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

Performance Measuring Process

The opportunity to submit comments by members of the South African commercial fishing industry on the proposed criteria and processes for the commercial fisheries performance measuring process ended on 31 August 2009. Feike had submitted comments as an interested party. In brief, it is our view that the –
  • the notice and comment process is inappropriate and prejudicial to a number of right holders;
  • the proposed key performance indicators (KPI’s) are too generic in nature and contrary to the sector specific fishery objectives and policy frameworks; and
  • the proposed KPI’s are extremely vague, bordering on being irrelevant.
The full version of Feike’s comments are available. Simply email (smoolla@feike.co.za) me with the subject-heading “Feike’s performance measuring comments” for a copy of the comments.
The next step in the process will be for Marine and Coastal Management to consider the various comments and submissions made and thereafter to publish the final version of the KPI’s for each commercial fishery (if they maintain the “one-size fits all” strategy). If they decide to abandon the “one-size fits all” strategy, then they would be obliged to re-advertise the new sector specific key performance indicators in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000.
Feike wishes to remind commercial right holders that participation in this process is not voluntary. Every right holder is obliged in terms of the conditions under which their commercial fishing right was allocated in 2005 and 2006 to participate in the performance measuring process. For more information, contact Feike.

So Who’s the Real Minister of Fisheries?

It is September 2009 – the start of spring in the Southern Hemisphere. In April, South Africa elected Jacob Zuma as the third democratically elected president. By May 2009, news broke that the President appointed Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersen as the first ever minister of fisheries. Her full title was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. However, it later emerged that in fact the minister of fisheries would not be responsible for fisheries afterall! Fisheries regulation would remain the political purview of the new Minister of Environment and Water Affairs.
So why is the Minister of Fisheries not the minister of fisheries and why do we continue to have a minister of fisheries? Sadly – as is becoming typical of how our government attends to hard issues – this issue is surrounded by conjecture, rumour and (race-based) whispers. To date, we do not have a leadership with the courage to come forward and explain why taxpayers’ hard earned rands still pays for this confusion. And there certainly has been confusion! Imagine addressing fisheries related correspondence to the minister of fisheries only to be told that you need to address your correspondence to some one responsible for environment and water affairs. To date, we have not had any official word from the Minister of Environment and Water Affairs stating that she is responsible for fisheries despite her colleague carrying the title and why this is so.
And 5 months on (or 150 days) neither the departments of environment, water affairs, agriculture, tourism and forestry have got around to establishing their own respective homes on the world wide web. Fisheries related news is still cumbersomely located on the website for the non-existent department of environmental affairs and tourism or www.deat.gov.za!
Ok, so who is in charge if what? Based on responses to media stories and decision-making processes about fisheries issues, the Minister of Environment and Water Affairs, Ms Buyelwa Sonjica, is responsible for marine fisheries management – in other words, enforcement of the Marine Living Resources Act except aquaculture. The Minister of Fisheries, Ms Joemat-Petterssen is in fact responsible for fresh and marine aquaculture or fish farming, which also happens to occur under the Marine Living Resources Act and its regulations and policies.
Question. Who takes a decision with regard to, for example, the ranching of abalone. Ranching of course involves the planting of farmed abalone spat into the natural marine environment to produce wild stock – it’s a restocking strategy. Will you have to apply to one Minister for permission to grow the spat and then to another for permission to ranch and harvest the spat? Can you imagine the bureaucratic confusion that will be sowed in this process and the disincentives to invest in ranching opportunities which we so desperately require if we are to recover our collapsed abalone stocks and the jobs that went with it? The departments will have to establish joint working groups and advisory bodies whose members will have to fly between Pretoria and Cape Town to consult each other and ensure “collective” decision-making.
We will keep monitoring developments on who the Real Minister of Fisheries is.

 Page 66 of 66  « First  ... « 62  63  64  65  66