14. Country teams from Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa and Tanzania had produced National Reports in preparation for the workshop. The team’s leaders presented a briefing of the process and the main aspects of the National Reports.
MAURITIUS
15. Some aspects of the fisheries management such as formulation and implementation of fishery management plans and research programmes in Mauritius are not strictly in accordance with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the necessity for improvements were highlighted. There was also the need for Harmonization in management of shared resources, and highly migratory fish and vessel monitoring with countries of the region.
16. In Mauritius, the Ministry of fisheries has a tradition of consultation and dialogues. Wide consultation with the stakeholders have been held during the elaboration of the Fisheries and Marine Resources Act of 1998 and the ten year fisheries Development plan. The same process facilitated the preparation of national report.
MOZAMBIQUE
17. The report had been produced by the staff of the Ministry of Fisheries and involved inputs from other relevant institutions such as the Fisheries Research Institute, Small Scale Fisheries Development Institute, and Fisheries Development Fund and the private sector.
18. Mozambique expressed dissatisfaction with the absence of simultaneous translation, as they would have difficulties in discussing in English such an important document. They recommend that, in future, SADC member States receive and discuss documents in their official language.
NAMIBIA
19. During the process of research for the document, the national team leader noted that: most monitoring activities were governed by Government policies but that institutions were not always well co-ordinated. Some functions seemed to be without a Ministry to assume complete responsibility. Other functions overlapped and were duplicated.
20. Fisheries statistics such as landings and contribution to GDP were recorded in different manner. The statistics could not always be reconciled with one another. Fish consumption data available did not seem to be soundly based as no formal survey seemed to have been done to arrive at the number currently used.
SEYCHELLES
21. Although the Seychelles Fisheries Legislation was quite comprehensive, the Management Plans were still inadequate. In most cases decisions were taken without the proper consultation of stakeholders except for the Department of Environment and some private interest groups that had an important involvement in National Marine Fisheries Policy.
22. There was some disappointment that the VMS system presently being implemented by Seychelles was not underscored as a key management tool for the near future. In fact vessels targeting tooth fish would no longer be registered in Seychelles until this system was in place.
23. New laws had been enacted in accordance with the FAO compliance agreement that would require Seychelles registered vessels fishing outside Seychelles waters to be authorised and to pay a fee.
24. The authors noted that in writing the report they were pressed for time and had to submit the report in a limited deadline. Otherwise their report could have been even more comprehensive.
SOUTH AFRICA
25. South Africa regarded the process of marine fisheries policy Harmonization as an important part of the implementation of the SADC Protocol on Fisheries. The team anticipated that the outcome of the process would result in an enhancement of fisheries management capacity and practice across the region. This was a necessary step to ensure sustainable utilisation and the ability to extract the maximum economic contribution from marine resources for the benefit of everybody in the region.
26. South Africa had recently reviewed its fisheries management legislation and enacted new legislation (Marine Living Resources Act/1998). The process of writing the national report afforded the opportunity to assess the implementation of this Act.
27. It was considered that trade and food safety aspects could have been more systematically integrated into the questionnaire.
28. Participation at this workshop was considered as an opportunity to share the South African experience and enrich their understanding of fisheries management in SADC.
TANZANIA
29. There were delays between the filling in of the FAO - PH forms and signing of employment contracts. National authors were not released from their routine work specifically to undertake the report. It was further noted that FAO did not facilitate the process of merging the two separate reports from Zanzibar and Tanzania Mainland as national authors from both sides tackled the questionnaire as a team.
30. Several stakeholders including the private sector were consulted in preparation of the report.
