A wide-angle perspective on commercial fishing
tee the industry is “lily white”, the minister is either ill-informed, poorly advised or he is obfuscating the issue. He is also negating the progress his government has made with transforming the fishing industry since 1994, and the significant achievements of the industry itself – but, back to horse mackerel.
If at first you don’t succeed The allocation of the experimental permit to Global Pact didn’t come out of the blue. Global Pact first made an application to the DAFF for a horse mackerel allocation in August 2012. This was for a permit to “create a new fishery based in Port Elizabeth that targets horse mackerel using purse-seine nets as opposed to mid-water or deep-water trawl nets”. The idea was to partner with a Namibian consortium and to utilise the vessel Namibian Star to land and process horse mackerel into a range of frozen, canned and smoked products. The application was turned down by the minister at the time, Tina Joemat Pettersson. Global Pact made a second application to the DAFF on 14 February 2013 and a third application was made on 1 March of the same year. Although the substance of the three applications is essentially the same, the latter two applications were for permission to conduct a “practical experiment”. Apparently, the permit that was finally awarded to Global Pact was for permission to conduct such an experiment. It’s useful to look at the reasons why the previous minister turned the application down. Effectively she followed the advice of both the Demersal Scientific Working Group (DSWG) and the New Fisheries Scientific Working Group. Their advice was to decline permission for a permit for a new fishery, or a practical experiment, on the grounds that the fishery could not be regarded as “new” because an established fishery for horse mackerel already exists; that collaboration with a Namibian consortium could not be justified under the auspices of the Benguela Current Commission because the horse mackerel stock is not shared between Namibia and South Africa; and that the fishery is fully subscribed, with access to the resource being granted via the fishing rights allocations of 2005. Other issues that were of concern were the fact that increased horse mackerel catches could impact on the sustainability of the small pelagic fishery and that the
fishery is already adequately surveyed by the Fisheries Branch. In other words, there was no need for additional experimentation.
A conflict of interest? There is another aspect to the story that is highly pertinent and that is the involvement and influence of the fisheries consultancy Feike and its owner (and fellow columnist), Shaheen Moolla. The court documents establish a clear link between Feike and the applications submitted by Global Pact in 2012 and 2013. Some were submitted on Feike letterheads. While there’s nothing wrong with that (after all, that’s what fisheries consultants do and Feike was clearly promoting Global Pact’s applications) the lines start to blur in June 2015 when Moolla was appointed by Minister Zokwana to advise him on the lengthy appeals process relating to the failed rights allocations of 2013 (FRAP 2013). Moolla worked with two other professionals, Mamake Mdluli and Julian Smith, until the appeals process was concluded in April 2016. His work on the appeals would have brought him into close contact with Minister Zokwana. Moolla has confirmed that he will not represent his former client Global Pact on 9 November, but he is advising the minister, DDG and CD. Fisheries researcher and activist, Gary Simpson, captures the problematic nature of Moolla’s involvement: “Given Moolla’s recorded roll from at least September 2008 promoting increased exploitation of the South African horse mackerel resource, his role in 2013 in preparing and filing a comprehensive application on behalf of (Global Pact) for a horse mackerel allocation, his role in advising Minister Zokwana in respect of FRAP 2013 Appeals decision-making during the period 1 June 2015 to April 2016, the same period during which (Global Pact’s) application was processed, and given Moolla and/or his family’s broader roll as active participants and stakeholders in the SA fishing industry it is difficult to believe that his role in advising the First to Third Respondent’s (Minister, DDG and DG) cannot be seen as being overwhelmingly ‘conflicted’”. Simpson believes that Mooola’s role in advising the Minister, DDG and CD in the Global Pact matter is fatally conflicted and Moolla should be called upon to recuse himself from the proceedings. It’s difficult to find fault with Simpson’s position, especially given the implications of this case.
THROUGH THE FISH EYE LENS
If Global Pact wins, it’s conceivable that the floodgates will open for more of these applications, with very serious consequences for the established industry. Whether you like the freeze and export model or not, you can’t get away from the fact that the industry sustains thousands of jobs and generates valuable foreign exchange and corporate taxes for South Africa.
From Parliament to Paternoster One of the reasons why people are talking about the Global Pact matter is that it looks so bad for the fishing industry. To some extent, the long-term rights allocations of 2005/2006 put to bed the allegations of bias and favouritism that had characterised the allocation of fishing rights post-1994. The failed FRAP 2013 raised the spectre of political interference in the allocation of fishing rights and this case smacks of the same thing. The nature and scope of this problem is ably captured by Jessica Greenstone, marine science and policy head of WWF-SA’s Marine Programme, who said “First there is a concern that existing rights holders who received allocations in accordance with the law will have their rights unfairly infringed upon. It is well accepted in fisheries management literature that uncertainty in tenure leads to short-term economic decision making by fishers, often to the detriment of the resource. This also undermines the hard work of many staff in the Department making the rights allocation processes transparent and fair. Second, the lack of transparency in regards to the experiment itself is a concern. If a new socio-economic initiative is needed this should have been shared with fishery stakeholders along with an opportunity to participate in the planning.” One assumes that issues like these will get a proper hearing in court on 9 November. The outcome of the case is anyone’s guess, but you can be sure that all stakeholders from Paternoster to Parliament, will be watching the outcome with more than a passing interest and an eye on the future. Claire Attwood is a writer and editor with a special interest in fisheries. She works with a number of fishing companies and consults to the South African Deep Sea Trawl Industry Association, SADSTIA. She writes in her personal capacity.
Maritime Review Africa SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER 2016
19