Allocation of Fishing Rights: briefing by Marine and Coastal Management

Meeting report

****************************************************************
This Report is a Contact Natural Resource Information Service
Taking Parliament to People, and People to Parliament
****************************************************************
The aim of this report is to summarise the main events at the meeting and identify the key role players. This report is not a verbatim transcript of proceedings.

LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
10 October 2001
CLARIFICATION BY MARINE AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ON ASPECTS OF POLICY REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF FISHING RIGHTS

Chairperson: Rev P. Moatshe

Documents handed out:
A Response by The Department Of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to the Report of the Select Committee on Fishing (Department of Land and Agriculture)
Policy Guidelines with Regard to Applications for the Granting of Rights in Terms of the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998 (Department of Land and Agriculture)

SUMMARY
Representatives from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism were invited to clarify various questions and concerns that the Committee had regarding the allocation of fishing rights process. The Department representatives briefly summarised the allocation process and indicated that vast improvements had been made in the system. The Committee was given an opportunity to raise any additional issues. The Committee invited the Department to accompany them on their visit to the fishing communities to report back on the allocation process.

MINUTES
The Chairperson opened the meeting and introduced the representatives from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Mr Kleinsmith, Deputy Director; and Dr. Mayekiso, Chief Director.

Mr Kleinsmith began his presentation by looking at the allocation of the fishing rights, stating that events such as the receipt of applications determined what lay ahead as the season of fishing was about to start. He noted that the application procedure was the most reasonable and successful one. He felt that the Department did everything it could to inform the public about the application for fishing rights, and he explained how the Department had advertised for applications through several radio stations and by issuing pamphlets.

Mr Kleinsmith identified two categories of applications: the first category applicants paying R500 and the other paying R6 000. He told the Committee that 21 000 application forms were distributed to different offices, and the Department had noticed that a high number of the applications were at the R500 level. He said that the Department received about 5250 applications for 250 different species. A committee was appointed through the public sector to verify the applications forms, and successful and unsuccessful applicants were notified by post. He added that the committee consisted of 38 professionals that were expected to produce reasonable and legally sustainable results.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives from Department for their input and for clarifying certain questions the members had about the allocations of the fishing rights. He then opened the floor for questions and comments that the Committee had for the Department.

Ms A. Versfeld (DP) thanked the Department and said that she had visited one of the offices that distributed application forms, and it was the first time that she saw people treated in a humane way. She asked the Department if the unsuccessful applicants would be given reasons for the failure of their applications and wanted to know how many applications fell in the R500 category.

Mr Kleinsmith responded that the unsuccessful applicants would be informed and would be told the reasons for their failure. He did not have the exact figures for the R500 category but said that they were the majority received.

Ms B. Thompson (ANC) said that she had visited the Sea Point office in order to get information but could unfortunately get no assistance from the woman issuing the forms. She was told that the only forms available were for the R6 000 category. Ms Thompson said that people from previously disadvantaged backgrounds would not be able to afford R6 000. Additionally, she said that the forms were inaccessible and unclear.

Mr Kleinsmith responded that the application process was not easy to deal with. The application form for the R500 category had only four questions, but the tax forms were part of the problem as they were not easy to fill in.

Ms B. Nogumla (ANC) complained that people in the Eastern Cape never received the application forms. She was also not happy about the number of forms that were received by the Department. She stated that there would have been many more applications if those seeking to apply did not meet so many problems in the process.

Mr Kleinsmith responded that the Department distributed the forms in areas that were of more commercial value, and there was not much fishing in the Eastern Cape area.

Mr Mokoena expressed displeasure with the outcome of the process and asked Mr Kleinsmith about ways to ensure that people had access to the industry. He saw one of the application forms and believed he could not have filled it in himself. He asked how the Department could have expected ordinary people from rural areas to fill in the forms.

Mr Kleinsmith said that the whole process was not aimed at relieving poverty but at stimulating the industry for better transformation. The Department was not trying to attract new people into the industry, and the people who had been in the industry for a long time were very much aware and informed of the application details and procedure. He also said that it was impossible to make the community happy because people were not using the quotas to fish but were selling them to the big companies like Irvin and Johnson (I and J).

Rev M. Chabaku (ANC) said that the report was very significant and was a symbol for change. Though the work done by the Department was appreciated, she believed that needy people still had to have access to the industry.

Ms Nogumla, addressing her comment to Mr Kleinsmith, said that she did not claim that the industry was for poverty relief, but, since the Committee was working directly with the people, they needed to have answers for questions asked because people voted for them and had placed their faith in the Committee.

The Chairperson said that it was imperative for all people to be informed, and the Committee deserved to have the full information. He noticed that there was a gap between the Department and the Committee, and that was not good because it meant that some people could not be assisted though the government had promised a better life for all. He said that the Department could have met with the Committee before the due date for the application forms. Since the Committee had promised to go back to the fishing community and report to them, the Committee hoped the Department would accompany them.

Dr Mayekiso promised the Committee that the Department would accompany them, and the Committee only needed to inform them of the dates and times.

Rev Chabaku asked the Department if there was a process for appeal since the due date for the application forms had passed.

Mr Kleinsmith responded that people could appeal in the courts.

Mr V. Windvoel (ANC) suggested that the Chairperson be given the authority to decide on the date of the visit to the fishing community and should then advise the Department.

The meeting was adjourned.

The copyright in this material subsists with the Contact Trust. Further distribution or copying of this material is prohibited without the prior agreement of the Contact Trust.