Dear Editor...

I am publicizing a letter for those of particular interest who were involved with the FRAP 2013 process. This letter was written by an anonymous source and thus wasn't legible for printing by the news papers. Anyways, I thought that it has some valid points and worth a read...

Dear Editor,

I have a feeling that if I wrote this letter in my personal or professional capacity within this industry, I would open myself to some risk and perhaps even be singled out and discriminated upon in the future, so I will write it as an anonymous “right holder” of some 10 years.

With regard to all the press coverage of the FRAP 2013, I feel there is a lot unsaid.

First of all there are some very misleading facts going around, mostly from the mouth of Mr Stevens, that need to be clarified.

Of the 8 sectors issues rights on 31 December, ONLY 1 was issued exemptions for those unsuccessful rights holder applicants to continue to fish - the Linefish Sector. With particular regard to the Tuna Pole and Squid sector, many vessels are tied up while the costs keep building. For the Desmond Stevens to claim that he has relieved pressure from all of those deserving, is but one of his many dis truths over the past few weeks.   

In an interview on Carte Blanche a few weeks back, the DG also claimed that 7 out of 8 sectors had been in contact with the department and were pleased with the outcomes and process of the FRAP 2013. Let me assure you, this is blatantly untrue. Numerous letters written by numerous sectors were unanswered, and remain such, and for Desmond Stevens to claim that Derek Watts had been speaking to “the wrong people” was just another way of his shirking all his responsibilities.

As a participating right holder throughout the process and also the years building up to the process, I would also  like to express concern in the differences of definitions by the Department and Industry over the loosely defined word “industry consultation.” Yes we did sit in numerous meetings, yes we did come to many agreements and yes, a correct process and time frame was discussed and agreed upon. However, at the end of this all, the Department did exactly the opposite of what they promised, penalized entrants for the very things they had encouraged and committed to awarding points for, and never for one minute looked as though they would make a single deadline, which they didn’t. The minister herself committed to the process, including the appeals, being wrapped up well before the 2013 rights expired. Industries definition of this timeline was around November. The departments was midnight on 31 December. The effect - every vessel involved in these 8 sectors had to be docked at midnight on December 31, 2013.  I would like to understand  who benefited from this? The crews, skippers, factories and vessels certainly didn’t. I fail to see how the country benefited in so far as foreign export, trade and revenue goes. How did the department come to this decision? And why did they promise in a press release on December 30,  2103 that they would make sure no vessel was forced back to port at their account?

In all the campaigning done by Mr Stevens, he has assured the people of this country that “Paper quotas” are a thing of the past, that rights will be awarded to the genuine fisherman, that the rich white fisherman are an extinct crowd. At the end of it all, he issues rights to some companies whose members/shareholders have never seen the sea, don’t know which side of a boat is the front and think fish grow in cans. These very people, who he claims to be empowering, are forced to “work together” as he puts it , “right holders without boats must team up with non right holders with boats and make arrangements”. People who have been creating jobs , providing food stability , providing benefits for their crews and ensuring the crews have safe work places ,for 10-25 years in some cases,  are suddenly forced to “team up” with new entrants.  Is this not creating paper quotas?  

To contradict himself even more, numerous applications have been made to the department by associations and individuals to ask how people can get hold of boat owners in the case of successful applicants without boats , as well as requests  by boat owners to get names of successful applicants in order to make these “team work” arrangements. The department will not release the list as it claims it is confidential information. And in the meantime-the fisherman suffer.

Then there is the way which Mr Stevens  interprets the sectors and the way things work in practise and the allegations by Mr Stevens that the crews pay for fuel and levies. These are absolutely untrue and even offensive. If Mr Stevens is so disinterested in finding out the way the sectors actually function, why does he hold the position he does and even more so why is he allowed to communicate to the public? And if he believes that the crew does pay for the fuel, has he taken up the battle with SARS on their behalf to allow fishing operations in the Linefish sector who have petrol engines to be exempt from the Road taxes? Quite the opposite actually, the department has chosen not to support these applications for years already. If he is so worried about the cost of fuel and its implications on the crews surely he is looking to help?

In the most simple of terms, a man without a boat cannot load ten crew on the A4 piece of paper Mr Stevens has issued him and go to sea, and a man in Gauteng with fishing rights is as out of the water as fish would be there. As right holders and participants in this industry, we know what we have to do in order to tow the line with the department. Now it’s time the department started making some commitments to us that they intend keeping and stop hiding from the truth. Your FRAP process was flawed, under prepared and full of holes. You have issued many rights to the correct entities and we salute you for that. But the truth is you have gotten way too many wrong. You have done the previously disadvantaged people in the fishing communities more of a disservice than the so called “rich white” people and the loss of jobs is on you. If you had followed the processes agreed upon between industry and yourselves we would not be in this situation.

The way I see it every person reports to someone else. I hope Mr Stevens superior realises his mistakes and takes responsibility for them because it is clear he won’t.

And one last thought, fisherman have been around a lot longer than the department.. ultimately the department only exists because of the fisherman, not the other way around