. This allocation process has neither been challenged, subjected to a review or declared unlawful. Thirdly, to allow the historic right holders to fish (including one whose application was excluded) would be highly irregular and prejudicial to the 12 successful new entrants who could be denied their right to fish in 2017 because the historic operators could exploit the entire catch. Finally, the purported argument that there has been a precedent in the SACLA matter and 2013 line fish allocation which permitted right holders and unsuccessful historic right holders to fish under exemption until conclusion of the appeals process is without merit. For one, the SACLA matter sought to review and set aside an allocation of fishing rights, and which process was found to be wanting by two separate internal departmental investigations. As I noted above, the Viking application is not a review application and there has not been any challenge to the lawfulness or legality of the 21 December 2016 decision. Further, the SACLA review application and the subsequent order did not deny the successful new entrants their rights to fish and neither did it grant a blanket approval to all historic right holders to simply continue fishing.  

The obvious question then is, what to do with the hake inshore trawl fishery until such time as the Viking application is heard and decided presumably only by early Autumn. The short answer is that very little can be done because the order sought and granted to Viking is wide ranging and was aimed to stop all fishing in the hake inshore trawl fishery. 


The Hake Inshore Trawl Fishery in Limbo

On 3 January 2017, Viking Inshore Fishing (Pty) Ltd (Viking) secured an urgent interim interdict against, amongst others, the Minister of Fisheries and the Deputy Director-General of the Fisheries Management Branch. My next article on Maritime Review Africa will provide a relatively detailed analysis of the prospects of this matter going forward. Suffice it to say, I do not believe that Viking will succeed in obtaining the relief it seeks, which is essentially to - 

  • force the minister to grant it and 15 other "historic right holders" an exemption to continue fishing until the Minister decides the appeals; and
  • obtain a declaratory order allowing these historic right holders to continue fishing whilst the appeals are being decided. 
However, on 6 February 2017 the Western Cape High Court decided to postpone the matter until 18 April 2017 for a full bench of the court to hear the matter over 3 days (18-20 April 2017). Incidentally, representatives of the SA Deep Sea Trawl Industry Association (which does not represent the hake inshore trawl fishery sector) have been blogging and publicly describing the Viking matter as a review application ... which it is not. Viking's legal papers (including heads of argument) seem to have also demonstrated a level of ambiguity as to whether the application is a review application or not. [As an aside, the postponement of the matter to 18 April could very well render the Viking application entirely moot because appeals in this fishery must be filed by 16h00 on 17 March 2017 at the latest. It is entirely possible that the Minister could have decided the appeals by 18 April 2017]. 

SADSTIA - apparently now speaking for the inshore trawl hake right holders (but only the historic ones) - seems to be suggesting that the Minister should urgently grant the 16 historic right holders  (including one who was excluded for failing a peremptory exclusionary criterion) BUT not the 12 new entrant right holders, an exemption under Section 81 of the MLRA to operate while this matter is resolved by the courts. 

The obvious tragic irony is that this entire mess and the current hardships being faced by small and medium sized businesses in the fishery who are entirely reliant on hake inshore trawling could have been avoided had Viking simply followed the ordinary appeal procedures laid down under the MLRA  and appealed the DDG's decision of 21 December 2016. Had this process been followed, all 27 right holders could have been fishing their respective initial portions of the 2017 TAC until the appeals procedure was finalised. 

The reality is that the order sought by Viking on 29 December 2016 and granted on 3 January 2017 prevents the Minister and Fisheries Department from issuing any fishing permits under Section 13 and furthermore interdicts any right holder from exercising their section 18 rights in this fishery. On a narrow reading of the order, there may be a possibility of allowing the historic right holders to fish under exemption until such time as the appeals procedure is completed but there are at least 4 arguments against this.

Firstly, the historic right holders' fishing rights are no longer. These rights terminated and reverted to the state at midnight on 31 December 2015. There is accordingly no prima facie right or other basis in law to permit them to fish any portion of the 2017 TAC other than in terms of the 21 December 2016 decision. Secondly, a valid and legally binding rights allocation was concluded on 21 December 2016. This allocation process has neither been challenged, subjected to a review or declared unlawful. Thirdly, to allow the historic right holders to fish (including one whose application was excluded) would be highly irregular and prejudicial to the 12 successful new entrants who could be denied their right to fish in 2017 because the historic operators could exploit the entire catch. Finally, the purported argument that there has been a precedent in the SACLA matter and 2013 line fish allocation which permitted right holders and unsuccessful historic right holders to fish under exemption until conclusion of the appeals process is without merit. For one, the SACLA matter sought to review and set aside an allocation of fishing rights, and which process was found to be wanting by two separate internal departmental investigations. As I noted above, the Viking application is not a review application and there has not been any challenge to the lawfulness or legality of the 21 December 2016 decision. Further, the SACLA review application and the subsequent order did not deny the successful new entrants their rights to fish and neither did it grant a blanket approval to all historic right holders to simply continue fishing.  

The obvious question then is, what to do with the hake inshore trawl fishery until such time as the Viking application is heard and decided presumably only by early Autumn. The short answer is that very little can be done because the order sought and granted to Viking is wide ranging and was aimed to stop all fishing in the hake inshore trawl fishery.