Dear Editor...Traditional Line Fishery, Uncontrolled Beast or Cash Cow?

I came across this letter which from what I can tell hasn't made its way onto paper yet and proves to be a very insightful perspective on the line fishery, in general. I had to clean up the language a little but I feel the point is still adequately presented.

Dear Editor,

This fishery is grossly mismanaged in terms of its resource demographics. The department through blatant ignorance has allowed this industry to grow into an uncontrollable beast.

One of the effort controlling factors, vessel size, and the departments lack of economic viability studies is in actual fact its greatest downfall.

The latest outcry of line fishers to the improper allocation should be a wake up call to all managing this industry. Not only to the departmental clowns but also to all the right holders that have ridden this fat cow for years, raped the resources, reaped the benefits and stand around crying because they cant get organized and refuse to adhere to legislation or at the very least try change it. (Read all about the issues surrounding the towing of the line fisher's ski boats in my previous blog titled: Somehow Towing The Line...I mean Boat.)

How does the line fishery make money? How do you do this? Simple.... catch more fish than anyone else. So the guy with the biggest, fastest boat with the most crew fundamentally makes the most, yes…. Not anymore.

The fleet has reached critical mass in terms of vessel size. A large portion of operators now own 25 to 28 foot vessels that seems to be the boundary of where they are prepared to illegally tow and what can be accommodated in the harbors. So know they are forced lie later and later in the day to do volume. This hinders the small entrepreneur and small scale subsistence fisher as the fish prices fall to stupidly low prices where the small boats up to 6 man, cannot even cover there expenses.

The hawkers love it! WHY…? On any given day when there is ok fish, the first few boats get R25 to R30 for 500 fish, the middle boats just cover their day at R20 and hey presto the fat cats come in with 1000 and 2000 and flood the market down to R15. Then all you need is the one or two hawkers that intimidate the show and that price can drop to R10. What chance does the poor single engine guy have… Absolutely nothing at all …. Giving him a right to fish a 4 man or 5 man boat or permit is like an oasis mirage in the desert. Sounds good, looks good but not worth it at all.

Why are hawkers up in arms, SIMPLE… check the revenue from snoek…. When last did you buy a snoek at under R35? Friends of mine regularly pay up to R70 off bakkies… Granted there is high spoilage but someones making big bucks …. Its time the snoek industry owns up and comes clean, its no use hiding behind the skirts of the poor fisherman of the traditional line fishery.

Why do you think the crews are up in arms…. That guy that spent his whole pension made it easy for me, I didn’t have a care in the world except get to a harbor, I buy R200's worth of  tackle and I get half of what I catch. On a day that can be nothing…. Yes but generally in the order of R500 to R1000 per day. Never mind the days when we get the “geluk” where salaries are as high as R2000 per day when some of the tougher guys take risks and force the elements.

On  a typical snoek run in ST Helena that lasts 6 weeks, moderate operators catch over 1000 fish a day at R20. Crewmen earn up to R1000 per day plus “fries” up to 10 that they sell at R30. Paints a different picture doesn’t it? The odd idiot that complains about this arrangement is exactly what I described him as. For nearly no investment or responsibility a motivated crewman can easily pocket R80 000 to R100 000 in cash a year, TAX FREE. This also free him up to do odd jobs now and again as so many do.

The line fishery, the fat cash cow with its uncontrolled salary structures in alliance with uncontrolled poaching and interim relief … has been instrumental in the decimation of tuna pole crews and loss of skills in this sector. Why its simply easier to go fish 2 to 3 days a week make substantial tax free salary and sit at home waiting for your crayfish money than actually go to sea for a week and work for it.

Do youreslf a quick check on these figures. Take any one of the ten top line fish boats that regularly catches over 1000 fish a day in St Helena Bay, (I omitted the vessel names that were specifically mentioned here) …. And see if they are VAT registered or if the pay PAYE or workmen's compensation. Maybe  one. The reality of a snoek run just here, regardless of all the rest is as follows: 30 000 fish at R20 turns over R600 000.

Wages for 10 guys is easily up to R25000 per man in a month to 6 weeks. All cash. This is boosted by snoek runs that are shorter but no less intense in Lamberts Bay,  Cape Point and Hout Bay. The yellow tail runs once  a year at the point and Struis also contribute. Last year the snoek fleet arrived en mass in Struis Baai and totally upset the market there. In the first week we had 4 sea days where almost all the boats averaged between 1.5 and 4 tons a day. One of the vessels figures showed 8 tons, actual not the bullshit submitted in the catch returns which at that stage constituted R160 000  in four days. Crew's take home pay was up to R10 000 for the week for the better guys.

I would conservatively say that the top end operators are turning over in excess of R 1.5 million a year and are not declaring it correctly. What they do is they only declare their half of the catch, not the crews half… which is incorrect as the  law clearly stipulates that the right has the authority to sell fish and not the crew. Hence the right owner is responsible for all the sales turnover. The right holders maintain that the crew are contractors, but from a SARS perspective maintains that there is an implied relationship hence the right holder is responsible for taxation. Its lucky that this is a free for all and cash business where there is almost no way to track money and you can declare what you like as is the case with their DAFF catch returns. (How nice would this be if the tuna pole sector was allowed this luxury?)

It would be interesting to see what would happen if SARS applied itself to this industry, not just the boats but the hawkers also and see what comes out. For an industry that has a blatant disregard for so many legislations, it does seem to be crying poor mouth for all the wrong reasons. I mean how can the Department, DA and ANC actually classify the line fishery as  a subsistence type business. Some of these guys actually, really not maybe, turn over double the average tuna pole vessel. Yet its convenient to be labeled traditional line fishery because you pay next to nothing for levies and actually get sympathy when you cry about it. But its time to stand up and be counted for what you actually are.

Its time somebody woke up and smelt the coffee. Snoek and yellow tail are healthy vibrant resources that need to be managed outside of the traditional line fishery. One of correctly regulated will remain a healthy resource that will provide food security to many low income groups the other is a money spinner in terms of export revenue. The yellow tail targeted by the line fishery is an absolute waste of this resource ….with the exception of a few, the snoek fleet is its worst enemy. In the volumes they land the fish in a short space of time, it becomes a poor quality product resulting in poor returns and a drive to fish “quantity as opposed to quality” as the vessels are just not the suitable tools for this resource in terms of generating sufficient revenue to ensure maximum profitability or return from this resource.

It is far better left coastal communities and the tuna pole fleet to catch. Firstly the numbers locally landed by coastal communities will remain small and retain its value in the local market. Landed in the tuna pole fleet as fresh exports the value adding is substantial. Someone just has to get the imported yellow tail taxed to an extent that its landed cost stay at R30 to ensure the sustainability  of the coastal communities catching plans.

The tuna pole fleet has been trying for 8 years to get the yellow tail back as a legitimate target resource but to no avail as some incompetent idiots at Sea Fisheries actually believes all the nonsense about the line fishery being absolutely dependent on it. The tuna pole fishery gets told that historically(from blue books) they are not dependent on it. Yet the line fishery is. Its just that some of the older right holders were skimming the system and know the department wants to punish all because of the mistakes of those before, ABSOLUTE Nonsense. In all due respect, the line fishery needs to be properly investigated and the rot removed. I agree it is an employer, but at whose expense. The tuna pole fleet is suffering due to the growth of this sector. One that continues to grow regardless of current legislation in other areas. The crews on these very boats were traditionally the backbone of the tuna pole and freezer boat fleet. The tuna pole fishery is also a hand line fishery and is severely dependent on this skill. Good line fisherman  are simply the best pole fisherman. It is notable that the tuna pole fleet lost many of its top South African crews to line fishing boats in earlier years.

For all the good reasons the line fishery was split to prevent over fishing of reef species in ecologically sensitive areas. Hence we then had the traditional line fishery and the tuna pole fleet. The tuna pole fleet due to its inadequate resources, due to its loss of yellow tail and inability to have multi species or sector involvement nearly collapsed. One of the contributing factors was the constant crying of the traditional line fishery as to the effects reinstatement of yellow tail there would negatively affect itself.

Surely by this time it seems relevant to realize that the line fishery needs segregation to accommodate proper growth. Many line fishers would be better suited in a small freezer boat. ( Sounds almost like the tuna pole industry)This in terms of adherence to road ordinance and generally the nature of what they do. It may not suit the adrenalin junkies that need 400hp on a plank to feel like a man, but would definitely stimulate the struggling boat building economy and legalize many operations. The spin off is that these vessels are also suitable for tuna operations. Bear in mind that the department penalizes tuna pole operators for snoek fishing??? How dumb, they should be rewarded for there efforts to keep their business afloat when the yellow tail resource is being raped by another industry that is undeserving due to its general floating of countless legislation.

My suggestions to form part of the control of this section of the industry:

• 1.        Segregate the linefishery. All traditional type vessels to be area bound and resident resources in these areas to be for locals only as suggested or alluded to in the DA plan
• 2.        Ski boats under 6m be community bound and only for community projects
• 3.        Rationalize the snoek industry and form a sector on its own or make it subservient to the tuna pole industry ALLow tuna access with a Olympic TAC for this section of the sector.
• 4.        Effectively assist there transformation in accordance to the road ordinance Acts. Place a monitorium on all vessel upgrades over 7,5m or vessels and trailers with combined GVM of 3500kg.
• 5.        SAMSA to dictate terms of vessel building guidelines to prevent larger vessel being unsuitably built to meet the above requirements and endangering crew.
• 6.        Scrap any operation that cannot comply with road ordinance with financial assistance from the government. In so doing facilitate transition to Tuna Pole  industry.
• 7.        Properly evaluate the tuna pole industries resource needs in accordance to skills and economic viability.
• 8.        Facilitate a sector that facilitates snoek, yellowtail(reasonably capped in terms of TAC to prevent overfishing ) and tuna as these species are reliant on the same skills.
• 9.        Remove current yellowtail restrictions on tuna pole vessels outside the contiguous Zone. Implement an Olympic system TAC for yellow tail for the line fishery and tuna pole fisheries within the South African EEZ.

This may seem like the ramblings of an old man but they are actually the experience of an entrepreneur trying to abide by the law getting dead ended because some bureaucratic idiot isn’t dynamic enough to realize that the system they have is dysfunctional at so many levels that it cannot cope with the economic requirements of a modern fishing fleet that is dependent on mobility and or international markets to ensure profitability.

….Sometimes I wonder if DAFF’s ears are actually connected to there brains? In this comment I humbly apologize to the few that do go out there way to help as far as they can….

As far as the right holder being on board, it is absolute crap. It is nice to picture this in the line fishery but where the value adding is concerned, IT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE and an unrealistic requirement for the snoek fishery that can have up to 20 consecutive fishing days without rest! The department needs to find a more realistic means of ensuring the right people get allocated rights in terms of utilization.

On a lighter note, our friend Desmond Stephens has been fired as acting DDG as of the 28th of February. It must be commented that his reign at the helm could be considered controversial and even catastrophic. Let's see who will be appointed to right this floundered ship?

Somehow Towing The Line...I Mean Boat

There are not many of us who are actually aware of the fact that a large majority of the line fishery's vessels are illegally being carted from harbour to harbour along our busy roads with total disregard for public safety. This information contained here under was extracted from a concerned citizen's letter.

In an attempt to curb effort in the industry the DAFF imposed a vessel limit length of 10 meters. How was this done? Who knows? But all common sense went right out the window here. The department is an organ of state and responsible for the allocation of rights that conform to all legislation. It conveniently makes you have tax clearance certificates but does nothing about ensuring that they comply to road ordinance and workmen's compensation. Talk about choosing what to enforce and what not to at your convenience.

Due to their absolute lack of understanding of the industry they did  not realise that almost all ski boat type vessels over 7.5 meters couldn't possibly hope to meet the minimum requirements of the road ordinances act without serious investment and ridiculous maintenance costs. In actual fact it didn’t even seem to cross there minds to check this out and make a compromise in other fisheries even when told in the road shows.

In simple terms the road ordinance stipulates that all trailers with Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) of over 750 kg be braked. Then when the GVM exceeds 3500 kg it cannot be on an override system (the trailer hook that slides and uses cables to activate brakes) but needs some form of power assistance that is SABS approved. If the GVM is over 5000 kg the trailer then needs to be further fitted with ABS brakes. (yes similar to your expensive cars). 

The reality of this is that there is no SABS approved braking system that will adequately stand up to the corrosive and erosive nature of the silt laden sea water in harbours where vessels are slipped. There are some smaller systems that on smaller trailers are maintainable but the larger units prove to be to costly. 

There is a solution but it is expensive and will take some time to approve. In America the use of aluminium as a general construction material is quite normal. Its mass to strength ratio are probably 30% lower than the steel commonly used here. They also use electrical brake actuators as opposed to mechanical or air assisted systems. Our problem is that SABS does not approve this system. This simply as nobody or any south African trailer builder has submitted one for testing… This because no one is prepared to fork out the money required by SABS to test them.  (The author here went on to explain that it was due to the association not being able to collect subs, let alone pick up the tab for the required testing)

Probably the most suitable vehicles for towing these large vessels are Ford F250 4x4 and Landcruiser 4x4. Pretty much all else is to expensive, does not have enough traction or just to expensive to maintain. Trucks are probably the answer, but prove to have to little traction as the slips are slimed over and at the lower end of the tides the rear wheels lose traction, (industry is market driven not tide) 4x4 trucks are to expensive and harbour facilities are not geared to accommodate the extra length vehicles. It must be suitably noted that the most practical vehicles, Land cruisers, GVM is to low to legally even tow the larger vessels, never mind pull them out of the water with loads of fish and crew, and Ford's F250 are expensive and require heavy duty drivers licences. Good luck standing in that que.

In terms of transport, an achievable solution for under 5000 Kg GVM trailers would be aluminium electrically brake assisted trailers that operate on a 5^th wheel principle. A 5^th wheel is similar to a horse and trailer where you remove the load body and fit a plate on top of the chassis similar to articulated trucks. This allows a 5000 kg trailer to be towed legally without ABS brakes. This is achieved by having 3500 kg supported by the trailer axles and 1500 kg supported by the vehicle's rear axle. Cutting things fine on land cruisers but definitely an option. This should be fine in theory until you consider the cost… would be great of government could facilitate a buy back of inadequate towing vehicles and supply these similar to the taxi program.

The electrical braking system is fundamentally an electro magnet that is resin impregnated to prevent water ingress. The only maintenance item would be the brake shoe itself.

All said and done, the government will need to promptly address this as its only a matter of time before its too late to effectively put the brakes on this issue.

David’s Sustainability VS Goliath’s Economies of Scale

These days, the press across the various mediums highlight the importance of sustainability and fishing for the future. Through this and other public awareness programs broadcast by organisations such as Green Peace, WWF and ISSF, the general public is being awakened to an interesting and complex industry that is - commercial tuna fishing. Whilst the likes of first world country consumers are already well aware and preferential to more sustainable practices, there is an ever lagging effect filtering down to the 3^rd world nations. In the UK for example, the various retailers shelves are well stocked with various produce sourced from sustainable fishing methods. However, here we don't see this and this is due to consumer awareness and price. Here it’s purely about economies of scale and price for food security and ultimately survival. We don’t have the luxury of affording pole and line caught tuna in Checkers and Pick n Pay just yet. The fact of the matter is that we are already mumbling about the Saldanha brand (a product range that was developed and initially imported on behalf of Saldanha by ourselves) costing around R18 per can for the flavor variants and R15 for the oil and brine variations. The simple matter is the South African Rand hardly ever fares well for imports such as canned tuna, which price will fluctuate like the proverbial tide in parallel with the exchange rate. We’re talking U.S. Dollars to South African Rands here which until recently slumped lowest since the year 2008. This is the main factor combined with the price of raw materials in Thailand. Bangkok sets the skipjack price which recently is at an all time low. However the rand weakening didn’t allow the importers to take advantage of the low skipjack price which is being traded around $1300/mt CFR Bangkok (cost and freight delivered to Bangkok main port). As a result the can on your shelf has been able to withstand this variable but only to a certain degree. Depending on when the retailers will place their orders for more stock, we can expect the price of canned to possibly increase should they look to preserve their margins as the skipjack price is bound to recover to higher levels.

Now let’s discuss pole and line…I’m not sure who would prefer to pay an estimated R25-R30/can of pole and line caught skipjack tuna…the general public apart from Woolworths wealthy can afford this and such… its easier for the more well off patrons to ease their conscious by insisting on sustainability from a pole and line caught degree and sleep well at night. There is sort of a price barrier in third world countries for sustainable fishing practices being canned for these nation’s shelves. The poor rely upon the canned tuna as a relatively cheap accessible source of healthy protein. In South Africa its more blikkie chilli vis that's been sold than canned tuna. In fact last week retailers in Argentina started securing cans of tuna with anti theft alarms as theft of canned tuna is literally out of control like their ailing economy. Imagine an anti theft clothing alarm tag usually reserved for garments now stuck to your can of No Name Brand shredded tuna? It’s literally happening around the world as we speak. Now there are cheaper variations (shredded tuna) finding a their way to the bottom of the shelves but at a more reasonable price? The fact of the matter is that the retailers have developed a cheaper product derived from the by product of tuna loin production. These shreds or flakes are then canned with vegetable broth/ additives which proteins bind the pieces together during the heat generated by the retorting process. (If I understand this correctly) So we end up with a far inferior end product but at more affordable prices.

This graph below was taken from the 2013 4th European Tuna Conference which was held in Brussels and illustrates the volumes imported by the EU and USA of canned tuna. This should give you an idea on the shear volumes that is produced globally for these two markets.

This is where the Goliaths of the fishing industry find their way into the market and respective arguments. Without the purse seining fleet operating, we wouldn't be able to catch enough of this resource to meet the global demand for an affordable canned protein. With a shelf life between 1-2 years, depending on the brand, which doesn't need refrigeration. In Africa canned chicken, tuna and other products are on the rise as this continents largest imports due to the lack of infrastructure and refrigeration. The problem with purse seining is the environmental impact it has on the species which it is targeting as well as the by catch. With the use of FAD's more by catch, sharks, sea turtles other marine life is being directly impacted. I will go into this in a future blog entry.

However, it is the most affordable method to catch large volumes and thus their economies of scale far out weighs that of the pole and line method. As a profitable company, purse seining makes perfect sense. However, one hook one fish such as poling is the most scientifically sustainable method for wild caught tuna. How to find a balance is the predicament we find ourselves in today. Whilst the operational expenses per metric ton of purse seining is drastically less than that of pole and line with their respective carbon foot prints in favor of purse seining?

The Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO’s) control the tuna in each respective ocean and due to public awareness and pressure brought upon by scientific data, they have had to make drastic measures. Such measures would include but not limited to a  100% closure of some waters within the Pacific, FAD free zones, FAD closure seasons, fleet capacity  and TAC limitations, to name a few. But the industrial wheels of economy and trade keep turning and such we find for instance with regards to the cap on fleet capacity, the larger purse seining companies scrapping their smaller vessels for more ultra modern vessels which hold in excess of 2,200 tons and can maneuver at 18 knots. One would think that they are defeating the purpose by reducing the fleet when all that is being done is the effective fishing efforts being increased exponentially. We are seeing more 2,000 ton plus vessels being built in Spanish shipyards such as the vessel "Gijon" which was launched a short while back. This behemoth will be commissioned for the Mexican tuna fishery with a further 2 more being built. We have now seen some canneries insisting that by the end of 2014, they will only purchase from fishing vessels with fish holds of less than 350 tons. But is this enough?

 Whilst the likes of my company comply with Earth Island Institute and Friend Of The Sea annual audits to ensure sustainability and tractability, it is a mere spoke in the smallest cog that is the industry of tuna fishing. (MSC would have cost too much) Following the international trends, the local retailers have made pledges to only stock MSC certified pole and line caught tuna on their shelves by the end 2015. Where will this be sourced from? One of the only MSC certified skip jack fisheries globally is that of the Parties to the Naru Agreement. They have nicely created a monopoly by forming the marketing company Pacifical to exclusively sell all their MSC certified tuna. And this is a purse seine fishery as well!!! Seems we can't bake our fish cake and eat it just yet. The retailers such as Woolworths are making large strides to encourage sustainability and one should read up on their website about their corporate responsibility in doing so here: Fishing For The Future - Canned Tuna

Unfortunately its not possible to export our local albacore catches in 40ft containers to a cannery half way around the globe in order to be canned then shipped back. (wouldn't like to calculate that carbon foot print) This simply isn't viable, so what about canning it locally? We did just that and in 2011 we concluded an assessment by international experts and found that labor would become this projects biggest headache, partly due to the labor unions and their effect on suitable labor costs. The subsequent cost of production would have been to expensive and it was decided to scrap this project all together. Until then we will have to place our sustainable support on to the retailers and may they continue to make progress for their 2015 deadline.

Take a look at TUNA IN SOUTH AFRICA AND WHAT YOU CAN DO

MK Veterans - Wasting Solution?

If I am correct, DAFF or Public works, have pulled the contract for the cleaning of Hout Bay Harbor. I think it was most likely the possible fact that the account fell way into arrears and subsequently closed by the operators. (I stand to be corrected of course) Regardless, the harbor's waste and refuse pile up like termite mounds dotting the horizon on the African plane...As a tourist attraction this is completely unacceptable?

The various vessel owners supposedly pay their annual berthing fees and harbor usage fees to the Department and in return are entitled access to prepaid electricity (when the cables aren't stolen), water (when the pipes aren't stolen) and refuse removal (when its collected). So the harbor users pay levies that is being happily collected and therefore should in theory allow for such a budget to adequately clean the harbor?

Engine & gearbox oil littering and polluting the quayside. This oil spill made its way into the water (swimming pool). 

The water pollution in the harbor itself is completely unacceptable with flotsam accumulating in various nooks and crannies of the Hout Bay Height's (Hangberg Community) swimming pool. Whatever happened to that old bullet who used to motor around in his small modified " Blue Bottle" scooping up and doing away with the pollution in the water? He did it out of his own generosity  and therefore money well spent from the Department's perspective!

So instead of pointing fingers at various capable departments, I propose a solution that is standing right in front of our very noses all this time! Since a few months back, Desmond Stephens in his infinite wisdom appointed his comrades the Umkhonto we Sizwe as the security/ enforcing detail to prevent vessels from fishing without their respective permits. They vigilantly patrol the area from inside their inspectors office only to surface when the hake long liners offload and like rats they come scurrying alongside asking for that three-lettered-swear-word-to-all-vessel-owners: "FRY." I wonder how much they get paid? Surely we could bolster their pay checks with the added responsibility of cleaning the toilets (the same toilets where the swimming pool is) and collecting the accumulated refuse at the various dustbins littered around the harbor?

Surely they can use their spear to poke and prod all the litter up? After all, this harbor is or was probably the most scenic and picturesque in the western cape.

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

Life Goes On...One Way Or Another?

Lately I have been inundated with comrades calling me as if they have struck that rich vein of gold at the end of the rainbow tuna tail. With excitement in their voices their tone exudes arrogance but yet I can’t help and feel sorry for them. Like most whose dreams didn't materialize of striking it rich in the 1848 California gold rush, they too were lured somehow with promises of wealth and success. So my comrades with glee in their eyes excitedly explain that they can catch tuna. “Wow I reply that’s incredible! And how do you intend catching it all the way from Soweto?” So here is where the whole “paper quota holder” comes into the picture. These comrades have been granted tuna pole rights but with no vessel, no investment within the industry and more importantly, no knowledge of this game what so ever. Once I have corrected them in saying that entire fleet already have rights activated and that their license fee is absurd, their tone changes very quickly. “But you don’t understand.” they reply… upon which I simply give up and explain that they are too late and have literally missed the boat as all have rights activated already, all be it not their own. 

                     

With the whole fleet by now having successfully having paired up with their choms from Soweto, Langa and the likes in order to utilize their paper quotas, the fleet has resumed “normal” fishing operations whilst they await the outcome of their FRAP 2013 appeals.

So Desmond, I wonder how a guy in Soweto is going to effectively utilize and create food security with a 16 man right in a landlocked city? Maybe they can go paddle around the mine dump waste water and look for their "gold"?  Meanwhile, the actual fishermen and their livelihoods and futures are spun out of control by the spin drift that is DAFF.

 On a lighter line, we have to date managed to export in excess of 1500 tons of albacore and with the historical seasonal patterns resuming, we now have been landing excellent quantities of yellow fin. With the latter price currently being higher than the albacore, the vessel owners can enjoy a slightly higher return. We haven’t seen yellow fin in this quantity prior 2009 if I recall correctly. This will bode well for the 45ft slurry vessels (“Tupperware” as they are affectionately referred to by the Portuguese) that will be able to effectively target this species for the sashimi markets which we air freight to destinations such as Japan, USA and Spain, to name a few.

In Namibia we have experienced good albacore catches for the handful of live bait freezer vessels who have managed to land some 250+ tons each for the season so far. Their season will run until the end of April with these same vessels catches exceeding 400 tons each. In the interim, the vessels fishing in SA waters will continue to pursue that illusive water conditions that will allow for good tuna catches. With the fresh yellow fin market being flooded (some 2000 individual yellow fin have been landed since Friday last week) the vessels would do well to target the albacore for fresh exports. Frozen yellow fin will also fetch a rand or two above the albacore price so even gilling and gutting the yellow fin for the freezer is a good viable option. As an exporter, our main reasons for not exporting more volumes of yellow fin to the sashimi markets is two folded namely; the size of this yellow fin is too small and falls under the minimum weight acceptable by customers and also the colour. We are seeing inconsistency of colour throughout the loin and a very light translucent fleshy colour. The fat content of this yellow fin is also low which would suggest that they have traveled some distance and not residing in an area allowing enough time to feed and accumulate their required fat. Literally we are landing rats and as such have to be frozen to -20°C for the canning industry.

On a side note, I believe that Chris Pike has landed some good catches of Striped Marlin on the Struisbaai banks!

So far this season has allowed a much needed financial relief for the boat owners who will be able to clear themselves out of the red for the first time in about 2 years. So, true to our industry its either feast or famine. Long may this feast continue comrade?

For &@$DAFF's*$% sake you said consolidate?

While the tuna pole industry is recovering from the shock waves and subsequent aftershocks from the announcement of the successful and unlucky unsuccessful long term rights allocation from DAFF, there are those of us left scratching our heads. Literally since 31st of December when the entire fleet had to return to port, DAFF has yet to notify each applicant in writing outlining the reasons for them having to revert back to paper quota holders to ensure their food security and existence. The majority of the tuna pole fishermen rely upon this industry and tuna season as their sole income. Somewhere along the line, DAFF has missed a trick here. They have made it publicly clear that the department is encouraging "consolidation" of fishing efforts by the vessel owners and right holders alike. Basically, they are wanting the right holder to be the vessel owner and visa verse therefore essentially consolidating and eliminating the paper quota holder for good. 

For those who are unfamiliar with this industry, there are those within the industry who own their vessels and long term rights. Then there are those who have vessels but have not been granted a right or missed the previous rights allocation. Lastly, for what ever reason, there are those "fortunate ones" who are mere right holders and who do not own a suitable vessel, but rather lease out their right to the second example in the form of a catching agreement. The paper right holder, will therefor charge the vessel owner a set rate per kilogram of tuna landed and literally earn money for jam. 

So with last years Fishing Rights Allocation Process (FRAP) having come and gone, those who consolidated their efforts have been left scratching their heads on the quayside. Most have already resorted to signing catching agreements with those paper quota holders who were successful. Not that DAFF's customer service center is able to process the paperwork for the application to change a nominated vessel at this time anyway. It disgusts me to know the fact that the unsuccessful applicants have yet to even receive their formal letter from the department notifying them of their denied application and the reasons thereof. Their lack of urgency must simply be accredited to their general inability as a department to function correctly and efficiently and are simply "buying their time" in their apparent tactic of dividing and conquering the tuna pole fishery. With the majority of successful right holders already having resumed their fishing operations after a forced shut down (my exporting company has estimated that the 3 days of no fishing has cost us around R4mil in lost revenue alone!) only the consolidated company's have been left stranded on land watching as their colleagues offload ton after ton on the quayside. It has now been 2 weeks since the announcement and the ones left stranded have yet been afforded the opportunity to appeal the decision lodged against them.

In the subsequent aftermath, DAFF will in all eventualities roll some heads down the slipway in the form of Desmond Stevens the acting DDG as was the case after the last FRAP with Horst. The 2013 FRAP in itself has been agreed too by all parties to be correct and fare and where the problems arise is in the personnel behind this process. Desmond's lack of understanding of the entire fishing industry has landed him in the pressure pot. It wouldn't surprise me if we see him getting a nice fat handshake after-which the department will shift the blame across.

Who knows what Desmond's thinking?

 Watch Carte Blanche this coming Sunday to see Derek interview the Fresh Tuna Exporters Association's chairman, Steve Cameron-Dow.

In the mean time, FISHERIES MANAGEMENT BRANCH WELCOMES THE INVESTIGATION OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR  
Cape Town – Thursday, 09 January 2014: The Fisheries Management Branch of the 
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) welcome the news of an 
investigation by the Public Protector into the Fishing Rights Allocation Process 2013 (FRAP 
2013).