STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE IMPACT OF ABALONE POACHING
ON SMALL-SCALE FISHING COMMUNITIES
14 JUNE 2017
REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES, TOURISM AND
AGRICULTURE ON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF ABALONE POACHING ON SMALL-SCALE FISHING COMMUNITIES IN THE WESTERN
CAPE
1 | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a record of the public hearings and submissions made to the Standing Committee on
Economic Opportunities, Tourism and Agriculture (the Committee) of the Western Cape Provincial
Parliament, on the implications and consequences of abalone poaching on small-scale fishing
communities in the Western Cape.
The general findings related to abalone poaching are largely as follows:
1. Abalone poaching has a strong and undisputed link to gangsterism and drugs, with the
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) stating at the public hearing in Cape
Town that poaching is closely linked to crime syndicates. Various articles in the media have
reported abalone busts where abalone worth millions will be given to international crime
syndicates in exchange for materials used in the manufacture of drugs such as crystal
methamphetamine.
2. Small-scale fishers, community members and tourists visiting small coastal towns are being
intimated by gangsters related to poaching. Testimonies at the public hearings have brought to
the surface the realisation that DAFF and other related law enforcement agencies are under
capacitated and under-resourced and are therefore unable to tackle abalone poaching
effectively. This realisation has also raised concerns that all relevant government law
enforcement entities are not working together to combat poaching in these communities.
3. The ban of recreational fishing, coupled with the onslaught of gangs linked to abalone poaching,
has had a negative impact on tourism in coastal communities. Tourists are limited in terms of
recreational diving, and when diving takes place, tourists are often intimated by gangsters and
poachers.
4. Communities’ accessibility to small-scale fishing rights and quotas is limited. There are many
issues related to misinformation about the application process, language barriers where the
incorrect language used for communities, and rights being granted to part-time fishers instead
of full-time fishers who should get preference. The result is that small-scale fishers or traditional
fishers have turned to poaching.
5. The sale of confiscated illegally obtained abalone by DAFF for far below the market value has
resulted in the South African market for abalone becoming less competitive for other sellers.
Furthermore, there is no quality standard that the abalone has to meet before it is sold by DAFF.
Hence, sub-standard abalone is often sold to international markets.
6. It is critical that more attention is given to the recovery period needed for marine resources to
recover from being removed from the ocean en masse. For example, abalone and rock lobster
are slow growing marine resources that need years to repopulate and grow to maturity.
Poaching has not allowed for this to happen and marine resources continue to decline.
2 | P a g e
7. There has been slow implementation of the Small-Scale Fisheries Policy (SSFP), which is a
strategic solution that will encourage fishing communities to become part of the solution,
protecting their own marine resources.
3 | P a g e
1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
Public hearings were held on 3 February 2017 in Saldanha Bay, 8 February 2017 in Gansbaai and 24
February 2017 in Cape Town. The purpose of the public hearings was to determine the extent to
which abalone poaching has affected small-scale fishers living in coastal communities in the Western
Cape, as well as the lives of coastal communities. This was decided after numerous concerns were
raised in the media and to the Standing Committee for Economic Opportunities, Tourism and
Agriculture (hereafter the Standing Committee) at meetings held on 21 and 28 September 2016,
which focused on the impact of abalone poaching.
The report provides an overview of poaching along the Western Cape coastline. It contains the
inputs that were made at the public hearings and the written submissions that were received. The
report makes recommendations and provides solutions for small scale fishing and the poaching of
both Abalone and West Coast Rock Lobster in the Western Cape. The attached annexures list the
articles that influenced the Standing Committee’s decision to address abalone poaching, the
research conducted on the current regime to combat the illegal harvesting of abalone, the timeline
of the Committee’s interaction with the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the
names of participants at the public hearings as well as copies of all written submissions received.
Public hearings were held on 3 February 2017 in Saldanha Bay, 8 February 2017 in Gansbaai and 24
February 2017 in Cape Town. The purpose of the public hearings was to determine the extent to
which abalone poaching has affected small-scale fishers living in coastal communities in the Western
Cape, as well as the lives of coastal communities in general.
In terms of Section 104(5) of the Constitution, the public hearings would assist the Committee to
make recommendations to the National Assembly - “A provincial legislature may recommend to the
National Assembly legislation concerning any matter outside the authority of that legislature, or in
respect of which an Act of Parliament prevails over a provincial law.”
The report also contains the Committee’s recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries on the impact of abalone poaching on small-scale fishing communities.
4 | P a g e
2. BACKGROUND 2.1 The failure of previous law enforcement interventions to combat abalone poaching
According to a research report provided by the Western Cape Provincial Parliament’s Research Unit
titled, “An Overview of the Current Regime to Combat Illegal Harvesting of Abalone” (2016) (See
Annexure B), it is estimated that illegal harvesting of abalone from South African shores comprise
more than 90% of total abalone production with an estimated value, after processing, of more than
R1 billion.
The report stated that various factors were instrumental in the rapid growth of illicit abalone
poaching, namely; the weakening of the South African currency against the United States Dollar in
the early 1990s, pre-existing presence in South Africa of Chinese organised crime networks who
facilitated access to East Asian markets for South African contraband and vice versa; the seemingly
insurmountable difficulty of devising and executing border controls and, finally and most
importantly, coastal communities unfulfilled expectation of equitable access to marine resources
after the transition to a democratic political dispensation. Furthermore, there was an increased
demand for African abalone, which is regarded as superior quality to abalone from other countries,
from East Asian economies.
From 1992, abalone became a high value dollar denominated commodity traded by gangs based in
the Western Cape for materials such as methaqualone and methamphetamine used to manufacture
drugs, which are possibly smuggled through uncontrolled and commercial land borders, and on
unlogged air flights.
Poaching started to thrive in coastal fishing communities and became an important source of
livelihood for many due to the absence of government assurances such as legislation and policy
interventions, and ensuring equitable access to marine resources for coastal communities.
Government’s failure to address poaching was attributed to a number of factors such as its inability
to create a vested interested in anti-poaching initiatives within fishing communities, the coercive
influence of gangs trading in abalone, and the frustration caused by the delay in establishing a just
and equitable fishing regime.
Over the years, various interventions have been initiated by government in order to curtail poaching;
however, minimal success has been achieved and the poaching crisis has only worsened. In 1999,
Marine Coastal Management (MCM) in partnership with the South African Police Service (SAPS) and
the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), launched Operation Neptune, an initiative aimed
at countering organised poaching. The operation was supported by specialised environmental courts
aimed at prosecuting poachers. However, due to lack of community support this intervention failed
as there were critical challenges in patrolling a vast coastline riddled with a large number of
poachers operating within highly organised networks.
In 2005, Operation Neptune was replaced by Operation Trident, a joint partnership between MCM
and the Overberg District Council, which significantly reduced SAPS’ role in combatting poaching.
The daily patrolling of the Western Cape’s coastline was taken over by well trained and equipped
conservation officers; however, Operation Trident was closed down shortly, that same year.
5 | P a g e
According to the research report, in June 2012, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (DAFF) and the City of Cape Town agreed that a proactive multi-agency collaboration was
needed to effectively address the issue of marine law enforcement. A collaborative Marine and
Coastal Law Enforcement and Compliance Task Team was then established in September 2012 which
includes representatives from DAFF, the City of Cape Town Marine and Environmental Law
Enforcement Unit, the SAPS Borderline Police, the Table Mountain National Park Marine Unit, SARS
Customs, the National Prosecuting Authority, the Department of Environmental Affairs, CapeNature
Conservation and the South African Maritime Safety Association (SAMSA). These agencies are
responsible for marine and coastal law enforcement, management and regulation.
However, despite with the creation of a multi-agency collaboration to combat poaching, gang-
related activities related to abalone poaching has worsened in small coastal fishing communities
resulting in the decline of traditional small-scale fishers and the rise of drug trafficking, drug abuse
and related social crimes. This is evidenced by the number of media reports depicting the illicit trade
of illegally caught abalone for materials used in the manufacture of various drugs (Annexures A and
F). It is also evidenced by the amount of personal testimonies provided by small-scale fishers and
individuals from small fishing communities residing in various coastal towns in the Western Cape.
2.2 The interaction between the Standing Committee and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries
Due to recent media reports on the illegal fishing of abalone (Annexure A), the Committee resolved
on 24 August 2016 to host a special meeting on 21 September 2016 to discuss the connection
between abalone poaching and gangsterism, prostitution and drug abuse in small coastal
communities. The meeting also looked at the impact of abalone poaching on small-scale fishing
communities and legal abalone farmers, and the effect on the oceans economy.
The Committee resolved to invite relevant stakeholders to speak on the current situation in terms of
abalone poaching. These stakeholders included the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation
(Hawks), DAFF, and Abagold. Although DAFF committed to briefing the Committee on 21 September
2017, on the morning of the meeting, DAFF suddenly indicated that they would not be attending.
The Committee subsequently resolved to invite DAFF to another meeting on abalone poaching on 28
September 2016 along with the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and the Western Cape
Provincial Commissioner (SAPS); however, DAFF declined this invitation as well. (Refer to Annexure C
for a timeline of the communique between the Standing Committee and DAFF)
DAFF’s participation in this process is crucial, as according to their 2015/16 – 2019/2020 Strategic
Plan, the department aims to ensure the conservation, protection, rehabilitation and recovery of
depleted and degraded natural resources. Furthermore, according to the Marine Living Resources
Act (MLRA)(Act 18 of 1998), DAFF is responsible for the regulation and coordinating functions for the
protection and conservation of South Africa’s abalone stock. Furthermore, DAFF’s Monitoring and
Surveillance Directorate is responsible for investigating and persuading the prosecution of high
profile offenders and syndicates contravening the MLRA.
Despite DAFF’s refusal to address the Committee, a resolution was made to expand the discussion
on abalone poaching to affected communities in the form of three public hearings.
6 | P a g e
3. OVERVIEW: PUBLIC HEARINGS
In its efforts to determine the impact of abalone poaching on small-scale fishing communities
through strong public participation, the Committee placed advertisements in prominent community
media publications. These publications included Weslander, Hermanus Times and the Cape Towner.
The public was invited to attend the public hearings, make verbal submissions, and/or submit their
written inputs on the subject at hand.
The Standing Committee provided transport for community members and fishers that wanted to
attend the hearings and give their testimonies but could not afford public transport to get to the
venues.
At the public hearings, held in Saldanha Bay on 3 February, Gansbaai on 8 February, and the Western
Cape Provincial Legislature Building in Cape Town on 24 February 2017, the Committee heard
testimonies from fishers in various coastal communities along the West and East Coast of the
Western Cape, as well as academics with interests in the sector, and municipal officials.
Fishers who made submissions came from Vermaaklikheid, Melkhoutfontein, Hawston, Saldanha
Bay, Buffeljagsbaai, Elandsbaai, Paternoster, Langebaan, Gansbaai and Hermanus.
The Committee invited the National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) to
attend the public hearings where they could listen to the submissions from the public, and provide
responses and guidance where necessary. DAFF officials attended the Cape Town public hearing on
24 February 2017.
Written and verbal submissions were received representing fishing communities, major bodies and
associations affected by the illegal capturing of abalone.
7 | P a g e
4. ORAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
These are the oral submissions received by various industry players and single individuals during the
public hearings. Written submissions have been incorporated into this section. Statements made
have been recorded and summarised and remain the opinion of the association or individual
concerned.
These submissions have been categorised under the headings of:
Fishers of the Western Cape’s Coastal Communities
Affected Community Members and Community Organisations
Municipalities, Municipal Officials and Ward Committee Members
Academic submissions
4.1 Fishers of the Western Cape’s Coastal Communities
Mr Gerald Zacharias, fisher in Saldanha Bay, addressed the Committee at the Saldanha Bay public
hearing, saying that he was born in the West Coast to a generation of handline fishers, and he
believed that fishing was his life. Many fishers could not attend the public hearing because they
were at sea, however, he felt that it was his duty to speak for them. Even though abalone poaching
is rife, he wanted to make a living off handline fishing. However, the life of a subsistence fisher has
become very difficult.
Mr Zacharias explained that there were many media reports of illegally poached abalone to the
value of millions of Rands being confiscated, but there were small-scale fishers that spent all their
time at sea just to be able to afford a loaf of bread. This made him feel that the government should
do more to assist legitimate handline fishers. Handline fishers catch fish even though they see
abalone along the coast. However, they do not touch the abalone because they do not have quotas
for it. Sometimes, fishers only come home with one fish, and then a half of their earnings still has to
be paid to the skipper.
Mr Zacharias reported that he is often asked if he would like to poach abalone. He understood that if
he became a poacher then he would have a very comfortable life. However, this was not the path
that he wanted to take. He told the Committee that government should take action and give small-
scale fishers a portion of the money from confiscated abalone. Sometimes fishers felt that they
would have a better life as a criminal. If he was a poacher then no one would stop him and tell him
that he does not have a quota. It is ridiculous that poachers get away with stealing, yet those that
fish to subsist do not get anything.
Poaching has also been linked to an increase in drug consumption, as many small-scale fisherman
feel like there is no hope for them. It was important that this matter be taken to the President.
Communities have become unsafe, due to an increase in drug abuse which has led to many houses
8 | P a g e
being broken into. Poachers earn millions of Rands, but do not put any of the money back into the
community.
Saldanha Bay fisher, Mr David Zacharias, proposed that small-scale fishers should get a portion of
the money that comes from fines that are issued to poachers caught with illegally poached abalone.
Ms Nathalie van der Heever, a fisher from Paternoster, stated that she was forced into the life as a
fisher as she was born in a fishing community. She complained that when applying for permits or
quotas, the application forms were too complicated, especially for illiterate people, and most of the
time, when you submit your application, there is no response from the government. Fishing is the
livelihood of many citizens in these fishing communities; however, many fishers can fish for
approximately four months a year. If a community member chooses to poach, it is possible that this
person will received R100 000 for those four months of poaching. Therefore, poaching becomes
appealing for small-scale fishers.
Paternoster fisher, Mr John Edward, asked that the Committee also focus on the poaching of rock
lobster.
Ms Beauty Gantsho, fisher in Saldanha Bay, told the Committee that if fishing communities received
assistance from the Government then they would be more interest in fishing instead of poaching.
There were many community members who tried to get proper farming and fishing skills, but could
not utilise it because they were not getting any assistance from government.
Small-scale fisher from Langebaan, Ms Sulene Smith, suggested that the government look at the
concept of creating fishing cooperatives where small-scale fishing communities can work with
government. Ms Smith informed the Committee that small-scale fishers were not the ones in
possession of fishing permits; rather it is given to people who have other jobs and are not reliant on
fishing to subsist. She proposed that local government work with local small-scale fishers, as it was
usually when fishers lose hope that they turn to poaching. She reiterated that fishing rights were in
the hands of the wrong people and not small-scale fishers who needed them.
Mr Gordon Cornelius, abalone license holder, stated that money made from illegally obtained
abalone went straight to the state’s coffers. He proposed that poached abalone should be destroyed
so that no one can benefit from it. The communities were aware SAPS was under-capacitated and
would therefore not be able to address the poaching problem. However, the army could be brought
in to protect fishing communities from gang activities related the illegal fishing of abalone. He stated
that when SAPS patrolled the water, they seemed to police legitimate quota holders, while illegal
poaching of abalone was happening around them. The government should also be assisting these
communities by promoting education and keeping the youth in schools.
Ms Sara Niemand, fisher from Buffeljagsbaai, attended the Gansbaai public hearing and informed
the Committee that fishing communities are suffering because government and DAFF do not know
what is really happening in coastal fishing towns. She thanked the Committee for listening to the
fishers. Ms Niemand stated that the Buffeljagsbaai community feared for their lives as they could
not trust the police. Gangsters related to abalone poaching activities threatened the lives of
9 | P a g e
community members. Drug usage went hand in hand with abalone poaching and gang-related
activities. Many of the youth in small fishing communities are attracted to the lifestyle offered by
gangsters because they have access to a lot of money. Mothers are unable to keep their children
away from gangsters.
According to Ms Niemand, subsistence farmers who are denied quotas or permits have been forced
to turn to poaching to support their families. There are people who have fixed employment who are
on the list for permits; however, subsistence fishing community fishers are being denied permits and
quotas.
Ms Niemand also attended the public hearing in Cape Town. During her verbal submission, she
informed the Committee that she, and fellow fishers from Buffeljagsbaai and surrounding
communities, was shot at by gangsters on the way to the public hearing. The community members
lives were in danger for speaking out about poaching. She stated that the fishing communities did
not have any faith in the police or officials from DAFF, as they did not protect the fishers. The youth
is very influenced by the gang life; they do not want to attend school anymore because it is easier to
make money from poaching.
She informed the Committee that there was a language barrier when DAFF visited the communities.
It was important that the Department send people who can speak in the communities’ language of
preference. Even though DAFF visited communities to assist with fishing rights, the communities did
not hear back from officials afterwards. When the provisional small-scale fishers list was released by
DAFF, fishing communities were confused because the list contained names of commercial fishers.
Fishers from small fishing communities spent 13 years assisting DAFF to create a small-scale fishing
policy. Therefore, small-scale fishers are willing to fight to have the policy implemented. However,
one of the criteria that had to be fulfilled in order to receive fishing rights was that an individual
should not have other full-time employment. This would ensure that the correct people are granted
fishing rights. Real small-scale fishers do not have other income; they are completely dependent on
fishing as their livelihood.
Melkhoutfontein fisher, Mr Ronnie Gelant, has been a fisher for thirty years. He told the Committee
and the public that the way the abalone fishing rights was disseminated was wrong. Government
should work with the communities to find a solution to awarding fishing rights. He proposed that
fishing rights not be allocated to individuals, but rather to one community member that would be
responsible for the entire community.
When community members from Melkhoudfontein applied for fishing rights, they were told by DAFF
that the documents were lost. The community has been suffering because of this. Permits were
given to people that were not using them at all, not subsistence fishers.
Mr Charles Swartz of the Kleinmond Integrated Fishing Community stated that communities should
harvest within their fishing zones, and should assist all relevant stakeholders to protect these zones.
He said that government has the largest Total Allowable Catch (TAC) in the abalone sector and
subsequently earns more than previous abalone rights holders altogether. However, the community
should be the ones making more money from the sale of abalone. In doing so, these fishing
10 | P a g e
communities would become more aware of taking care of their fishing zones as it is their livelihood.
It would also assist in minimizing drug trafficking in communities through the sale of poached
abalone, as well as assist communities to provide for their families, pay for their children’s
education, and pay municipal bills. Mr Swartz urged the Standing Committee to support these
submissions as it would assist communities to uplift themselves, thereby encouraging less
dependence on SASSA grants and the health system as there would be less drug abuse. He stated
that small-scale fishing was not being properly controlled and managed by DAFF, and that DAFF
failed to address abalone poaching in Kleinmond. Mr Swartz was in possession of a number of emails
that were sent to DAFF asking them to provide the Kleinmond community with plans to combat
abalone poaching; however, he has not received any feedback from them. Furthermore, DAFF closed
commercial abalone harvesting in the Kleinmond area for ten years, which left the area open for
poachers to occupy.
4.2 Affected Community Members and Community Organisations Mr Jimmy Walsh, a resident of the West Coast, stated that the problem was much broader than
abalone poaching. He informed the Committee that for the past two or three decades, the “West
Coast culture” has been lost. Traditionally, people travelled to the West Coast to indulge in
recreational fishing such as catching and braaiing snoek and crayfish. In the past few years this has
changed due to the increase in illegal poaching activities experienced in the area. However, officials
never seem to punish the culprits – instead the average man in the street is punished, for example,
sport fisherman, subsistence fisherman and tourists. Now, 20 years later, many retail fishing outlets
in the West Coast region have closed down due to the generation of fishing legislation that has
caused many subsistence fishers to become unemployed.
Years ago, a subsistence farmer could find a place on a boat and at least put food on the table. Now,
there is an entire generation that cannot make an income from fishing. This generation wonders why
they should struggle when the poacher “down the road” is driving an expensive car and making a
large profit off illegally poached abalone. The question was how one could move forward from this.
Unemployment amongst the youth in the West Coast is very high, and there are no opportunities to
find part-time employment in terms of subsistence fishing. The result is that many of these coastal
community members have turned to drugs and crime because that is what appears to be profitable.
Ideas should be given as to how to change the customs and culture of the West Coast.
Mr Walsh told the Committee that allocations in terms of permits and quotas should be reassessed
and that people on the ground should be given the opportunity to return to the industry, and be
given the chance to sell their quotas to commercial companies. He did not understand why big,
commercial companies received all the quotas, and the man on the street was left with nothing.
Mr Neil Barends, Vredenberg resident and a member of Interim Relief for Fishermen, explained that
poaching was destroying the fishing industry and suggested that poaching be regulated. He also
proposed that government should be issuing experimental quotas to poachers, as there must be a
place for poachers to off load its abalone. With experimental quotas, the government would be able
to hold the relevant people responsible. Now, poachers can do what they want to do without fear of
getting caught. He asked the Committee to convey to the National Minister of Agriculture, Forestry
11 | P a g e
and Fisheries that ordinary members of society, such as fishers in small coastal communities, should
also be able to make a living.
Representative for Interim Relief for Fishers and Chairperson of the Black Business Forum, and
resident of St Helena Bay, Mr Gerald Cloete, explained that for a person born and raised in a small
coastal community, it is the immediate environment in which a he or she enters, and where most
community members make their living. For many of these citizens, they are faced with two options –
to fish for a living, or to die. Fishers are aware of what poaching is doing to the sea’s resources and
to their daily income.
The communities feel that the government is not doing anything to assist fishers by teaching them
new skills. He told the Committee that government has failed the fishers on all levels, as their needs
have not been considered. These needs include having Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) and
“sea accident fund”.
In her written and oral submissions, Ms Margrieta Petro, from Saldanha Bay, stated that small-scale
fishing had a lot to do with the many cases of poverty and unemployment that she faces on a regular
basis. More specifically, many community members’ names are used to gain small-scale fishing
permits, without any compensation for it. She plead that all illegal and fraudulent activities in the
fishing sector be stopped and investigated, and that permits be granted to the right people in the
future.
Mr Leer Trutor, South African Police Service (SAPS), stated that if the government was serious about
combatting poaching then it should be made legal. Poachers should be given the option to register
as fishers, and be given quotas, where they can sell their goods to government
Mr Gerrit Boonstra, resident of Gansbaai and member of the Community Against Abalone Poaching
(CAAP), told the Committee opened his written and verbal submission saying that he was
appreciative of the call for public hearings on abalone poaching so the Committee could hear first-
hand accounts of the influence and repercussions that poaching has on small-scale fishing and on
the broader civil society. However, many fishing communities were disillusioned by their encounters
with the National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries who knew about poaching in the
coastal communities, yet did not do anything about it.
He spoke on behalf of CAAP saying that not only is the illegal fishing of abalone essentially the theft
of state property, but it also negatively impacted on communities social and economic wellbeing.
This is because the smuggling of abalone is accompanied by various other criminal activities of which
the most concerning are drug trafficking and violent crimes committed by criminal gangs. There has
been an enormous increase in poaching and gang activity in the past months and there is even
evidence of a gang war for control over the very lucrative smuggling industry. The reaction of local
law enforcers to the community’s call for help and protection has been far below standard; which
led CAAP members to believe that the local police and fishery officials are not at all able or willing to
control and to end these criminal activities. On the other hand, Operation Phakisa, conducted at the
end of 2016, contributed positively to the reduction of poaching through effective law enforcement.
12 | P a g e
CAAP’s submission proposed that abalone poaching be brought under control through the full-time
presence of a purpose-specific specialist task team that would be able to re-establish and maintain
law and order without fear or favour. This specialist task team should represent all three levels of
government as well as different security groupings. According to Mr Boonstra, the success story of
Operation Phakisa proves this assertion. Safety of citizens is the responsibility of the state, and this
was a constitutional right that had to be maintained.
Mr Boonstra argued on behalf of CAAP that the complex problem of poaching would not be solved in
a sustainable way if an integrated and coordinated policy is not simultaneously followed over the
long term. Poaching is caused by several factors: there is (a) a high level of unemployment and
poverty in the Overstrand area, (b) an attitude of greediness and disrespect for other people’s rights,
(c) a history of corruption, bribery and intimidation that lead to mistrust and passivity in the
community, and (d) the deep-rooted grievances of traditional fishing community who feel that their
long-established rights and claims to access to the sea for their livelihoods are being taken away
from them. The current policy that takes away quotas from small-scale fishermen at traditional
fishing villages has an enormous negative impact on the whole community, as can be seen in the
high incidence of unemployment, moral degeneration, poverty and criminality.
CAAP believes that a sustainable solution is only possible by following the democratic route. This
entails that local residents be given the opportunity to participate actively in the formulation of
decisions resulting from policies and that their opinions be taken into account respectfully. CAAP
therefore proposed that a community forum be established where the community as partners can
participate in the decision-making on all levels of government that has direct bearing on fishers’
livelihood from the sea.
Ms Anne Wright, Gansbaai resident and member of an organisation that helps children whose
parents are affected by poaching, gangsterism and drug abuse, stated that the community was faced
with a great challenge where it was becoming difficult to educate these children because they are so
badly influenced by their parents lifestyles. When asked what the young learners want to do with
their lives, they will say that they want to be gangsters and sell poached abalone.
Gansbaai Subsistence fisher, Mr Joe Wessel, told the Committee that the subsistence fishing
community is despondent. Many fishers applied for fishing rights a few months ago but they have
not had any feedback on their applications so far. Subsistence fishers have dependents that they
need to support, yet each year the quota is reduced. Many small-scale fishers did not understand
the complicated application forms and application process for fishing rights.
Mr Wessel proposed that the government introduce programmes that could up-skill subsistence
fishers. There were abalone farms that could benefit from skilled community members. However,
the government would rather take the money from confiscated abalone.
Mr Howard Matinka, a reformed poacher and fisher from Hawston, stated that poaching has been
present in fishing communities for a long time. He urged that government create programmes that
can provide community members with skills. He stated that poachers did not want to poach;
however they were forced into that lifestyle because they did not have any other skills. Gangsterism
is so rife in the Hawston community that the youth thinks it is part of the culture to become a
gangster. There are no other job opportunities for the fishing community. The government needs to
13 | P a g e
think about why poaching came about. He urged DAFF to work more closely with the fishing
communities.
Ms Alda Botha from Kleinbaai added that confiscated illegally obtained abalone must be treated the
same way that confiscated cigarettes and alcohol is treated – it must be destroyed.
Mr Tim Hedges, the Managing Director of Abagold in Hermanus, said that there was frustration with
how confiscated abalone is treated and dealt with by DAFF. He wanted to know what the process
was for managing confiscated abalone, and how DAFF guarantees that the quality of abalone that
leaves the country meets the minimum requirement. There was a detailed report in the Sunday
Times three weeks ago regarding the tender process for managing confiscated abalone. He wanted
to know what the status was of the tender process and how people were going to be made aware of
it.
4.3 Municipalities, Municipal Officials and Ward Committee Members Mr Andre Kreer, a Council Member at the Saldanha Bay Municipality, told the Committee that he
was involved in the Saldanha Bay Water Quality Trust as well as the Marine and Coastal
Management Trust on the West Coast. According to Mr Kreer, the Committee had to look at Local
Government’s role in this matter as they were responsible for the community, and for bettering the
lives of community members. What happens at sea has an impact on communities and it was,
therefore, extremely important that legislation be put in place to ensure that poaching does not take
place. In order to do this, all relevant entities should be involved. This includes SANPARKS, DAFF and
SAPS. There should also be a coordinated plan in place to tackle poaching.
Local government is also responsible for economic growth. In the next few years, three small fishing
harbours will be upgraded. This includes St Helena Bay, Saldanha Bay, and Pepper Bay. This should
result in opportunities for economic growth for small-scale fishers who could use these harbours
more effectively. However, this will not happen if most fishing legislation is only to the advantage of
big role players. Poaching is a problem that has to be tackled in an appropriate manner, however,
the proper tools are not in place to deal with this matter.
Mr Kreer warned the Committee that the West Coast community was in a dire situation. When
people applied to jobs, they were rejected because they had substance abuse issues.
In his capacity as the Municipal Mayor of Cederberg, Mr Gerrit Matthyse spoke on behalf of
community members in Elands Bay and Lamberts Bay. He stated that a rural community such as
Elands Bay has been reliant on subsistence farming and fishing for generations. For many of these
small communities, their greatest contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) comes from the
agricultural sector, of which fishing is a very important component.
Mr Matthyse told the Committee that the indigent base in these communities was growing by the
day. Saying that poaching should stop was not going to solve any problems. The solution is to
educate people and to provide the community with sustainable alternative solutions, such as
abalone, crayfish and fishing farms. However, the challenge is that it is very difficult for local
communities to access this funding. Government should make it easier for community members to
access this kind of funding.
14 | P a g e
Many poachers are known to officials and law enforcement; however, they cannot do much about it
as most of these small fishing communities are under-resourced and under-capacitated. Mr
Matthyse explained that unless communities take ownership of their own resources, the problem of
poaching would persist.
Mr Daniel Plaaitjies, Member of the Ward Committee in Saldanha Bay, reiterated that government
should be taking care of these communities that are affected by abalone poaching. However,
government does not have a plan in place to support its fishers. Although many fishers have fishing
gear, they do not fish now because they do not have fishing permits due to the fact that it costs too
much money. Poaching is stealing, and in many communities, people are selling poached abalone
and other sea creatures in order to get money for drugs.
Mr Frans Palin, Member of the Ward Committee in Saldanha Bay, in his written and verbal
submission, echoed the sentiments of some of the speakers calling for legislation that would benefit
small-scale fishers. He suggested that government include the fishing communities in the drafting or
amendment of new legislation so that local small-scale fishing communities could benefit more from
it.
Mr Palin also stated that law enforcement agencies were under-resourced and under-capacitated,
and therefore would not be able to address the illegal fishing of abalone. He suggested that law
enforcement agencies work with local fisher. He also urged that higher penalties be introduced for
poaching, and that more publicity should be given to the problem.
Mr Tony Vaughan, Ward Committee Member in Saldanha Bay, proposed that all resources
confiscated from poachers should be returned to subsistence fishing communities.
Mr Lincoln De Bruyn, the Speaker of the Overberg District Municipality, proposed that an anti-
poaching unit, such as the disbanded to Project Neptune, been launched in the Overstrand area
again. This should be launched along with an anti-drug and drug rehabilitation programme, as
abalone poaching activities have also resulted in an increased usage of drugs in these small fishing
communities. He proposed that the Overberg region be used to launch a pilot project that will tackle
poaching related activities. The income from the sale of illegally obtained abalone and poaching
equipment should be used to fund the proposed anti-poaching unit. Mr De Bruyn also suggested
that police services across the Overstrand region be investigated for being involved in poaching
activities.
The Mayor of the Overberg District Municipality, Alderman Sakkie Franken, stated that the problem
with abalone poaching was twofold. Firstly, it was an onslaught on one of the country’s national
resources. Secondly, it is an economic problem as many subsistence fishers take up poaching when it
is more profitable. The solution would be to stimulate economic growth in these small economies.
Ald Franken stated that there was a lot of money to be made from farming abalone, especially in the
Overberg region. The government should explore the advantages of abalone farming and agro-
processing.
15 | P a g e
In his verbal submission, Ald Franken stated that poaching related activities has negatively affected
the tourism industry as well. Tourists are scared of the gangs in the Overberg region. He urged all
three levels of government to work together to combat abalone poaching and related criminal
activities, as tourism is a substantial contributor to the province’s economy.
Ms Rianna De Coning, Council Member for Ward 2 in Gansbaai, ward councillor in the Overberg
District Municipality, stated that the Gansbaai community was tired of waiting for action to be taken.
Many residents who own coastal property cannot sit on their balconies because they are threatened
by poachers. The community feels powerless and so does the municipality. Ms De Coning was
disappointed by the absence of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) who
she personally invited to the hearing. The point was not to attack the DAFF officials, but for them to
listen to the affected community members.
Ms De Koning proposed that government decriminalise poaching by providing ordinary community
members and subsistence fishers with permits for abalone fishing. This way, the subsistence fisher
can sell his catch and help to provide for his family.
Deputy Mayor of the Overberg District Municipality, Mr Archie Klaas, stated that it seemed as
though legitimate quota holders are more harassed than poachers. During his submission, he stated
that it was interesting that government benefited from the sale of stolen abalone. When researching
this matter, he discovered that money made from the auctioning of confiscated abalone is used by
national government as a source of income for DAFF.
Mr Klaas agreed with CAAP’s proposal of a community forum where people can come together to
tackle abalone poaching and related criminal activities.
Mr Dudley Coetzee, Deputy Mayor of the Overstrand Municipality, informed the Committee that the
impact of abalone poaching on the Overstrand community was devastating. More than forty percent
of the Overstrand’s income is derived from tourism; however the sector is being negatively affected
by abalone poaching because residents and tourists are being threatened by poachers. Abalone
poaching does not create wealth for the diver, the carrier, the poacher or the driver. Wealth from
the sale of illegally fished abalone is created further up the line, outside the Overstrand.
The ban on recreational diving has also negatively impacted on the Overstrand’s economy because
tourists who came to the area in the past to partake in recreation diving cannot do so anymore. The
ban on recreational diving serves no purpose as it does not keep the poacher out of the water.
Mr Coetzee stated that DAFF does not contribute to controlling the poaching and harvesting of
abalone. They very seldom take action. However, the challenge with abalone poaching goes much
further. There is a direct correlation with the collapse of subsistence fishing. Permits have been
removed from fishers that have made their livelihoods from the sea. It was his belief that permits
have been given, unjustly and unfairly, to people who have never had an interest in fishing. It then
became a situation where abalone poaching was the only alternative that these subsistence farmers
had.
16 | P a g e
Mr Coetzee concluded his verbal submission with two points. Firstly, that the army should be used
to patrol the beaches and protect fishing communities from abalone poachers and related criminal
activities, and secondly, that land-based harvesting of abalone should be legalised. This way the
market for abalone can be controlled. Community members can then be paid in cash and not drugs,
like it is done on the black market.
Mr Francois Myburgh, the Area Manager for the Overstrand Municipality, urged the Committee to
focus on the ineffectiveness of the DAFF. Drastic intervention is needed in this Department, as
communities did not trust them with quotas or tackling poaching.
He concluded that the money derived from the sale of confiscated abalone should be directed back
into the management of marine resources.
In the City of Cape Town’s written submission, Mr Osman Asmal, the Director for Environmental
Management in the Municipality stated that the poaching of abalone and other marine species is rife
in and around the City’s municipal boundary. The Ciity has responded to the crisis by engaging with
all role players with the mandate to enforce the applicable laws. The City has invested millions of
Rands to combat abalone poaching and other marine related crimes along the coastline.
The removal of large amounts of abalone from the sea will have a negative impact on the marine
ecosystem. The decimation of wild abalone and rock lobster stocks will cause a negative knock-on
effect for future generations, and will hinder the development of sustainable fishing communities
into the future.
According to Mr Asmal, the use of the Western Cape’s small fishing harbours as points of entry and
exit for many illegal activities, including poaching, has a negative impact on the potential of the small
fishing harbours to be developed into thriving tourism hubs. These harbours have an unrealised
potential to support economic activities associated with tourism and recreation, due to the influence
of unlawful activities that use the harbours as points of entry and exit.
Millions of Rands from ratepayers are being invested in compliance and law enforcement, when that
money could be invested into social services and community development projects. Marine and
terrestrial protected area managers, City environmental managers and law enforcement officers are
often in direct conflict with local communities implicated in poaching activities. These communities
are generally low-income, impoverished communities, living on or below the breadline. As a result,
law enforcement efforts are often perceived by communities to be a threat to their source of
income, rather than a form of protection from criminal elements.
The City of Cape Town concluded that the above mentioned factors should place more pressure on
local government to improve the livelihood opportunities in these communities.
17 | P a g e
4.4 Academic submissions Professor Doug Butterworth from the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the
University of Cape Town commented that there are two resources that were primarily affected by
poaching i.e. the West Coast Rock Lobster (WCRL) and abalone. Professor Butterworth, who does
research on abalone and rock lobster on behalf of DAFF, told the Committee and the public that
there has been a twenty percent reduction in the amount of WCRL in the last five years. Abalone is
not as reduced as rock lobster; however, there has been a reduction resulting in abalone being at
approximately twenty percent of its original level. This was mainly due to poaching.
In order to see the impact on resources, the “allowed catch” quantity could be compared to the
“poaching catch” quantity. The current allowed legal catch for WCRL is 2 000 tons, while the
estimate for the poaching catch is 1 500 tons. Currently, the country is over the sustainable limit
which will lead to a substantial reduction in marine resources. In terms of abalone, if one looks at
the area between Hangklip and Cape Agulhas which is the main abalone area, the legal catch is 50
tons compared to the poaching catch which is 1 400 tons. Approximately twenty percent of illegally
obtained abalone is confiscated by government. Since 2009, poaching along coastal towns has
quadrupled.
If poaching stopped immediately, the allowed legal catch for lobster would increase from 2 000 tons
to approximately 3 000 – 3 500 tons. If abalone poaching stopped immediately, the allowed legal
catch would increase from 50 tons to approximately 700 tons. The Professor estimated that the
value lost to poaching amounted to hundreds of millions of Rands.
Prof Butterworth addressed the impact of recreational fishing on WCRL and abalone. He stated that
there was a debate on how these resources should be allocated. On the one hand there are people
that need a livelihood, and it is argued that they should be prioritised ahead of recreational fishers.
On the other hand, research suggests that the amount of jobs created for one ton of WCRL fished for
recreational purposes is much more than if the ton was allocated for other fishing.
However, if recreational fishing is allowed it must be limited. If recreational fishing is not limited, it
will not allow for a sustainable fishing situation. This is because demand for marine resources is
greater than supply of marine resources. These limitations must be enforced. Sustainably of marine
resources is the key priority.
Prof Butterworth stated poaching could occur for two reasons. The first is that people could be
trying to make ends meet. This is where government should look into creating alternative job
opportunities for these communities. The second reason poaching has become a very successful
business because of the amount of money it can raise in the international market. Abalone is often
traded for drugs as payment.
He told the Committee that there should be an element of sympathy for DAFF, as they had been
handed an almost impossible task to deal with due to their limited resources. DAFF is responsible for
compliance. If they are expected to stop poaching then the question of where they will find funding
to police fishing communities will arise.
18 | P a g e
Mr John Duncan, from the World Wide Fund for Nature in South Africa (WWF South Africa), made a
verbal and written submission that spoke to abalone poaching and rock lobster poaching as they are
similar in nature. He stated that South Africa’s inshore marine resources are accessible to all three
major user groups: commercial fishers, recreational fishers and the small-scale sector. The relative
ease of access by all user groups, breadth of access points and large numbers of rights holders/users
pose substantial challenges to effective governance and result in high fishing effort in inshore
regions. Abalone and West Coast rock lobster fisheries, which are particularly high-value
commodities, present the most severe challenges. The existing governance framework cannot
balance the powerful social, political and economic drivers fuelling high levels of illegal fishing, and,
consequently, the biomass for both species is at or near commercial extinction.
West Coast Rock Lobster (WCRL) and abalone are relatively slow growing resources, therefore they
repopulate quite slowly. There are nationally legislated goals that fisheries should have recovery
targets for these marine resources. Recovery targets are set to rebuild these resources. In the case
of WCRL, fishery rebuilding targets have been provided in the scientific “Operational Management
Procedures (OMPs)” that DAFF’s WCRL Scientific Working Group uses since their inception in 1996.
These targets, however, have not been met. The first 1996 OMP aimed to be twenty percent above
the estimated 1996 biomass level by 2006. The 2011 OMP set a recovery target of a thirty-five
percent increase in male biomass (with carapace length above 75 mm) by 2021 in relation to the
estimated 2006 biomass for all super-areas combined. The 2015 OMP had the same recovery target
as the 2011 OMP. The resource has not rebuilt to achieve these management targets. Further, the
projections now indicate that even if the commercial fishery were to be closed, the resource would
fail to rebuild to the 2021 biomass target. The agreed-upon reason is because illegal fishing has
increased rather than decreased. It is estimated that poaching has doubled in the past three years;
while the abundance in the Cape Peninsula area – Hout Bay to Danger Point (where the resource
status had been the best) - has halved over the last five years.
In the case of abalone, the fishery has struggled with unsustainably high fishing mortalities due to
poaching. The commercial fishery was closed in 2008 and the recreational fishery closed in 2003 due
to severe depletions of biomass. In 2010, the commercial fishery was re-opened (the recreational
sector remained closed) on condition that a decline in poaching by fifteen percent per year be
realised. In addition, a target reference point of a forty percent recovery in biomass by the
2024/2025 season was established, along with a limit reference point of twenty percent of pre-
exploitation biomass for each zone. However, the poaching reduction target was never achieved and
poaching indices indicate an increase in poaching by one hundred and fifty percent since the fishery
was re-opened in 2010.
The slow implementation of the Small-scale Fisheries Policy has resulted in ongoing uncertainty
around the nature of the small-scale fishing rights. Research has shown that fishers are more likely
to fish unsustainably/illegally because they have no certainty about whether they will have a right in
the future and therefore there is little incentive to conserve the resource.
According to the WWF-SA, more governmental resources are urgently needed to address the
poaching of abalone and other marine resources. There are concerns around the conflict of interest
in terms of DAFF funding its activities through the sale of confiscated abalone. The organisation
19 | P a g e
argued that it does not incentivise the prevention of the removal of abalone from the ocean, it only
incentivises the confiscation of the abalone once the damage has already been done. This is also a
factor that affects the ongoing decline of inshore marine resources, which has a significant impact on
small-scale fishing communities’ abilities to sustain themselves and their traditional way of life.
These communities are facing a growing number of challenges such as food security, growing
unemployment and an increase in crime and gangsterism.
WWF-SA stated that an integrated approach is needed to address a range of social, economic and
ecological challenges. This will require partnerships between national government, provincial
departments, fishing communities, the private sector, academia and civil society.
20 | P a g e
5. RESPONSE FROM THE NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES
The following Departmental officials attended the public hearing held in Cape Town on 24 February
2017, and responded to issues raised by Members of the public and questions raised by Committee
Members:
Mr T Matedese, official
Ms N Mdietye, official
Mr C Smith, Director
Mr DDA Stevens, Director
Ms P Janjies, Manager
The Department stated the following during the public hearing:
They wished to raise awareness about a few of the challenges they were facing as a
department.
There is a criminal element around abalone poaching i.e. a syndicate
There is a specific integrated strategy in place to deal with poaching, which includes the
Department working with other law enforcement agencies.
There is a border management agency that will be establish to deal with the issue of
exporting the illegally obtained abalone that is not confiscated by the Department and law
enforcement agencies.
The Department’s intention is to continue with the recovery plans for WCRL and abalone.
One of the key strategic solutions for dealing abalone poaching is to have successful
implementation of the Small-Scale Fisheries Policy (SSFP). The practical realisation of this
policy will make small-scale community fishers part of the solution – they will be the “ears
and eyes” for protecting their own resources. In 2016, the Department asked communities
to express their interest in being involved in this implementation process. 316 communities
across the South African coastline have expressed interest in this process. The next phase of
the implementation process was for the Department to engage the communities on the
policy and to conduct a legislative process, which included conducting interviews with
fishers in those communities to determine if they have met the small-scale fisher criteria.
The criteria for small-scale fishers are very stringent. Potential fishers should be 18 years or
older, should have at least ten years’ experience or an alternative fishing history in
traditional fishing, and the individual has to reside within the community that has expressed
interest in the policy. Potential fishers will also have to be South African citizens and
dependent on marine resources for their livelihood.
The registration process for small-scale fishers started in March 2016 and was concluded in
September 2016. The Department visited all 316 communities to conduct the registration
process. The registration process has closed and the Department is currently processing all
the applications and assessing the applicants according to the small-scale fishing criteria
before the announcement can be made regarding who the successful fishers are. A
provisional list has been released for the Northern Cape, Western Cape and Eastern Cape.
An appeals process is currently underway for fishers that did not make the provisional list.
21 | P a g e
The Department is aware that there has been a lot of contention with the preliminary lists.
However, the Department did not form the lists alone; the communities assisted with
identifying who the small-scale fishers were. Each community was asked to nominate
representatives that would sit on a panel with the Department and inform officials who the
fishers were who met the small-scale fisher criteria, and who did not. The Department was
aware that there were factions within communities, and certain fishers could have been
excluded by their own communities. Therefore, the appeals process was in place to give the
fishers another chance. This will take time as the Department wanted to ensure that the
correct decision is being made.
Once a final small-scale fisher list is released, training will be provided to fishers on how
cooperatives function. The idea is to mobilise successful fishers into a cooperative. Once a
cooperative has been established and registered, the Department can follow through with
the allocation for small-scale fishing rights. This would be the first time in South Africa that
small-scale fishers would be legally recognised by legislation, and there would be a fully-
functioning small-scale fishing sector that would be integrated with country’s current
commercial fishing sector.
The Department does not have enough staff/capacity to deal with all poaching problems and
fishing rights allocations. There are eight dedicated officials in the Department that is
running the programme dealing with registering small-scale fishers, interviewing fishers,
releasing the provisional and final small-scale fisher lists, and the appeals process.
There are fishery protection offices across the country. Of the 3 000 kilometre coastline,
most coastal areas have fishery protection offices. In the Western Cape, the offices have
been supplemented with former military veterans. These veterans have been given
extensive training and act in support of law enforcement agencies when there are joint
operations.
The Department would like to have further discussions with the Committee around the
details of an integrated fisheries security strategy. The strategy is regarded as one of the key
elements as poaching should be dealt with in an integrated way to ensure marine resources
are kept in the sea for small-scale fishers.
Fishing rights and permits in the small-scale fishing sector is reserved only for people who
have a long history of being in the fishing industry. This permit is not for new fishers, and not
for people who are looking to start a new career in the fishing industry.
The Department has a policy that speaks to dealing with confiscated abalone. The
Department has been accused for years that there is an incentive for abalone to be poached
because there is a financial benefit for the Department. All the income from confiscated
abalone is ring-fenced to deal with poaching. The money does not pay for operational costs
such as salaries.
Interim Relief is a temporary dispensation that is currently available while the Department
can implement the Small-Scale Fisheries Policy. Interim Relief was enforced upon the
Department due to a court ruling in 2007, which stated that fishing communities should be
given access to marine resources. If the communities want to remove people from the
Interim relief list who are not genuine subsistence fishers, then they may do that.
22 | P a g e
6. CONCERNS/FINDINGS
Following the verbal and written submissions received from various stakeholders (fishers, individuals
from fishing communities, academics and municipal officials), the following concerns/findings were
noted:
6.1 Abalone poaching and the link to gangsterism and drugs
In the past few years, the demand for abalone and other marine resources has increased
internationally. For abalone, the sharp increase in demand has been attributed to the fact that the
marine species is seen as a delicacy in China and other Asian countries where it is consumed for its
taste and range of medicinal purposes. In Asia, abalone is also associated with status and wealth.
According to various reports over the past few years, abalone poaching has been closely linked to
crime syndicates. Poached abalone is sold to transnational crime syndicates that sell the marine
resources to mainly Asian countries in exchange for mandrax and chemicals/materials used to make
crystal meth (such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine). In order to do this, syndicates receive
assistance from street gangs who control the drug trade in the Western Cape.
The key driver of poaching in coastal communities, as indicated by the testimonies received from
fishers and members of fishing communities, are socio-economic issues. Many of these fishing
communities are poor, living below the poverty line. Many cannot finish school as they have to start
providing for their families, and many are fishers because they were raised that way by their
forefathers who were fishers. Poaching provides “easy money” for struggling fishers, especially ones
who have not received fishing rights and quotas. It allows them to put food on their families’ tables.
However, the youth in these fishing communities have started to see poaching as a way of life and
an easy way out of poverty. Drug abuse has become rife amongst the youth with young learners
dropping out of school to work for gangs as poachers or lookouts and runners for more experienced
poachers.
A major concern is that government is not tackling the socio-economic problems that have arisen
alongside poaching. Questions were asked about how much money DAFF or the government, in
general, is spending on tackling these socio-economic issues that are driving community members
towards poaching.
6.2 Under-resourced and under-capacitated department and law enforcement
A recurring issue at all three public hearings was that there was not enough visible SAPS presence in
coastal communities where poaching is rampant. Another concern was the lack of intervention from
DAFF. When law enforcement is called to deal with a poaching matter, they must travel long
distances to the scene of the crime. Testimonies showed that SAPS and DAFF are under-resourced,
with DAFF officials informing the Committee and public that the department does not have enough
staff and dedicated officials on hand to deal with all the poaching problems and fishing rights
allocations. Attendees at the public hearings felt that their Constitutional right for safety is being
ignored.
23 | P a g e
Due to the lack of visible policing, it has become common practice for community members and
small-scale fishers to be intimidated by gangsters and poachers who feel that they will not be
caught.
Another major question that was raised was whether all the relevant government entities are
working together to combat the problem of poaching. Since DAFF is not primarily responsible for
fighting crime, they should be working in conjunction with various government entities to combat
the illicit harvesting of abalone.
On 7 June 2017, the South African Police Service (SAPS) reported, at a meeting of the Western Cape
Provincial Parliament’s Standing Committee on Community Safety, that there are no water wing
units operating at national and provincial level due to lack of resources.
Research conducted by the Western Cape Provincial Parliament’s Research Unit on an overview of
the current regime to combat illegal harvesting of abalone, showed the following:
DAFF is responsible for the regulation and coordinating functions for the protection and
conservation of South Africa’s abalone stocks.
DAFF’s Chief Directorate: Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) unit’s current
capabilities to ensure compliance monitoring and enforcement along South Africa’s vast
coastline and its national waters is limited and therefore the involvement of other
government departments and law enforcement agencies is crucial to complement the
existing resources and fully ensure compliance.
DAFF’s formal partners in enforcement include: City of Cape Town, Table Mountain National
Parks, Swellendam Municipality and South African Revenue Services (SARS) Customs
Administration.
DAFF’s informal partners in enforcement include: South African Police Services, TRAFFIC (a
non-governmental organisation under the WWF), and the South African National Defence
Force (SANDF).
The national Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) employs Environmental
Management Inspectorates (EMI), a network of environmental enforcement officials from
various national, provincial and municipal government departments, to ensure
environmental legislation is followed and enforced. The EMIs work closely with SAPS to
enforce environmental legislation and investigate environmental crimes.
SARS: Customs Administration assists in facilitating the movement of goods and people
entering or exiting the borders of South Africa.
SAPS, in collaboration with the SA Navy, protect marine resources and provides the
necessary security for the protection of the territorial waters. SAPS is responsible for the
securing of international borders of the sea to prevent and investigate all illegal or
clandestine cross-border movement of persons and goods. The Sea Border Unit is
responsible for marine policing. Serious Organised Crime Investigation Units are responsible
for the investigation of projects relating to national and transnational organised crime-
related activities. These activities are addressed through the Organised Crime Project
Investigations (OCPI) unit, whose objective is to dismantle the functioning of criminal
syndicates by prosecuting its members and seizing the assets they obtained through their
illegal activities. Abalone poaching is one of the crimes investigated through this unit.
24 | P a g e
The SANDF provides a pivotal role in maritime security and border safeguarding in support
of protecting the country’s marine resources.
The South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) is a government agency generally
responsible for maritime safety, combatting pollution of the maritime environment by ships
and promoting the country’s maritime interests. The agency is required to investigate
maritime accidents/incidents and marine related services both on behalf of government and
to government.
The State Security Agency (SSA) is mandated to provide government with intelligence on
domestic and foreign or potential threats (such as organised crime) to national stability, the
constitutional order, and the safety and well-being of all South Africans.
SANParks is responsible for the conservation of biodiversity through the development and
management of national parks. National parks may also include Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs). SANParks has a responsibility to secure and protect resources and estates under its
management, which includes programmes to fight against poaching of natural resources
such as rhino and abalone.
Cape Nature is responsible for the enhancement and promotion of conservation of Western
Cape’s biodiversity and ecosystems. They currently manage six Marine Protected Areas on
behalf of the DEA. Cape Nature’s Biodiversity Crime Unit aims to prevent the illegal trading
of animals and plants in the Western Cape. The unit provides the public with advice and
information on various issues relating to biodiversity crime. It also works with SAPS to
respond to illegal activities reported.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) – Section 179(2) of the Constitution empowers the
NPA to institute criminal proceedings on behalf of the state. The NPA derives its mandate to
prosecute environmental crimes from environmental related legislation. Illegal hunting,
dealing and possession of rhino, rhino horns, abalone etc. are amongst the NPA’s prioritised
focus areas that impact on the environment.
6.3 Negative impact on tourism: Ban on recreational fishing and gangsterism
At the public hearings in Gansbaai and Saldanha Bay, there was a major concern that the ban of
recreational fishing to conserve the stock of certain marine resources did not address the problem of
illegal poaching. Rather, it had a negative impact on small fishing communities where tourists usually
came to do recreational diving. Poaching of abalone has continued regardless of the ban.
Furthermore, international and domestic tourists have complained that they are being intimidated
by poachers and gangsters that have taken over the area. The result is that fewer tourists are visiting
areas that are reliant on them economically.
In Gansbaai, one of the testimonies was that abalone poaching was costing the tourism industry in
coastal communities millions of Rands as tourists are too afraid to visit the areas. With the additional
ban on recreational fishing, which affects stock much less than commercial fishing, the situation has
worsened.
25 | P a g e
6.4 Limited access to small-scale fishing rights and quotas
The following concerns were raised by attendees at the public hearings:
Fishing rights/permits are too complicated for some small-scale fishers to understand. DAFF
should respect the language of the people and interact with communities in their own
language. There have been complaints that application forms for the fishing permits and
quotas are in English, when the majority of applicants for small-scale fishing permits speak
Afrikaans or isiXhosa. Application forms are translated into Afrikaans, isiXhosa and Zulu, but
it seems that they are not easily available to communities.
Many small-scale fishing applicants do not have access to medical aid, and this harms their
chances of being granted a license.
From the preliminary list of applicants that were granted permits, it seems that there were
many permits that were given to applicants with no interest in fishing. This meant that there
were a number of legitimate small-scale fishers that were without permits and would have
to apply for the appeals process. Even with the Small-Scale Fisheries Policy and the process
followed by DAFF to register small-scale fishers and ensure they meet the small-scale fishing
criteria, many of the testimonies from traditional fishers at the public hearings showed that
the provisional lists that they had seen did not have any resemblance to the criteria
described by DAFF i.e. the length of time applicants had been in the industry, whether they
reside in the community etc.
Many applicants testified that there were many subsistence fishers that turned to poaching
because even though they have been fishers all their lives; they have not been successful in
terms of the small-scale fishing applications. Communities are challenging the decisions
taken by DAFF in this regard, as they are not protecting the traditional fishers.
Applications for fishing rights and quotas also seemed to disappear. Some applicants did not
hear back from DAFF at all. This created the perception that government agencies do not
care about small fishing communities.
Fishing quotas for many marine resources are reduced every year. This is a problem for
many small coastal town fishers who have been fishing their entire lives, and who do not
understand the quota system. Many fishers have turned to poaching as a result of small
quotas.
During the fishing permit application process there were no legitimate checks and balances
for who the real small-scale fishers were in the fishing communities. This meant that there
were certain small-scale fishers that were deliberately excluded from the application process
by community members that were included in DAFF’s application panel. DAFF also had to
rely on lists of small-scale fishers from organisations such as Masifundise and Coastal Link.
Communities were given the mandate to inform DAFF whether potential small-scale fishers
met the criteria or not.
During DAFF’s feedback to the Committee at the public hearing in Cape Town, the Committee was
informed that DAFF does not have enough staff/capacity to deal with all poaching problems and
fishing rights allocations. The Committee expressed major concern that there are only eight
dedicated officials in the Department that are running the programme dealing with registering small-
26 | P a g e
scale fishers, interviewing fishers, releasing the provisional and final small-scale fisher lists, and the
appeals process.
6.5 Government reducing the market value of abalone, and DAFF’s income from the sale of
confiscated abalone
The Committee expressed concern that DAFF confiscates illegally poached abalone and sells it at way
below market value. The sale of confiscated, sub-standard abalone at prices far below what the
commercial fishers can sell abalone, has resulted in the market becoming less competitive.
Furthermore, according to Abagold’s comments during the public hearing in Cape Town, there is no
quality standard that the abalone that DAFF sells has to meet.
The second concern raised was that the money from the sale of confiscated abalone becomes part
of DAFF’s budget. According to the DAFF’s response at the public hearing in Cape Town, money from
the sale of confiscated abalone is ring-fenced towards combatting poaching. However, the
Committee is concerned that even though millions are set aside for tackling poaching, DAFF
continues to be under-resourced and under-capacitated. The question was raised as to why DAFF
was so under-resourced if the money was set aside for tackling poaching and protecting marine
resources. Even though the Department made millions of Rands from poached abalone, they did not
have more officials on the ground in fishing communities where poaching is rife and community
members lives are threatened by poachers and gangsters.
The Committee’s overall concern is that national government’s involvement in benefitting from
confiscated abalone contributes to the criminalisation of fishing communities along the Western
Cape’s coastlines. Efforts by DAFF to deal with poaching have been unsuccessful judging by the fact
that abalone poaching has quadrupled in the last eight years. According to the WWF-SA, 95% of
abalone stocks from South Africa’s water are still being fished illegally. Part of DAFF’s Marine and
Coastal Management’s budget is derived from the sale of confiscated abalone. This could lead to a
perverse incentive i.e. DAFF having a direct interest in maintaining illegal abalone poaching.
From testimonies received from the public at all three hearings, small-scale fishers and community
members from fishing communities expressed concern that the money DAFF receives from the sale
of confiscated abalone should be directed back into fishing communities in the form of uplifting/up-
skilling programmes, or towards the restoration of marine resources.
6.6 Recovery period needed for marine resources to repopulate
Submissions received from Professor Doug Butterworth and the WWF-SA’s John Duncan warned
that the demand for certain marine resources such as rock lobster and abalone were much higher
than supply, and resources are being taken from the ocean and not being given enough time to
recover.
Currently, rock lobster levels are at 2% of what they used to be, and there has been a 20% reduction
in numbers in the last five years. Abalone levels are currently at 20% of its former level, with a 15%
drop in the past five years. According to Professor Butterworth’s research, Rock lobster poaching has
doubled in the past three years, and abalone poaching has more than quadrupled since 2009. Only
2.5% of rock lobster is left to repopulate.
27 | P a g e
West Coast Rock Lobster (WCRL) and abalone are relatively slow growing resources, therefore they
repopulate quite slowly. Abalone is a slow growing marine snail that takes eight to ten years to reach
legal fishing size. The concern is that, despite arrests of poachers, abalone and rock lobster stock has
continued to decline due to the massive increase in poaching over the last three years.
6.7 Slow implementation of the Small-Scale Fisheries Policy
One of the key strategic solutions for dealing abalone poaching is to have successful implementation
of the Small-Scale Fisheries Policy (SSFP), which gives coastal communities preferential access to
marine resources, and provides them with legal recognition. The practical realisation of this policy
will make small-scale community fishers part of the solution – they will be the “ears and eyes” for
protecting their own resources. The SSFP was adopted in June 2012, however, to date the policy has
not yet been fully implemented. Ultimately, the slow implementation of the SSFP has resulted in
ongoing uncertainty around the nature of the small-scale fishing rights. According to the WWF-SA’s
report on the Impact of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing on Small-scale Fishing
Communities (Annexure E), research has shown that fishers are more likely to fish
unsustainably/illegally because they have no certainty about whether they will have a right in the
future and therefore there is little incentive to conserve the resource.
6.8 Twelve small boat harbours in the Western Cape
Since 2005, a Harbour steering committee (HSC) of representatives from national Departments of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Public Works and National Treasury has been responsible for
managing harbours. The National Department of Public Works (DPW) is the current custodian of the
twelve small boat harbours in the province, managing the sale and maintenance of all buildings and
other fixed assets, while DAFF is responsible for seaweed activities in the small harbours, as well as
fee collection for access to and use of the harbour facilities. The twelve small boat harbours in the
Western Cape have been managed poorly and have fallen into disrepair further resulting in the loss
of economic and social potential of these harbours. Currently, small harbours are being wasted as
public assets. Economic opportunities are being lost, deepening the reliance for communities
without work to take desperate measures such as turning to poaching for a small income. The
Constitution under Schedule 4, and the Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act 24 of 2008)
empowers local government to be the legislative and executive authority of harbours and to have
the power to assume management programmes, planning schemes and by-laws provided that they
are consistent with provincial and national legislation and policies. The Western Cape Provincial
Government has initiated an intergovernmental dispute with National Government over the
management of the twelve small boat harbours. No further progress has been made and the issue
remains unresolved for close to a decade.
6.9 Right of access
Complaints were received by the community in Melkhoutfontein regarding access to the sea due to
a private estate, which no longer allows the fisher men and women access to the sea.
28 | P a g e
7. RECOMMENDATIONS/POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS Based on the verbal and written submissions and the Committee’s findings, the following,
recommendations/solutions have been proposed:
7.1 Small-Scale Fishing
7.1.1 Communities forming cooperatives
Since 2016, cooperatives have been recognised as a legal entity to which rights can be allocated.
According to the Small-Scale Fisheries Policy, in order for cooperatives to become successful, there
should be proper training and capacitation for fishers. Fishers should be trained on the role and
responsibility of every single member of the cooperative. Adequate resources should be made
available so cooperatives can derive sufficient productivity in order to survive. DAFF has stated
during the public hearing in Cape Town that it wants cooperatives to be involved in more than the
fishing aspect, such as the entire value chain from fishing processing to marketing. In order for this
to happen, a number of government departments would need to be involved as DAFF does not have
all the expertise to make this work.
7.1.2 An economic assessment of future allocations
A thorough economic assessment must be undertaken by the Department of Forestry and Fisheries
(DAFF) to determine the future allocation of abalone. Illegal fishing of abalone is likely to continue if
sub-economic rights are awarded.
7.1.3 The implementation of an effort control system
There is a need for an effort control system across the West Coast Rock Lobster (WCRL) and abalone
fishery which would help to reduce the excess effort imposed on these fisheries. A business plan
should be developed to finance stock rehabilitation. We support the proposal by the WWF_SA to
develop a joint Fisheries Conservation Project (FCP) in setting catch and effort limitations.
7.1.4 Improved monitoring and reporting of legal catches
This must be implemented through the use of an electronic catch monitoring system. This should be
followed by a mechanism to improve the traceability of WCRL and abalone products from source to
the final destination market. The Western Cape is an increasing digitised Province and endeavours to
align itself with international trends pertinent to the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
7.1.5 The development of localised inshore fisheries management plans
This must be done in partnership with communities and other relevant stakeholders such as the
World wide fund for Nature (WWF – SA). The plans must recognise that marine resources are
limited, and they must prioritise the identification and initiation of meaningful alternative livelihood
29 | P a g e
options for fishing communities. Government and our coastal communities should share the
responsibility of implementing these plans.
7.1.6 The development of fishery recovery plans
The development of fishery recovery plans for WCRL and abalone should have the commitment and
support of fishery stakeholders. The plans must also include appropriate resource allocation and
support from the fisheries management authority.
7.1.7 Improved monitoring, compliance and surveillance capacity needed within DAFF
This is critical; however, dedicated regional environmental courts, which focus solely on the
prosecution of environmental and marine crimes has also proven to successfully deter illegal fishing.
7.1.8 Scientific research submissions to government
The requirement that a catch limit recommended by the Scientific & Statistical Committee (SSC)
cannot be exceeded by the Council, should be included in the Marine Living Resources Act. The
requirement that a catch limit recommended by the SSC cannot be exceeded by the Council is in the
National Standard Guidelines, but not in the Act, and is therefore advisory only. Thus there is no
requirement for it to be adhered to.
7.1.9 Establish water wing units
The South African Police Service must establish proactive water wing units both at national and
provincial levels to patrol high-risk areas and protect the ocean economy.
7.1.10 Local government to take control of the twelve small fishing harbours in the province
In terms of Schedule 4B of the Constitution, together with the Integrated Coastal Management Act
24 of 2008, local government has the legislative and executive authority over small harbours, and
has custodianship over the natural resources in harbours together with other spheres. Furthermore,
local government has the power to assume management functions to regulate all activities in the
coastal zone by way of coastal management programmes, coastal planning schemes, and by-laws,
provided they are not inconsistent with national and provincial law and policy. Local government
must take control of the small harbours in order for the harbours to form part of the local
government spatial and integrated development plans. This will allow local government to promote
the socio-economic potential of the harbours on behalf of local communities. Small harbours have
the potential to provide much needed opportunities for jobs for all coastal communities.
7.2 Poaching
7.2.1 An independent comprehensive study of the scale of poaching to be undertaken
This should include abalone and West Coast Rock Lobster (WCRL). The comprehensive assessment of
the scale of illegal fishing should also include a detailed needs assessment for the coastal
30 | P a g e
communities where poaching is rife. The full study should seek to identify alternative approaches to
address poaching.
7.2.2 Forming a community forum
The forum would serve as a platform for communities to stand together and participate in the
formulation of decisions around poaching, resulting from policies that have a direct bearing on
fishers’ livelihoods. Forums can help identify real small-scale fishers. This will lend much more
legitimacy to DAFF’s goal to identify real small-scale fisherman, as the forum will serve as a more
structured system for information.
7.2.3 The flow of money from illegally fished abalone Money made from the sale of illegally fished abalone that is confiscated by DAFF, should be allocated to social upliftment projects in the affected areas via visible interventions, policing initiatives, as well as for the rehabilitation of marine resources. Furthermore, sold abalone must be audited by an independent audit body overseen by SARS. 7.2.4 Abalone farming and the processing of raw materials (agro-processing) This is a costly industry, but a very profitable industry as well. According to comments made by Ms Lou-Ann Lubbe from Abagold, for every ton of farmed abalone produced, one job is created. However, there remains a need to rehabilitate abalone resources so that it can be harvested in a legal and responsible manner. 7.2.5 Upskilling coastal fishing communities South Africa needs programmes to up-skill fishermen and women in coastal fishing communities. When local fishers are not out at sea, they should be skilled to do work such relating to the upstream and downstream of the fishing industry. This will assist in improving the livelihood and opportunities for fishers from poor coastal communities. There is also a need for programmes that work in conjunction with upskilling programmes that would focus on addressing socio-economic problems prevalent in small fishing communities. This would also include looking at Early Childhood Development and specifically the development of young children so they can access opportunities earlier in life. Most of South Africa’s fishing industry resides in the Western Cape. The Western Cape’s Department of Agriculture should look into programmes through the skills game changer and possible private partnerships that can assist upskilling fishermen and women specifically promoting aquaculture programmes and learnerships. The Western Cape’s Department of Economic Development and Tourism has extended its internship programme to aquaculture companies and this should be explored further with the private sector. These types of programmes must be intensified in order to give small fishing communities the opportunity to become more skilled in their field of work. 7.2.6 Drafting provincial legislation The Western Cape’s Department of Community Safety must investigate the drafting of provincial legislation to establish specialised police units specifically to combat poaching along the Western Cape’s coastline.
31 | P a g e
7.2.7 The reclassification of poaching sentences National legislation must be amended to ensure that individuals found guilty of abalone and WCRL poaching receive sentences of a Category 1 offence, where courts can enforce heavier sentences for first time offenders, especially against heads of crime syndicates and gangs that drive poaching. Furthermore, specialised environmental courts should be established in the Overstrand, Swartland, Saldanha Bay and Cape Agulhas municipalities to convict offenders of specialised and organised environmental crimes. 7.2.8 Re-establishing a coordinated joint operation initiative on a full-time basis The operation will be responsible for maintaining law and order in poaching and gang affected coastal communities. National and Provincial Government should look at implementing the following:
Marine rangers through SANParks;
Dedicated Green Scorpions for abalone poaching through Cape Nature;
Specialised environmental courts should be established in the Overstrand, Swartland, Saldanha Bay and Cape Agulhas municipalities to convict offenders of specialised and organised environmental crimes;
An increase in Environmental Management Inspectorates (EMIs) to focus on poaching;
A provincial prosecution body through the Biodiversity Crime Unit; and
The National Prosecuting Authority must increase its poaching conviction rate
7.2.9 Investigate the socio-economic impact of poaching and gang-related activities The Western Cape’s Department of Social Development must investigate the impact of substance abuse, prostitution, and social crimes in poaching hotspots, as per the complaints received. The Department must then implement a focused intervention strategy to address the breakdown of the social fabric of these communities as a result of poaching-related crime and substance abuse. Areas affected include the Overstrand region, specifically Hawston and Gansbaai. 7.2.10 Assist and train Community Watch Organisations This should be done through the Western Cape’s Department of Community Safety. There needs to be a reform in the training of Community Watch Organisations along our coastlines to specifically patrol and assist in cooperation with law enforcement agencies in combatting poaching along coastal areas. 7.2.11 South African Revenue Service to investigate revenue generated from confiscated abalone The South African Revenue Service (SARS) must investigate the revenue generated from the sale of confiscated abalone and monitor the compliance of confiscated abalone sold internationally. SARS must also ensure that dried abalone be subjected to the same standards of health certification as wet abalone, and that the rates at which confiscated abalone is sold are standardised and in line with market price. This protects the supply-demand chain, which in turn protects markets relating to farmed abalone.
32 | P a g e
The Committee has made the following recommendations to the Western Cape’s provincial
departments:
1. The Western Cape’s Department of Community Safety must investigate the drafting of provincial legislation to establish specialised police units specifically to combat poaching along our coastlines, train community watch organisations, and, together with SAPS, re-establish a coordinated joint operation on a full time basis;
2. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning must look at a dedicated Green Scorpions for abalone poaching through Cape Nature;
3. A provincial prosecution body through the Biodiversity Crime Unit must be set up. 4. The Department of Social Development must investigate and implement a focused
substance abuse intervention strategy in Hawston and Gansbaai; 5. The Department of Agriculture, through the skills game-changer and private partnerships,
should look into skill development programmes and aquaculture learnerships for fishermen and women; and
6. Local municipalities must be encouraged to develop a by-law in line with the City of Cape Town to take over the management of the small boat harbours in Cederberg, Saldanha Bay, Bergrivier, Overstrand, Cape Agulhas, and Hessequa municipalities.
8. CONCLUSION
Aquaculture is one of four growth areas identified by national government in terms of Operation
Phakisa: Ocean Economy, which is aimed at unlocking the economic potential of South Africa’s
oceans. In 2010 it was estimated that South Africa’s oceans had a potential to contribute R54 billion
to the GDP and provide an estimated 316 000 jobs to the economy. The sector was identified for its
potential contribution to economic growth and job creation because of the increasing demand for
fish due to the increasing global population, increasing income by the middle class in developing
countries, and more awareness surrounding the dietary benefits offered by fish products (Operation
Phakisa: Unlocking the Oceans Economy through Aquaculture, October 2016).
Globally, the aquaculture sector has grown significantly and is expected to continue growing at an
even higher rate in the future. The sector offers significant potential for rural development,
especially for coastal communities which have been marginalised in the past (Operation Phakisa:
Unlocking the Oceans Economy through Aquaculture, October 2016). However, the public hearings
have brought to light concerning issues such as the dwindling number of fishermen and women, and
the high-risk nature of fishing due to rampant poaching in the very same coastal communities which
should have been prioritised according to the objectives promised by Operation Phakisa.
Marine Protection Services and Ocean Governance has also been identified as one of the four
growth areas in terms of Operation Phakisa: Ocean Economy. One of the initiatives under this
priority was to protect the ocean environment from all illegal activities and to promote its multiple
socio-economic benefits with results by 2017. It is evidenced by reports in the media, as well as
written and verbal testimonies provided by fishermen and women at our public hearings that this
has not materialised. Many traditional fishers from coastal communities are turning away from
fishing for a number of reasons. These range from dwindling resources, a skewed allocation of
fishing quotas resulting in the exclusion of most fishers, and choosing poaching as a more lucrative
form of income than legal fishing.
33 | P a g e
At National Departmental level, systemic issues with existing legislation make it difficult to regulate
and monitor the Western Cape’s harbours, as well as the acquisition and sale of ocean produce. For
example, the National Department of Public Works (DPW), which owns the province’s small fishing
harbours, has neglected this crucial ocean infrastructure which has now fallen into a state of
disrepair. The use of these harbours for the provision and monitoring of fishing activities is rendered
incapable as a result. This directly affects small-scale fishing in the province, and exacerbates illegal
poaching and organised crimes along our coastlines. In addition to this, the Department of
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (DAFF), has paid but lip service to a promise made to make use of
revenue accrued from the sale of confiscated abalone to provide increased marine policing. Police
presence remains under-resourced along the Western Cape’s coastlines, and specialised marine
police such as the Water Wings Units still do not exist due to a lack of resources. South Africa, and
the Western Cape in particular, is an extremely unique region as it is bordered by two oceans. The
fact that specialised marine policing does not exist in our province, a seemingly obvious public
service necessary for the Western Cape, is in itself alarming.
Pursuant to a media release by the World Wide Fund For Nature in South Africa (WWF-SA), released
on the 18th of November 2016, the National Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
completely dismissed and ignored recommendations pertaining to a sustainable catch made by its
own scientific working group in line with the Department’s recovery plan. Ignoring the expertise
upon which the sustainable exploitation of our oceans can be ensured is tantamount to
environmental crime. The Department must heed the warnings of its own scientists and resource
managers if fishing stocks are to be sustained in the long term.
We welcome the Deputy Mayor of the City of Cape Town’s publishing of the draft Harbour by-law for
public comment (on 12th June 2017). In line with the aforementioned conflicts with DPW and DAFF,
this allows the City of Cape Town to regulate the Hout Bay and Kalk Bay harbours in terms of their
administration, regulation, and any activity which takes place on the harbour precinct, as well as to
raise the standards for the repair and maintenance of these harbours by DPW. We hope that similar
by-laws are drafted and adopted in the Cederberg, Saldanha Bay, Bergrivier, Overstrand, Cape
Agulhas, and Hessequa municipalities. This will unlock local economic development, job
opportunities, and regional growth which will stimulate the Western Cape oceans economy. This will
also give greater autonomy to municipalities to deal with illegal poaching and related crimes which
will, in turn, unlock the unique potential role of harbours within the tourism value chain.
The resulting socio-economic problems stemming from poaching activities, such as drug abuse, have
threatened the lives and livelihoods of many fishing families in the Western Cape’s coastal
communities. This has forced fishermen and women who, for generations, have lived off the ocean,
into a life of poverty.
34 | P a g e
Recommendations to the National Assembly
Section 104(5) of the Constitution provides for a provincial legislature to recommend to the National
Assembly legislation concerning any matter outside the authority of that legislature.
Following a series of public hearings held by the Standing Committee on Economic Opportunities,
Tourism and Agriculture on 3, 8 and 24 February 2017 to determine the impact of abalone poaching
on small-scale fishing communities in the Western Cape, the Western Cape Provincial Parliament
recommends to the National Assembly the following:
a) Re-evaluate the allocation of small-scale fishing right to ensure there is more inclusivity.
Priority should be given to existing fishermen and women who live in and along coastal
towns;
b) That alternative opportunities for income generation for fishermen and women be
identified and explored, in particular to aquaculture and fish farming (pisciculture);
c) That aquaculture and fish farming (pisciculture) be reclassified under agricultural farming
and brought under the ambit of Provinces;
d) That departments streamline legislative processes and eliminate any unnecessary red tape
which slows down the right to aquaculture and fish farming projects, in order to build the
industry more rapidly;
e) Establish aquaculture developmental zones to attract investment and stimulate jobs and
growth in the sector;
f) To transfer the control of small boat harbours to local municipalities to unlock local
economic and tourism potential of harbours along coastal towns;
g) The National Assembly must establish a national set of guidelines, to be incorporated into
the Marine Living Resources Act, in order to ensure that a catch limit recommended by the
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) cannot be exceeded; and
h) Establish a stronger intergovernmental relationship between national, provincial and local
government to manage and administer the process of small-scale fishing and aquaculture.
………………………………
MS BA SCHÄFER, MPP
CHAIRPERSON: STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES, TOURISM AND
AGRICULTURE
35 | P a g e
ANNEXURE A – Articles on abalone poaching in the Western Cape that informed the
Committee’s decision to hold meetings on the matter in September 2016.
36 | P a g e
37 | P a g e
ANNEXURE B – Research Report by the Western Cape Provincial Parliament’s Research
Unit titled “An Overview of the Current Regime to Combat Illegal Harvesting of Abalone”
38 | P a g e
39 | P a g e
40 | P a g e
41 | P a g e
42 | P a g e
43 | P a g e
44 | P a g e
45 | P a g e
46 | P a g e
47 | P a g e
48 | P a g e
49 | P a g e
50 | P a g e
51 | P a g e
52 | P a g e
53 | P a g e
54 | P a g e
55 | P a g e
ANNEXURE C – Timeline of communique between the Standing Committee on Economic
Opportunities, Tourism and Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries
10 October 2016
Prior to 14 September 2016
Phone calls were made to the Department to determine who the letter of invitation should be sent
to. I was directed to the Deputy Director General: Fisheries Management Branch, Ms Siphokazi
Ndudane’s office. A call was then made to Ms Ndudane’s office. After an explanation was given as to
the contents of the invitation, I was instructed to forward the invitation to the DDG.
14 September 2016:
Letter of Invitation sent to the DDG, inviting the Department to brief the Standing Committee on
Economic Opportunities, Tourism and Agriculture on Wednesday 21 September 2016. The briefing
was on the amount of abalone that was confiscated by the Department, and the number of arrests
and convictions relating to abalone poaching activities.
12h50: Receipt of this invitation was confirmed by Ms Ndudane’s PA, Siyabonga Mbanjwa.
15 September 2016:
Ms Siphokazi Ndudane, Deputy Director General: Fisheries Management Branch (Department of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) sent an email asking the Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
(MCS) section of the Department to attend the meeting. Mr Nkosinathi Dana, the Chief Director for
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance in the Department, was assigned to brief the Committee.
21 September 2016:
On the day of the meeting at 08h28, 2 minutes before the start of the meeting, Mr Dana sent an
SMS saying “please accept an apology from our DDG. Fisheries Management Branch are not able to
attend due to unforeseen circumstances.”
The Committee resolved at the end of the meeting to invite the Department again to brief on the
same matter at a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 28 September 2016. A second letter of
invitation was sent to the Department on this day to brief the Committee on Wednesday, 28
September 2016. As per the Chairperson’s instructions, the second invitation stated that if the
Department failed to appear before the Committee, then a summons would be issued.
23 September 2016
15h05: An email was received from the DDG, Ms Ndudane, saying “Mr Dana, I suggest MCS gets hold
of Arno to understand the article (in Die Son) and assistance mentioned by Zaheedah so as to enrich
the discussion- he could too attend the meeting, but I request MCS takes the lead”.
26 September 2016:
56 | P a g e
A follow up phone call was made to Mr Dana regarding the meeting. He then stated that he was
meeting with the DDG to discuss the invitation and there was no confirmation that he would be
attending the meeting.
27 September 2016:
At 07h22, an email was sent to the DDG, Ms Ndudane, stating that an urgent response was needed
as the meeting was the next day.
At 07h46, Ms Ndudane responded that the invitation was with the DG’s office and that Ms Bafedile
Bopape in the office of the DG would respond.
At 08h36, an email was sent to Ms Ndudane to ask for Ms Bopape’s email address. She did not
respond to this email. An email was sent to Ms Bopape as well. No response from Ms Bopape either.
Calls were then made via the Helpdesk to get to the DG’s office. I spoke to Conny Senna, in the DG’s
office, various times over the course of the morning and was told each time that a letter of response
would be sent to me “in the next thirty minutes”. I requested her email address so I could request
the letter electronically but she did not want to give the email address and told me that she would
email me.
Eventually, at 14h24, a letter was emailed from the DG’s office stating that the invitation should be
sent to the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Minister Zokwana.
At 14h52, the letter of invitation was sent to the Minister’s office to the Minister’s PA as well as
Chief Of Staff, Mr Sithembele Kelembe. The body of the email explained the following:
“Please note that an invitation was issued to the Department on 14 September 2016 to a meeting
scheduled for 21 September 2016, to which the Department agreed to come but then cancelled via
SMS on the morning of the meeting. A second invitation was issued to the Department on 21
September 2016 to brief the Committee at a meeting scheduled for tomorrow, 28 September 2016;
however, the Department has just informed us after a week that the invitation should be sent to the
Minister. The Committee requires an urgent response to this invitation by no later than 16h00, this
afternoon.”
At 16h05, a response was received from Mr Kelembe stating:
“Please note that the matter has been referred to the office of the Director-General for follow up
and response. In my discussions with the office of the Director-General I was informed that a letter
of response will be forwarded to your office soonest.”
A response from the DG’s office was not received.
28 September 2016:
The Committee resolved to summons the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries after the
second invitation was declined.
57 | P a g e
ANNEXURE D – Names of individuals and organisations who provided submissions Community Members, Academics and Municipal Officials:
1. Mr Gerald Zacharias, Fisher: Saldanha Bay
2. Mr David Zacharias, Fisher: Saldanha Bay
3. Ms Nathalie van der Heever, Fisher: Paternoster
4. Mr John Edward, Fisher: Paternoster
5. Ms Beauty Gantsho, Fisher: Saldanha Bay
6. Ms Sulene Smith, Small-scale Fisher: Saldanha Bay
7. Mr Gordon Cornelius, Abalone License Holder
8. Ms Sara Niemand, Fisher: Buffeljagsbaai
9. Mr Ronnie Gelant, Fisher: Melkhoutfontein
10. Mr Jimmy Walsh, West Coast resident
11. Mr Neil Barends, Vredenberg resident
12. Mr Gerald Cloete, Representative: Interim Relief for Fishers
13. Ms Margrieeta Petro, Saldanha Bay resident
14. Mr Leer Trutor, South African Police Service
15. Mr Gerrit Boonstra, Member of the Community Against Abalone Poaching (CAAP), and
Gansbaai Resident
16. Ms Anne Wright, Gansbaai Resident
17. Mr Joe Wessel, Gansbaai Subsistence Farmer
18. Mr Howard Matinka, Reformed poacher and Hawston fisher
19. Ms Alda Botha, Kleinbaai resident
20. Mr Tim Hedges, Managing Director: Abagold in Hermanus
21. Mr Andre Kreer, Council Member: Saldanha Bay Municipality
22. Mr Gerrit Matthyse, Municipal Mayor: Cederberg
23. Mr Daniel Plaaitjies, Ward Committee Member: Saldanha Bay
24. Mr Frans Palin, Ward Committee Member: Saldanha Bay
25. Mr Tony Vaughan, Ward Committee Member: Saldanha Bay
26. Mr Lincoln de Bruyn, Speaker: Overberg District Municipality
27. Alderman Sakkie Franken, Mayor: Overberg District Municipality
28. Ms Rianna De Coning, Council Member: Ward 2 in Gansbaai
29. Mr Archie Klaas, Deputy Mayor: Overberg District Municipality
30. Mr Dudley Coetzee, Deputy Mayor: Overstrand Municipality
31. Mr Francois Myburgh, Area manager: Overstrand Municipality
32. Mr Osman Asmal, Director for Environmental Management: City of Cape Town
33. Professor Doug Butterworth, Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics:
University of Cape Town
34. Mr John Duncan, World Wide Fund for Nature in South Africa
58 | P a g e
ANNEXURE E – Written submissions
1. Submission received from: Gerrit Boonstra – Resident of Gansbaai and Member of Community Against Abalone Poaching (CAAP)
Geagte me Beverley Schäfer
Verwys : Provinsiale Parlement van Wes-Kaap se sitting van die staande komitee insake die visserybedryf, gehou te Gansbaai, 8 Februarie 2017
31 Januarie 2017
Soos versoek tydens u uitnoding vir bogenoemde vergadering, gee ek hiermee graag ‘n verkorte
opsomming van my betoog op die vergadering.
Ek het reeds tydens ‘n vorige staande komitee vergadering voor u ‘n voorlegging gelewer namens
die bekommerde inwoners betreffende die onwettige stroping van perlemoen in die Grotere
Gansbaai –gebied. Die Community Against Abalone Poaching (CAAP) waardeer dat u weer eens die
saak so belangrik ag om ‘n opvolg- vergadering op Gansbaai te hou waar u die invloed en gevolge
van die stropery op die kleinvisserye en die breë burgerlike gemeenskap eerstehands kan hoor.
Ons voorstelle is as volg:
1. Ons het ons ernstige beswaar oor die perlemoenstropery reeds aan u komitee
gestel. Dit gaan egter nie slegs oor die diefstal van staatseiendom, nl die
perlemoene, nie, maar die voortspruitende negatiewe impak wat dit op die
gemeenskap se sosiale, ekonomiese en maatskaplike welstand het. Want die
perlemoensmokkel-handel gaan gepaard met allerlei ander misdadige aktiwiteite,
waarvan dwelmhandel en geweldmisdade deur misdaadbendes die
kommerwekkendste is. Daar is die laaste maande ‘n geweldige toename in stropery
en bende-aktiwiteite, en daar is selfs bewyse van ‘n bende-oorlog om beheer oor
die hoogsbetalende smokkelbedryf te verkry. Die gemeenskap se oproepe
om hulp en beskerming aan die plaaslike wetstoepassers is ver benede standaard:
ons is inderwaarheid oortuig uit ons waarneming dat die plaaslike polisie en
visseryebeamptes hoegenaamd nie in staat is, en ook nie die wil het, om die
misdadige aktiwiteite te beheer en te beëindig nie. Daarenteen het Operasie
Phakisa teen die einde van 2016 positief bygedra tot ‘n afname in die stropery en
effektiewe wetstoepassing.
Ons is dus oortuig dat die stropery slegs in bedwang gebring kan word deur die
voltydse teenwoordigheid van ‘n doelgerigte spesialis-taakmag wat sonder aansiens
des persoons wet en orde sal herstel en handhaaf. Die sukses van Operasie Phakisa is
‘n bewys van hierdie stelling. Die veiligheid van sy inwoners is immers die Staat se
kern-verantwoordelikheid. As landsburgers dring ons dus aan dat ons grondwetlike
reg gehandhaaf word.
Tweedens : Die probleem sal nie volhoubaar opgelos word as daar nie
terselfdertyd ‘n geïntegreerde en gekoördineerde beleid gevolg word wat oor
59 | P a g e
die langer termyn hierdie komplekse probleem sal oplos nie. Daar is
verskeie faktore wat die stropery veroorsaak: daar is die agtergrond van ‘n (a)
hoë vlak van werkloosheid en armoede in die Overstrand, (b) ‘n gees van hebsug
en disrespek vir ander mense se regte; (c) ‘n geskiedenis van korrupsie,
omkopery en intimidasie wat tot wantroue en passiwiteit in die gemeenskap
gelei het, (d) die diepgewortelde griewe van die tradisionele
vissersgemeenskap wat voel dat hulle lang gevestigde regte en aansprake van
toegang tot ‘n bestaan uit die see, hulle ontneem word. Die huidige beleid wat
kwotas van klein vissers op tradisionele vissersdorpe ontneem, het ‘n geweldige
negatiewe impak op die hele gemeenskap, soos gesien kan word in die hoë
werkloosheid, morele verval, armoede en misdadigheid.
2. Die staat is verbind tot publieke deelname, maar dit sal ‘n leë gebaar wees as
politici en amptenare net vlugtig ‘n vergadering kom hou net as die mense in
opstand kom, en dan teruggaan na die grootstad ….en niks verander in die
praktyk ten goede nie. . Ons is oortuig dat ‘n volhoubare oplossing net moontlik
is deur die demokratiese weg te volg. Dit beteken dat plaaslike inwoners die
geleentheiede kry om aktief te kan deelneem aan die formulering van besluite en
die voortvloeiende beleide, en dat hulle menings met respek in ag
geneem word. Daarom vra ons vir die stigting van ‘n FORUM waar die
gemeenskap as vennote – deurlopend, eerlik en openhartig en sonder vrees --
kan deelneem aan die besluite wat op alle regering- vlakke geneem word wat
ons bestaan uit die see direk beïnvloed.
Ten slotte
Daar is nie kortpaaie nie, en die regte pad gaan moeilik en lank wees, want om vertroue
te herstel , en om samewerking te bewerkstellig , en om volhoubare werksgeleenthede
te skep, gebeur nie oornag nie.
Dankie vir die geleentheid om namens die bekommerde inwoners hierdie versoek te
mag stel. Hierdie vergadering is NIE die regte plek en tyd om besonderhede te
bespreek nie, mar wel in die veilige ruimte van die voorgesteld FORUM. Ons hoop die
welwillendheid bestaan om hierdie twee voorstelle as uitdaging te aanvaar, dit prakties
toe te pasen waardeur ons ‘n wen-wen oplossing sal vind vir almal ongeag ras, en
politeike affiliasie.
Die uwe
Gerrit Boonstra, inwoner van Gansbaai en lid van CAAP
60 | P a g e
Translation:
Dear Ms Beverley Schäfer
Regarding: Sitting of the Standing Committee of the Provincial Parliament of the Western Cape on
the fishing industry to be held on 8 February 2017 at Gansbaai
31 January 2017
As requested in the invitation to the abovementioned meeting, please find a short summary of my
submission to be made at that meeting below.
I made a submission to you at a previous meeting of the Standing Committee on behalf of the
residents who are concerned about the illegal poaching of abalone in the greater Gansbaai area. The
Community Against Abalone Poaching (CAAP) appreciates the fact that you are regarding the matter
so seriously as to call a follow-up meeting at Gansbaai where you can hear first-hand accounts of the
influence and repercussions that poaching has on small-scale fishing and on the broader civil society.
Our suggestions are as follows:
3. We have already expressed our strong objection to abalone poaching to your Committee. The
matter does not only involve the theft of state properly, namely abalone; but there is also the
negative impact on the community’s social and economic wellbeing as a result of abalone
poaching to be considered. This is because the smuggling of abalone is accompanied by various
other criminal activities of which the most concerning are drug trafficking and violent crimes
committed by criminal gang. There has been an enormous increase in poaching and gang activity
in the past months and there is even evidence of a gang war for control over the very lucrative
smuggling industry. The reaction of local law enforcers to the community’s call for help and
protection has been far below standard. In truth, we are convinced through our observation that
the local police and fishery officials are not at all able or willing to control and to end these
criminal activities. On the other hand, Operation Phakisa, conducted at the end of 2016,
contributed positively to the reduction of poaching through effective law enforcement.
We are convinced that poaching can only be brought under control through the full-time
presence of a purpose-specific specialist task team who will be able to re-establish and maintain
law and order without fear or favour. The success story of Operation Phakisa proves this
assertion. The safety of citizens is after all the core responsibility of the state. We, as citizens,
demand that our constitutional rights be maintained.
Secondly: The complex problem will not be solved in a sustainable way if an integrated and
coordinated policy is not simultaneously followed over the long term. Poaching is caused by
several factors: there is (a) a high level of unemployment and poverty in the Overstrand area,
(b) an attitude of greediness and disrespect for other people’s rights, (c) a history of corruption,
bribery and intimidation that lead to mistrust and passivity in the community, (d) the deep-
rooted grievances of traditional fishing community who feel that their long-established rights
and claims to access to the sea for their livelihoods are being taken away from them. The current
policy that takes away quotas from small-scale fishermen at traditional fishing villages has an
61 | P a g e
enormous negative impact on the whole community, as can be seen in the high incidence of
unemployment, moral degeneration, poverty and criminality.
4. The government is committed to public participation but it will be an empty gesture if politicians
and officials organise fleeting meetings only when people protest and then return to the big city
without anything changing for the better in practice. We are convinced that a sustainable
solution is only possible by following the democratic route. This entails that local residents be
given the opportunity to participate actively in the formulation of decisions resulting from
policies and that their opinions be taken into account respectfully. That is why we are asking for
the establishment of a forum where the community as partners can participate – continually,
honestly and frankly without fear – in the decision-making on all levels of government that has
direct bearing on our livelihood from the sea.
In conclusion
There are no shortcuts and the right way will be difficult and long because trust has to be re-
established, and getting cooperation and creating sustainable job opportunities will not happen
overnight.
Thank you for the opportunity to set out this request on behalf of the concerned residents. This
meeting is not the appropriate place and time to discuss the details, but the proposed forum will be
the safe environment in which to do so. We trust that there exists enough goodwill to accept these
two proposal, to apply them practically, and thereby to find a win-win solution for all irrespective of
race and political affiliation.
Yours sincerely
Gerrit Boonstra, resident of Gansbaai and member of the CAAP
62 | P a g e
2. Submission received from the City of Cape Town: Mr Osman Asmal, Director for Environmental Management
63 | P a g e
64 | P a g e
3. Submission received from the World Wide Fund for Nature in South Africa: Mr John Duncan, Senior Manager: Marine Programme
65 | P a g e
66 | P a g e
67 | P a g e
68 | P a g e
69 | P a g e
4. Submission received from Magrieta Petro, Saldanha Bay resident
70 | P a g e
71 | P a g e
5. Submission received from Mr Frans Palin, Ward Committee Member: Saldanha Bay
72 | P a g e
6. Submission received from Mr Charles Swartz from Kleinmond Integrated Fishing Forum
1. Communities should in their zonal area control and harvest with all relevant stakeholders to protect their zones and areas, landbased as well as seabased.
2. At the moment government has the biggest TAC in the abalone sector and subsequently earn more than the previous Abalone Rights holders together, it should be that the community must have the biggest TAC and make the money. By doing so, the community become more aware of looking after their own zones, and become more disciplined, because this is their resource of income and their livelihood.
3. The community will make sure that people that come from other zones and harvest in their zones. It will also minimize the drug trafficking in our communities from town to town.
4. Communities can help themselves to provide for their children for education, put food on the table, pay the municipal bills and it will also be the start of the process by helping government to reach their goal among coastal communities for 2020 National Development Plan
5. Therefore we urge the WC Provincial Parliament Standing Committee, economic opportunities, tourism and agriculture to help and support proposals like this, so that communities can help themselves and subsequently uplift themselves. This would change the social DNA of dependence of Sassa grants to our community. It would press less pressure on our health system, because there will be less drug abuse
6. Small fishing is currently not properly controlled and managed by DAFF. Small scale must be viable for the communities.
7. The Department failed our initiatives to stop abalone poaching in our area. We have send a number of e-mails to the Department to provide plans to help our communities to combat abalone poaching, but with no feedback or success.
8. We would like to bring under your delegated authority that DAFF closed commercial abalone harvesting in our area for more than 10 years and open for poachers.
73 | P a g e
ANNEXURE F – Additional information and articles provided by the Community Against Abalone Poaching (CAAP)
74 | P a g e
75 | P a g e
76 | P a g e
77 | P a g e
78 | P a g e
79 | P a g e
80 | P a g e
81 | P a g e
