Steve Cunningham, Economist, Institut du Développement Durable et des Ressources Aquatiques (IDDRA)
BACKGROUND
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
The historical development of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (the Code) is recorded in the Preface and Annex 1 of the Code. In summary, it records the following. The fact that aquatic (and other) resources, though renewable, are finite and need to be properly managed has recently formed a topic of global focus. Fish are now recognised as providing vital sources of food, employment, recreation, trade and economic well-being for people throughout the world, both for present and future generations. From 1991 onwards a series of FAO actions have been taken by the Committee on Fisheries (COFI), the Council, and the Conference which have culminated in the adoption at the 28th Session of the FAO Conference of the Code on 31 October 1995. The first six of the twelve Articles of the Code are general in nature.
Article 1 of the Code, in describing its nature and scope, states that it is voluntary (although some parts of it which refer to marine capture fisheries are based on relevant rules of international law) and is global in scope. The Code, which provides a series of principles and standards, is directed towards members and non-members of FAO, sub-regional, regional and global organizations (both governmental and non-governmental) and all persons concerned with the conservation of fishery resources and their management, including producers and those engaged in the processing of fishery products and other users of the resources which fisheries utilise.
Article 2 records the objectives of the Code, which can be paraphrased as being to:
Article 3 concerns the relationships of the Code with other instruments and states that the Code is to be interpreted and applied in conformity with the relevant rules of international law. Nothing in the Code prejudices the rights, jurisdiction and duties of States under international law.
Article 4 of the Code concerns the implementation, monitoring and updating of the Code. Inter alia, it notes that all members and non-members of FAO, fishery entities and relevant sub-regional, regional and global organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, and all persons concerned with the conservation, management and utilisation of fisheries resources and trade in fishery products should collaborate in the fulfilment and implementation of the objectives and principles contained in the Code. In accordance with its role within the United Nations system, FAO will monitor the application and implementation of the Code and its effects on fisheries and the Secretariat will report accordingly to COFI. All States, whether members or non-members of FAO, as well as relevant international organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental should actively co-operate with FAO in this work. FAO, through its competent bodies, may revise the Code, taking into account developments in fisheries as well as reports to COFI on the implementation of the Code. States and international organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, should promote the understanding of the Code among those involved in fisheries, including, where practicable, the introduction of schemes which would promote voluntary acceptance of the Code and its effective application.
Article 5 notes the special requirements of developing countries in relation to the Code. The capacity of developing countries to implement the recommendations of the Code should be taken into account. Thus, in order to achieve the objectives of the Code and to support its effective implementation, countries, relevant international organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, and financial institutions should give full recognition to the special circumstances and requirements of developing countries. They should also work for the adoption of measures to address the needs of developing countries, especially in the areas of financial and technical assistance, technology transfer, training and scientific co-operation and in enhancing their ability to develop their own fisheries.
The general principles of the Code are contained in the 19 sub-sections of Article 6 and may be summarised as follows:
Articles 7-12 contain the specifics of the Code. These Articles, whose contents form the subject of the Consultation to which this national report contributes (and are therefore not summarised here), cover the following topics:
FAO have also issued technical guidelines for responsible fisheries covering:
1. ADMINISTRATION, LEGISLATION AND FISHERIES POLICY
1.1 Administrative framework
1.1.1 Administrative systems and forms of government
In general, the Government of SADC countries is based on centralised rather than federal systems. South Africa is something of an exception because, although not federal, it does have nine Provinces with authority in certain areas. These areas are established in the Constitution and may involve power-sharing with the central government (Schedule 4 of the Constitution) or exclusive Provincial competence (Schedule 5). Mozambique also has a provincial organization. The United Republic of Tanzania has a union government involving the Tanzanian mainland and Zanzibar. So-called “union matters” guide the administration of both governments but fisheries is not included, meaning that each side of the Union has separate fisheries institutional frameworks.
1.1.2 Administrative arrangements for marine fisheries
Sometimes the fisheries portfolio is held within a Ministry with broader responsibilities (Tanzania - Natural Resources and Tourism; Zanzibar - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment, and Co-operatives; South Africa - Environmental Affairs and Tourism; Seychelles - Agriculture and Marine Resources; Congo - Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock). Other countries have dedicated Ministries of Fisheries (Mozambique and Mauritius), whilst in Namibia, there is a Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources and in Angola a Ministry of Fisheries and Environment.
1.1.3 Administrative arrangements for related sectors
As a general rule, the larger the country, the more complicated the administrative arrangements and hence the greater the need to ensure collaboration between potentially overlapping, or even conflicting, authorities. Considering, for example, the areas of inland fisheries, ports, harbours, fish markets, trade and commerce, public health, coastal area management, and inland and marine water quality, all of which are likely to have some relationship with marine capture fisheries, in South Africa for example, it might be necessary for the fishery authorities to consult with 6 other Ministries (Departments) as well as municipalities and local authorities.
1.1.4 Relationship between fisheries authorities and other related authorities
Where co-operative arrangements are formalised, it is usually in terms of standing and ad-hoc committees. Often however the fisheries authorities act as lead agency for the sector and try to involve other authorities on the basis of invitations to meetings and requests to comment on proposed legislation. The other Ministries may also help to set goals and standards (e.g. on health-related matters or for trade purposes). Relationships seem to be informal in many cases, based on collaboration/co-operation between government departments. However, given the dependence of the fishing industry on so many other sectors for a productive working environment, both at sea and onshore, it may be worth considering a more formal approach to this issue.
1.1.5 Administrative constraints with respect to responsible fisheries
The important issue of lack of compliance with regulations is raised in almost all national reports. The problem has two aspects. The first is that MCS systems are inadequate, partly at least because resources are inadequate to ensure enforcement. This aspect is being partly addressed through the SADC-wide MCS project, for some countries.
However, a second important aspect concerns the philosophy underlying the design of management systems. Where MCS resources are limited (which is the case almost everywhere), a more cost-effective approach is to design fishery management systems that, so far as possible, provide incentives to fishers to fish responsibly without the need for expensive enforcement activities. The most common way of achieving this is to implement some kind of co-management system; another is to implement management based on use rights of some kind. One difficulty raised is that there are currently inadequate structures to ensure a high level of co-management in the SADC region. A particular problem in the case of island states, raised by Seychelles, is that the inevitable dispersion of the industry has made it difficult for fishers to set up proper representational organizations. In South Africa, attempts are being made to address the compliance and co-management issues in the case of management plans that are being revised. It would appear worth while considering this second aspect of the compliance problem alongside the MCS issue.
1.2 Legal framework
1.2.1 General
1.2.1.1 Principal fisheries legislation
All the national reports identify a principal fisheries legislation with titles that vary from country to country. Not all such legislation refer to “long term conservation and sustainable utilisation” as an objective. However, some of the legislation which does not, for instance the Seychelles Fisheries Act and the Tanzania Fisheries Act, strives to support long term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources through its operative provisions.
1.2.1.2 Consultation with interested parties in drafting legislation
The national reports indicate that broad consultation for the purposes of drafting fisheries legislation is not a matter that is specified in fisheries legislation or that is legally required of concerned authorities. However, most of the SADC coastal countries, according to the National Reports, do consult with other government agencies and stakeholders in the process of reviewing fisheries legislation.
1.2.1.3 Collaboration on legal issues foreseen within SADC
In the context of fisheries and the relations of SADC members under the auspices of the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, countries generally view collaboration on legal matters, and in particular harmonization of legislation, as a natural consequence of the Treaty. Specifically, Mauritius considers that harmonization of fisheries laws, assistance in judicial and legal matters (over and above co-operation on extradition) and enforcement (including cross-authorisation to prosecute) are important. Seychelles notes that harmonization of laws would include removal of custom barriers and removal of legal barriers to trade. South Africa notes the need to achieve compatibility between national and regional strategies and programmes, to promote and maximise utilisation of natural resources in the region, to achieve sustainable utilisation of natural resources and effective protection of the environment; and identifies the areas of co-operation of significance to fisheries as: food security, land tenure and agriculture; infrastructure and services; industry, trade, investment and finance; and natural resources and environment. Tanzania associates the SADC collaboration with what is necessary to achieve a holistic approach in conservation and management of resources and their use in a sustainable manner.
1.2.1.4 Bilateral, sub-regional or regional fisheries organizations or arrangements
Many of the countries are also members of other regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements or implement programmes under arrangements to which they are not parties. Mauritius notes that the organizations or arrangements to which it is a party do not envisage co-operation in legal matters while other countries (Seychelles, South Africa) hint at co-operation in a wide range of issues under the auspices of the organizations or arrangements to which they are parties. South Africa lists numerous arrangements that it intends to join. Tanzania identifies the Lusaka Agreement on Co-operative Enforcement Operations Directed at Illegal Trade in Wild Life Flora and Fauna, 1994, and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade as relevant in the context of co-operation on legal matters relating to fisheries management.
1.2.1.5 Mechanisms to disseminate laws, regulations and other legal rules
Many countries mention various means for the dissemination of laws including the use of radio programmes, newspapers, brochures, booklets, television (Seychelles), internet websites (South Africa), seminars, workshops, courses and informal consultations. Mauritius reports no established mechanism for dissemination of laws but the government conducts informal discussions with stakeholders. Mozambique, Seychelles, and South Africa report that their laws are published in official bulletins or national gazettes.
1.2.2 Management Objectives
1.2.2.1 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
All the countries except Angola are parties to CITES. Insofar as it relates to fisheries, some countries (Seychelles, South Africa) report a combined application of the principal fisheries legislation and other legislation relating to the protection of wildlife and national parks or the environment. Mauritius reports that its Wildlife and National Parks Act 1993 and the Wildlife Regulations 1998 are specific to the implementation of CITES. Mozambique and Tanzania, in contrast, mention that there is no legislation specifically enacted for the implementation of CITES but consider that their fisheries laws do give effect to some requirements of CITES.
1.2.2.2 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
All the countries are parties to the CBD. None of the countries have specific legislation for its implementation although some countries report that their fisheries laws (Mauritius, South Africa), marines parks and reserves or conservation legislation (Seychelles, Tanzania) or environment legislation (Mozambique) give effect to some requirements of the Convention.
1.2.2.3 Control over environmental impacts on the resources from human activities
Control and regulation of the environmental impacts of fishing and related activities is non-existent in a few jurisdictions while it exists and is complex in others. Many of the jurisdictions (Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania) have environmental protection legislation that can apply to post-harvest and other activities related thereto. Such laws require the production of environmental impact assessments before certain proposed activities are approved or undertaken. The principal fisheries laws and regulations in Mauritius, South Africa and Tanzania also provide for the protection of the aquatic environment from fishing and related activities. The Marine Living Resources Act of South Africa specifically states that the Minister may require an environmental impact assessment report to be submitted by an applicant for a right to undertake any fishing activities.
Most countries’ fisheries legislation require that the authorities should establish measures that take into account selectivity, environmentally safe and cost effective fishing gears and catch of non-target species.
1.2.3 Management Framework and Procedures
1.2.3.1 The Compliance Agreement and the Fish Stocks Agreement
On record, only Namibia and Seychelles are parties to the Compliance Agreement. Similarly, only Mauritius, Namibia and Seychelles have ratified the Fish Stocks Agreement. However, most countries claim to give effect to some extent to the two agreements through legislation. Only Seychelles has more elaborate provisions in the new amendments to its fisheries legislation introduced in March 2001 to implement the two agreements. South Africa has basic provisions to implement the two agreements in respect to prohibition of fishing on the high seas without authorisation and could pass further regulations to control fishing on the high seas by South African nationals and vessels. Namibia has made it possible for it to implement the two agreements by regulations under its new fisheries legislation. The other countries will need to amend legislation or make regulations to effectively implement the two agreements as they only have very basic and inadequate provisions in principal legislation in this respect.
1.2.4 Data Gathering and Management Advice/Precautionary Approach
1.2.4.1 The Precautionary Approach
Only South Africa has specific reference in legislation which requires that measures be made with regard to scientific advice and the precautionary approach. However, all the countries have taken or can take scientific advice and the precautionary approach into consideration in the drafting of laws.
1.2.5 Management Measures
1.2.5.1 Licensing
All the countries report that licensing is a common mechanism for input control which is entrenched in legislation. Therefore, no fishing can take place without some form of authorisation (rights, licensing or permits) regardless of whether such authorisations are in respect of use of gear (e.g. nets) or vessels. Namibia and South Africa combine licensing with a system of fishing rights. In Namibia vessels can be licensed only if the licence applicant also has a right of harvest, an exploratory right or a quota is issued in respect of a fishery and the applicant is granted a quota. In South Africa, local fishing rights and foreign fishing rights have to be granted in order for fishing to take place. However, no such right can be exercised without a permit. In principle, foreign fishing vessel licences can only be issued under an access agreement in Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa and Tanzania. Namibia can issue foreign fishing licences only to SADC member countries with whom it has access agreements. In the case of Mauritius, Seychelles and South Africa, foreign fishing vessel licences can be issued without an access agreement if financial and other guarantees are made.
The licensing procedures are more or less common in many of the SADC countries. Applicants apply to the licensing authority (usually the chief executive of the fisheries authority e.g. Permanent Secretary receives the application and the Minister responsible for fisheries matters issues the licences) in accordance with procedures specified in the principal fisheries legislation or regulations.
1.2.5.2 Extension of licensing to fishing on the high seas
Licences in relation to fishing on the high seas fishing can be issued in Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa and Namibia.
1.2.5.3 Fishing licence registers
There is some form of registration for fishing vessels or authorisations for most countries. In Mauritius, registration is required for fishermen and fishing vessels but not for fishing licences. Mozambique registers licences in its database at the Ministry. There is a register of rights, exploratory rights and licences in Namibia (which may include high seas fishing licences in the future). There are no regulations on registration of vessels or licences as yet in Seychelles although a high seas fishing vessels record is envisaged under the new amendments to the Fisheries Act. South Africa requires that a register be maintained for all rights of access, other rights, permits and licences with the registration system and format to be determined by the Minister. Such register shall be open to the public. Registration of fishing vessels and fishing licences is required in Tanzania.
1.2.6 Implementation
1.2.6.1 Sanctions in the event of non-compliance with conservation and management measures
All countries seem to report general satisfaction with the adequacy of sanctions in respect of violations of fisheries laws although there is a noticeable marked difference in fines for fisheries offences from small amounts in some countries to huge monetary penalties in others. The penalties are fines and/or imprisonment. Forfeiture of vessels, gear or fish are possible in Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles and South Africa. Enforcement powers are common in all jurisdictions which include the basic power of search and entry of fishing vessels in respect of violations.
1.2.6.2 References in fisheries laws and/or regulations to MCS, observer programmes, inspection schemes and vessel monitoring systems
Most of the laws and regulations of the countries allow conditions to be attached to authorisations or rights to fish, which, by inference, allows the imposition of MCS requirements. The law of Mauritius permits authorised officers to board and remain on vessels for purposes of inspection and collection of information. In addition, fishing vessels are specifically required to make departure and entry reports. Namibia has introduced in new legislation a specific agency to administer its observer programme and a specific fund to support it. There is also provision to require surveillance equipment to be installed on vessels. Seychelles has the power to require the installation of position fixing equipment on board a vessel and have stopped issuing licences to certain foreign vessels until they install VMS. South Africa’s law provides for inspection (in relation to enforcement) and observer schemes. It also requires that all foreign fishing vessels be equipped with VMS.
1.2.7 Legal framework for post harvest practices and trade.
1.2.7.1 General matters and national safety and quality assurance systems
All the countries have a food safety and quality assurance system in place but differ in the degree of control and regulation, ranging from what appears to be a simple regulatory system in Mozambique to an extensively regulated and complex food safety and quality assurance system in South Africa. All the national reports with the exception of Mozambique mention the combined operation of a food legislation and a legislation or set of regulations specific to fish and fish products safety and quality whether for import, export or for domestic consumption. Common with this concurrent application of food and fish and fish-products-specific laws is the joint or concurrent mandates of the Ministry responsible for health matters and the Ministry responsible for fisheries matters over fish and fish products safety and quality. Some countries (Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa and Tanzania) have principal fisheries regulations that also affect aspects of post harvest and trade practices particularly in the case of imports and exports of fish and fish products. In a handful of countries, there is a Standards Bureau (Mauritius, South Africa, Tanzania) and standards legislation which set standards for food processing for safety and quality considerations and ultimately consumer protection. A veterinary services certificate is required in Mauritius, Seychelles and Tanzania for exports of fish and fish products. Most countries have quality standards and sanitary and phytosanitary measures in place which do not discriminate between imports and fish food produced domestically.
Non compliance with the requirements or standards for food safety and quality assurance of fish and fish products constitutes an offence in all the countries. However the severity of penalties varies from country to country and is largely inadequate. Most countries implement standards or ensure compliance through an inspectorate within the government Ministry responsible for fisheries, the Ministry responsible for health matters or the standards agency. Unique to South Africa is a compliance system under which powers are delegated to the Local Authorities to implement health and food stuff legislation in respect of locally produced and consumed products.
Only South Africa and Tanzania detail the problems and issues that need addressing in the post harvest and trade regulatory sector. South Africa reports that legislation is fragmented and there are difficulties in determining the responsible authority. Different levels of government are also involved in enforcing different laws - from local authorities to National Departments, which creates differences in quality and approach to inspections, enforcement, prosecutions etc.
Tanzania reports a series of problems in enforcement due to:
1.2.7.2 Commercial fraud
Commercial fraud is an offence punishable by law in most countries by virtue of a standards legislation or penal/criminal codes.
1.2.7.3 Minimum standards for safety and quality assurance
All national reports indicate the implementation of HACCP and the quality standards agreed within the context of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission with the exception of Mauritius and Seychelles which do not implement HACCP requirements through legislation. South Africa is a member of the Commission and is represented on the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Fish and Fishery Products. The only country that has HACCP specific regulations is Tanzania (i.e. Fish (Quality Control and Standards) Regulations 2000). Tanzania’s regulations require establishments to employ a person trained in HACCP and such a person will be responsible for, inter alia, drafting HACCP plans and assembles the HACCP team. Notwithstanding the absence of HACCP specific legislation, many countries which export fish and fish products particularly to the EU (e.g. South Africa) voluntarily implement HACCP principles through published standards and certifications and envisage the formalisation of HACCP principles in regulations in the near future.
1.2.7.4 Environmental damage
The situation in the region concerning control and regulation of environmental impacts of fishing and related activities ranges from the non-existence of such control and regulation in one or two jurisdictions to complex control and regulatory regime in others. Many of the jurisdictions (Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania) have environmental protection legislation that can apply to post harvest and other activities related thereto. These environmental protection laws require the production of environmental impact assessments before certain proposed activities (e.g. construction of processing facilities or establishments) are approved or undertaken. The principal fisheries laws and regulations in Mauritius, South Africa and Tanzania also provide for the protection of the aquatic environment from fishing and related activities. The Marine Living Resources Act of South Africa specifically states that the Minister may require an environmental impact assessment report to be submitted by an applicant for a right to undertake any fishing activities which could include a processing facility licence. Congo’s legislation on marine parks also serves to protect the environment.
1.2.7.5 Trade in fish and fishery products
Most countries’ principal fisheries legislation or regulations impact on trade by requiring that approvals be obtained before imports or exports of fish and fish products can occur. Such controls are targeted primarily at ensuring compliance with food safety and quality standards. The SADC Protocol on Trade encourages the increase in trade in fish and fish products among the members but this has not been implemented or its implementation has been minimal. Exports to the EU have to meet HACCP requirements and be processed under regimes that meet EU equivalency in food safety standards as can be seen in the case of South Africa.
Current data indicate that trade in fish and fish products is not particularly important amongst the SADC members. This is reflected also in the non existent or weak regulatory framework in the member countries to facilitate such trade despite the fact that members of SADC are aware of the call to enhance trade and to implement effective regional compliance measures under the SADC Protocol on Trade and the Draft Fisheries Protocol. Some countries (e.g. Mauritius, Seychelles) have preferential trade arrangements with countries outside the SADC region but the socio-economic impact of these arrangements as well as the existence or otherwise of necessary national regulatory frameworks to support the arrangements are not mentioned.
The dissemination of information regarding regulatory frameworks concerning post harvest practices and trade is not mentioned in some national reports (e.g. Mozambique, Namibia) while others report ineffective dissemination of such information. There are plans to review laws relating to post harvest practices and/or trade in Mauritius, South Africa and Tanzania.
1.3 Fisheries policy
1.3.1 Broad goals
In common with many countries, SADC Member States generally have a range of potentially conflicting objectives for the fishery sector. It is not uncommon to find for instance that policy aims to increase domestic fish supply in order to contribute to food security goals whilst attempting at the same time to increase foreign exchange earnings from the sector. Although achieving both goals simultaneously is not always impossible, as resource exploitation levels increase, trade-offs between goals are increasingly required if the sustainability constraint is to be respected. Most countries explicitly recognise the need to ensure conservation and sustainability, but the implications of this constraint for the nature of the contribution that the sector might make to economic development could benefit from further reflection. In particular, the role of fisheries within the macroeconomic context of the different SADC countries could be usefully explored. In Mauritius, the 1998 10-year plan explicitly recognises that the potential for further development (in capture terms) of marine capture fisheries is limited and that therefore the focus must switch to maximising returns from existing fisheries.
1.3.2 Stakeholders
There is a tendency in SADC States to see the fishers who exploit the resource as the principal stakeholders. Emphasis may be placed on fisher groups (such as co-operatives and associations) because these are easier to identify and assist. However, it is acknowledged that a wide range of potential stakeholders exist in fisheries.
1.3.3 Participation in the definition of fisheries policy
SADC countries tend to consult widely in the formulation of fisheries policy. In South Africa, stakeholder input is channelled to the Minister through a statutory body (the Consultative Advisory Forum) and Mozambique uses a similar approach with the Minister advised by a Fisheries Administrative Commission. In Mauritius a very broad consultative process, involving a series of workshops on key issues with stakeholders, was followed in the development of the 10-year plan, and Tanzania and Zanzibar follow a similar approach when developing policy. Countries which do not yet utilise similar approaches might usefully draw on the experience of other SADC Member States in order to develop mechanisms to incorporate a broader range of stakeholders into policy-making.
1.3.4 Gender issues
Where the gender issue is specifically addressed it is in terms of ensuring equality of rights. In the case of both Seychelles and Mauritius, the issue is not specifically addressed but this seems to be because it is felt that gender has never been a barrier to access to jobs or business opportunities. Where gender might be a problem, it is not clear from the national reports to what extent women suffer either because they are paid less than men (or nothing at all) for doing the same work or because they do not, de facto if not de jure, have the same opportunities as men to attain posts of responsibility and better-paid work generally.
1.3.5 Prioritization of the goals of national fisheries policy
When asked to prioritise the goals set out in the Code of Conduct section 7.2.2 paragraphs a-g, it is interesting that almost all national reports placed first the objective of ensuring that “excess fishing capacity is avoided and the exploitation of the stocks remains economically viable”. Countries should therefore be encouraged, and where necessary assisted by FAO, to implement the International Plan of Action on Overcapacity. In pursuing the goal of avoiding excess capacity, countries should take into account the fact that only economically-based management instruments appear capable of achieving it. SADC Member States might consider the possible use of such instruments.
2. FISHERIES STRATEGIES AND PLANS
2.1 Fisheries management
2.1.1 Fishery management plans
2.1.1.1 Marine fishery management units
On the whole, fishery management units are clearly defined. However, the basis on which they are defined needs careful consideration. Within the same country, the definition sometimes depends on the species (for instance, the octopus fishery) and sometimes depends on the production method (for instance, the small boat trap fishery). Such an approach runs the risk of defining overlapping units which will complicate management, especially when adjustment, e.g. in effort, is required. There is a need to ensure coherence between management units, and to allow for adjustment both within and between units.
2.1.1.2 Existence of fishery management plans
The extent to which plans have been developed is quite variable from one country to another. In both South Africa and Namibia, fishery management plans have been introduced for all important commercial fisheries, and plans are currently being developed for the remaining fisheries. Tanzania also has fishery management plans in place for the 4 main fisheries but the definition of these fisheries appears very broad, which may hinder effective management. In other countries, the planning process has been less comprehensive to date and generally plans exist only for one or two major fisheries. There is a need to consider therefore extending this process.
2.1.1.3 Nature of fishery management plans
In South Africa, the aim of plans is to ensure sustainable use. Where necessary, a precautionary approach is adopted, including rebuilding strategies to as to optimise the sustainable yield. The foundation stone of plans is either the TAC or the TAE, which are set for all fisheries on the basis of annually-updated analyses of cpue and biological data.
In Namibia, the fishery management planning process is very advanced. In order to exploit a fishery, a fisher requires an exploitation right, a fishing licence and, in the case of the seven species comprising over 90% of Namibian catch, a quota from the TAC. Fishing is also subject to technical restrictions such as mesh-sizes, depth, areas, seasons, and so on.
In Tanzania, in the case of prawn trawling, management is effort-based. Trawlers must not exceed 25 metres and 150 GRT, with engine power restricted to 500 HP. Daily fishing time is also restricted and there is a 3-month closed season. Finally, 3 zones have been defined with vessels assigned to zones to avoid clustering and congestion in particular areas. In the case of reef fisheries, a co-management approach has been adopted.
In Mozambique, the only management plan is in the case of the shallow-water shrimp fishery. Management is based on the control of total effort (a TAC is established as a reference point only). Technical conservation measures are also used, such as a minimum mesh size, a closed season, zoning and so on.
In Seychelles, the only specific management plan relates to the mother-ship line fishery. The plan aims to ensure the sustainable exploitation of the resource and to optimise the economic benefit to the nation, but it is not clear from the national report precisely how this is to be achieved. An inshore fishery management strategy is being developed within which other plans might be put into place. The strategy is comprehensive but appears to require significant work in order for it to be implemented.
In Mauritius, the banks fishery is managed within a de facto management plan. The aim is to ensure the long term viability of the fishery. The basic approach has been to limit entry, with only 6 companies permitted to exploit the fishery. With so few participants, it is to be expected that a sustainable, economically-rational exploitation level should emerge. The development of a management plan for the St. Brandon group of islets is ongoing.
In summary, the planning process is underway but there is scope for development, particularly in the case of the Indian Ocean SADC member states.
2.1.1.4 Use of the precautionary approach in plan formulation
SADC countries are well aware of the precautionary approach and it has been widely used in developing fishery management systems, both in the case of formal plans and more generally.
However, notwithstanding its widespread influence, it appears that application of the precautionary approach might be strengthened further, particularly in the difficult but important area of negotiating pre-agreed management measures that will automatically be implemented in the event of limit reference points being exceeded.
2.1.1.5 Promotion of responsible fishing by fishery management plans
In the national reports, this issue was generally understood in terms of controls placed on the fishing industry. For instance, the range of technical conservation measures was listed and the severity of monitoring, control and surveillance systems was emphasised. These aspects are clearly important in any fishery management system.
However, although mention was made of liaison with the industry, the impression is of a traditional management approach where essentially fishers must be prevented from overfishing. Insufficient attention appears to have been paid to the alternative approach where the fishery management system is designed in such a way that fishers are provided with incentives to fish responsibly. The area of promotion of responsible fishing is one that requires attention.
2.1.1.6 The main benefits and beneficiaries of fishery management plans
Overall, a wide range of potential benefits and beneficiaries were identified in the national reports.
Benefits were seen in terms of:
Beneficiaries were seen as:
No single report included all aspects. In some cases, benefits were seen rather more narrowly as simply preventing the fishery from becoming overcapitalised with the main beneficiaries seen as the fishers themselves through the maintenance of their activities.
Responses to this question reflect the state of advancement of fisheries management in different countries. One interesting feature of the responses is that they reveal the reasons why management is implemented in different countries. The whole area of the purpose of fishery management is one that has been much debated, but it is crucial for the development of sound management systems. For this reason, it may be worth while to consider again the various biological, economic and social factors driving the need for management, and in particular to clarify the macroeconomic role that the fishery sector might play.
2.1.1.7 The role of relevant domestic parties in the planning process
The planning process is generally top-down with the Ministry providing the lead. A variety of other parties may provide some input, generally in the form of advice to the Minister/Ministry. In South Africa, some prestigious research institutions contribute mainly through the provision of research results, and by advocating conservation. In Mauritius also it is the Ministry of Fisheries that has been the driving force in the implementation of fishery management plans. Similarly in the Seychelles where the process is government led. In Namibia although the process has been led by the government, through the Sea Fisheries Act of 1992, there is heavy involvement by the industry in fishery management planning.
Tanzania appears to be an exception, using a wider bottom-up planning process. The Ministry is responsible for policy formulation and implementation, but there is widespread local involvement through the use of village management committees.
In Mozambique, the process followed in the development of the shallow-water shrimp plan was for the Ministry to develop a draft plan, with all stakeholders then invited to participate in hearings leading to the formulation of the final document submitted to the Minister.
2.1.1.8 Formal and informal structures to involve stakeholders in the planning process
The kinds of structure which exist in each country reflect the role of domestic parties in the planning process.
In some countries (Seychelles, Mozambique, South Africa), the only formal body is a Ministerial advisory forum. In Mozambique, this is apparently the only consultative mechanism because informal channels are not common in Mozambique and do not exist in the case of fisheries. In Seychelles, informal meetings are held when the need arises. South Africa has stakeholder participation in resource working group proceedings which make recommendations on TACs and TAEs. Informal meetings are also held.
In Namibia, a statutory body, the Sea Fisheries Advisory Council provides advice to the Minister. It comprises representatives of government, fishing industry, labour unions, and NGOs. In major fisheries, joint Ministry/Industry working groups design and conduct research and evaluate the results, as a way of enhancing common understanding of the fisheries resources and plans, and hence to develop and achieve shared goals.
In Mauritius two consultative committees (offshore and coastal) have been formally established to discuss fishery matters and advise the Minister. Fishers are represented on these committees. Informal meetings are also held.
In Tanzania, the bottom-up approach used in planning means that problems are first identified at fisher community level. There are frequent consultative meetings and seminars from village up to district level.
In the answers to this question, it is interesting that stakeholders is often equated to fishers. Consideration of appropriate stakeholders in fishing might be useful.
2.1.1.9 Improvements resulting from the use of plans
A number of improvements were identified.
For the fishing sector:
For administrators:
For society in general:
In general planning is seen as useful because it establishes a basis for dialogue between different stakeholders.
2.1.2 Fishery management strategy
2.1.2.1 Reasons for lack of plans in some fisheries
A significant constraint is insufficient human and financial resources (Tanzania, Zanzibar, Mozambique). Partly this constraint relates to the fact that staff are relatively inexperienced, with a particular lack of senior staff with experience in fishery management planning, although it also relates simply to inadequate numbers of staff. In Seychelles, it is felt that human resources are adequate but not financial, and the decision-making process itself could be improved with greater consultation with senior staff.
In Mauritius, the example is given of the coastal (lagoon) fisheries. This fishery has long been managed so that in a sense a plan exists, it is simply that it has not been formalised. One suggested reason for this is that the advantages of a formalised plan are not clear to the managers in a situation where current measures work satisfactorily. Another factor is different perceptions of what constitutes an acceptable plan from the viewpoint of the FAO Code of Conduct, coupled with a lack of concrete examples of the design and implementation of plans in the region.
In South Africa, management planning is relatively advanced. It is in the artisanal and subsistence fisheries that plans remain to be developed, the focus to date having been on high volume and high value commercial fisheries.
In Namibia on the other hand all commercial fisheries are now subject to management plans.
This discussion suggests that it would be useful to have a workshop on the nature of fishery management plans, including their design and implementation, at least for the Indian Ocean SADC countries and particularly in the artisanal fishery context.
2.1.2.2 Arrangements for future management plans
In South Africa the intention is to improve existing plans and to introduce, where appropriate, plans where none currently exist. A Subsistence Fishery Task Force was established in 1999 to develop a management model for the sector.
Namibia is developing a shark management plan. Seychelles expects to have a sea cucumber plan soon.
Some countries (Tanzania, Zanzibar, Mozambique) intend to introduce further plans in the future but it is not always clear how this is to be achieved. In Tanzania, a number of training activities are underway, including improved MCS, and an FAO project is due to commence with the specific aim of producing fishery management plans.
2.1.2.3 Fishery management when formal plans do not exist
In many cases, the informal management system constitutes de facto a plan, or at least contains the groundwork for such a plan. For instance, in the case of Seychelles, the national report states that where there is no formal management plan, the broad approach is to use effort limitation, closed seasons or gear restrictions. The situation under a formal plan is unlikely to be very different to this. The case of Mauritius is similar, with most fisheries managed either using licensing or through standard conservation measures (gear, area and/or time restrictions etc). Tanzania also relies on licensing, whereas Zanzibar uses a co-management approach. In South Africa a precautionary approach is adopted, with precautionary catch limits being established.
The discussion in this section, together with the examples given in the national reports of how fisheries are managed in the absence of “plans”, tends to reinforce the conclusion reached above (section 2.1.2.1.) that it would be useful to organise a workshop to discuss the precise nature of fishery management planning under the Code of Conduct.
2.1.2.4 Formal and informal structures to involve stakeholders in the process
The arrangements seem to be similar to the case where formal plans have been developed. Often, formal arrangement exist for consultation between government departments. Consultation with other stakeholders may be undertaken formally (South Africa, Namibia) as well as informally (Seychelles, Mauritius).
In Tanzania and Zanzibar, even where no formal plan exists, exchanges of views between various stakeholders is facilitated through workshops, seminars and meetings.
2.1.3 Benefits and consequences
2.1.3.1 Assessment of the benefits and consequences of fishery management
In most countries, benefits and consequences are assessed through the compilation of catch, effort and other statistics which are analysed and the results published in an annual report. This report is available to all stakeholders.
In South Africa, a number of economic impact criteria are used to assess benefits, including the following:
whilst the consequences of management are evaluated annually through:
There would seem to be general scope for the development of socio-economic indicators of the consequences of fishery management. At the moment, most attention seems focussed on the biological state of the resource. Whilst clearly an important indicator, it tends to be a consequence of economic activities being undertaken. It seems important therefore to begin to develop economic indicators. Even in South Africa, which appears to have gone the farthest in this direction, economic indicators are restricted to impact; some indication of economic efficiency would be useful, particularly with regards to resource rent generation, given the primordial role of rent in overfishing and in determining the potential macroeconomic contribution of the sector.
2.1.3.2 Adequacy of human and capital resources to implement the Code
In most cases resources are considered inadequate to fulfil all the tasks demanded by the Code.
Areas highlighted generally as causing concern include:
Suggestions made to address this problem include:
Specific problems were raised by Tanzania where there is a need also to improve fish landing sites and educate small-scale fish processors to ensure hygiene. There is a related need for a quality assurance programme.
In Zanzibar, it was suggested that the fisheries sector should have its own budget, and should keep some percentage of the revenue collected.
The situation was a little different in Mauritius and in Namibia where it was felt that resources were probably adequate. In both cases however it was felt that training programmes were required in a number of areas. In Mauritius, the following were mentioned: resource assessment including the determination of reference points, assessment of gear performance, socio-economic impact assessment, assessment of critical habitats, assessment of fish quality and food analysis. In Namibia, training is also required but the government is in the process of addressing the problem through the creation of Namibian training institutes.
2.2 Awareness, co-operation, co-ordination and participation in responsible fisheries
2.2.1 Strategies to promote awareness of the importance of responsible fisheries exploitation
Throughout the SADC area, quite a wide range of strategies is being pursued by different countries. It would be an interesting exercise to exchange experiences so as to identify the most cost-effective methods of getting the Code of Conduct message across.
One fairly widespread feature is the equation of responsible exploitation with conservation. It is important perhaps not to overplay the conservation card, given the widespread benefits that come from the exploitation of fishery resources. The over-riding focus of the Code is not on conservation per se but on the sustainable and economically rational use of fishery resources.
In the conservation context, South Africa has an annual Marine Week and Marine Day designed to give wide publicity to marine issues (especially conservation) and galvanise public opinion. T-shirts with a conservation message are distributed, especially to school children. Mauritius has arranged seminars for secondary schools on marine conservation and the need for marine protected areas.
2.2.2 Promotion of responsible fisheries and the Code of Conduct within the fisheries sector
In most SADC countries, promotion of the concept of responsible fisheries and the Code of Conduct has so far focused mainly on the fishery sector.
Tanzania has encouraged the formation of fisher associations, and the involvement of fisher communities in policy formulation and implementation. In Zanzibar, there has been an attempt to increase the awareness of fishing communities of the need for sustainable exploitation. Traditional management systems have also been encouraged so as to empower local communities. In Mauritius, half-day seminars have been organised for artisanal fishers to raise awareness of the need to conserve the marine environment. South Africa requires all applicants for fishing rights to sign a Code of Conduct for responsible fishing practices in South African waters. In Namibia, the use of working groups where all stakeholders are involved in the design of fisheries research offers a mechanism for improved understanding of the need for responsible fishing. Seychelles has undertaken extension programmes to train fishers on the construction and effective operation of some gears. Both Mozambique and Congo are assisting fishers to organise themselves into associations.
2.2.3 Co-operation between the fisheries sector and other stakeholders
Some of the activities mentioned in section 2.1. could also be included here. South Africa has also facilitated discussions between the fisheries sector and the oil and gas exploration sector in order to improve sector-specific responsibility. Tanzania organises frequent meetings, workshops and seminars involving various stakeholders and uses the mass-media to inform the public of the issues concerning the fisheries sector. In general, however, this is an area where specific strategies remain to be developed.
2.2.4 Information on responsible fisheries available to the fisheries sector
Official policy documents (Acts of Parliament, Policy and Strategy documents) are available. Posters and brochures are also produced although often the focus is on what the sector must NOT do, in terms of prohibited activities. More positive views of responsible fishing seem absent. FAO Code of Conduct-related documents are also available.
There seems scope both to improve dissemination of existing material and to produce new material to explain simply the basic ideas involved in responsible fishing, and particularly to present it as a positive approach to fishery exploitation, rather than a set of constraints for fishers. It is very important to stress what benefits fishers can expect by sticking to the Code, as well as the sanctions if they do not.
2.2.5 Comprehension, acceptance and application of precaution and responsible fisheries
In all SADC countries, the managers seem to be well aware of the concepts. The situation concerning resource users varies somewhat from one SADC country to another. In South Africa, resource users may be faced with a conflict between the application of the concepts and their personal interest. Managers have been under pressure from a number of directions to increase catch - e.g. from traditional users who wish to maintain their previous level of activity and from potential users who were excluded under previous political arrangements and who now wish to participate. This is one aspect of the adjustment problem in fisheries, but it is a particularly acute problem in the South African case.
In Namibia, the Ministry, in adopting and using the Code-of-Conduct-based white paper, has indicated its understanding, acceptance and willingness to implement the concept of precautionary approach. It is this framework that led to the establishment of the present-day fisheries exploitation regulation.
In some countries (Seychelles), the long tradition of open access makes it difficult to get these concepts across effectively to users.
In Mauritius, fishing companies have been co-operating with managers to try to fish more responsibly. For instance, they do not supply small hooks to fishers in an attempt to avoid catching smaller fish, and if these are caught the companies refuse to buy them. There appears to be general awareness of the dangers of overexploitation in the case of lagoon fisheries.
In Tanzania, where fishing communities have been sensitised to the importance of these concepts, they seem to be generally well accepted throughout the system.
2.2.6 Provisions to make the fishing sector aware of the potential risks of resource exhaustion or irreversible adverse changes
Practice differs somewhat between SADC countries. In order to convince fishers of the risks of resource exhaustion, Tanzania and Zanzibar appear to rely on the fact that regulations are required, for instance to ban dynamite fishing, and to point to the poor state of the industry. Seychelles ensures that research results are quickly disseminated, and in case of new ventures fishers are advised of the potential impact of non-responsible practices. In Mauritius, awareness-building workshops are held at the research centre. Some short videos on aspects of marine environment and fishing techniques have been produced. In South Africa, there is communication between the Ministry and industry representatives but there is a need for much broader dissemination according to a communication plan. Namibia is an exception because its fishing industry is well aware of the problems, and there has been no need for special programmes to make them aware. On the whole, however there appears to be much more that could be done in this area.
2.2.7 Co-ordination and funding of awareness-raising strategies
Funding for such activities appears to be very limited. In general, what funds are available are centrally-provided, although in some cases NGO and donor funding may be available.
It is difficult to assess the impact of such activities. The evaluation of effectiveness tends to be limited to indicators such as attendance at meetings and participation in discussions.
2.2.8 Transparency within fishery management systems: some examples
In South Africa, the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2000 ensures that information on processes and decisions by Government are accessible to the public. One example concerns the setting of TACs. Representatives and user groups are involved and may make representations at various points in the process. A similar process is followed in Namibia and in Mauritius (in the case of the banks fishery).
In Seychelles also, information regarding various aspects of fisheries management is in the public domain. And stakeholders can appeal decisions made by the Minister or management authority.
In Tanzania, a licensing advisory committee exists which includes stakeholders from the industry, fishery communities and fishery managers.
2.2.9 Suggestions for greater transparency
Notwithstanding the transparent approaches mentioned in the previous section, it is possible to identify areas where greater transparency would be useful. In order to achieve greater transparency, two broad strategies are suggested:
Namibia is an exception, in the national report it is argued that the current process is sufficiently transparent and that transparency is not an issue.
2.3 Incentives and deterrents
2.3.1 Incentives for fishers to operate in a more responsible manner
One approach, which has both carrot and stick elements, is to include previous behaviour as one aspect of the allocation process when distributing use rights. This approach is used in South Africa where one of the criteria used in the allocations process is: Conservation & resource utilization. It questions whether the applicant has a record of transgression of laws and regulations and whether catch statistics are submitted. Poor performance on this criterion could result in withdrawal or reduction of an allocation. A good record could result in retention and increase in the allocation.
Financial incentives are also used where fishers who exploit under-utilised species receive tax breaks. Seychelles uses this method giving fishers who engage in specialised fishing techniques tax rebates, duty free fuel, duty free import of spare parts etc.
Namibia has no specific incentives but there are some built-in mechanisms that can be equated to incentives. These are the possibility of renewal, extension or upgrading of Right of Exploitations. In Mauritius also there are no specific incentives for responsible fishing, although the government has compensated those who have been prepared to give up lagoon net licences and re-train to fish outside the lagoon, since this contributes to reduce pressure on over-exploited lagoon stocks.
2.3.2 Deterrents or disincentives to discourage non-responsible actions by fishers
All countries have the standard range of fines and/or imprisonment for serious fishery offences. These penalties are supplemented by others, depending on the nature of the fishery in different countries.
For instance, in Tanzania, habitual offenders are blacklisted at the community level and they may also be tried by village councils. In Tanzania, Mauritius and South Africa, in certain cases, the vessel and its catch may be seized. And in most countries, licences and other rights can be revoked.
At the moment, fisheries management in the SADC region (as in most countries around the world) operates much more through systems of deterrents than through incentives. The extent to which incentives might be more widely used in order the achieve the goals of fishery policy is something that is worth considering across the SADC area.
2.4 Research
2.4.1 Aspects of research absent or under-represented from the Code viewpoint
Most countries (except Namibia) identified areas where research needs strengthening. The most common need was for socio-economic research to underpin fishery management, evaluating the costs and benefits of alternative management options. Seychelles, Mozambique and Tanzania appear to require support to develop research in a wide range of areas. It would seem of interest for SADC Member States to investigate the possibilities for joint research on topics of mutual interest.
2.4.2 Aspects of research absent or under-represented of importance to fishery management
In most countries the research needs are fairly similar. Past research has focused on biological parameters. There is a need now to develop other areas. Some countries want to see more socio- and bio-economic work (Mauritius, Seychelles). Tanzania needs to improve information on the status of fish stocks so as to enable managers to take appropriate measures to avoid overexploitation.
In South Africa, the priority has been on high value commercial species. As a result, there is a lack of knowledge of low value species.
2.4.3 SADC co-operation as the solution to the problem of insufficient research
A number of national reports (South Africa, Seychelles, Tanzania, Mozambique) suggested that there should be a programme to identify common research needs for the region, followed by co-operation in research programmes to address those needs on a regional basis. The Zanzibar report dissented however arguing that SADC co-operation had not so far resolved the problem. The issue of funding was raised in the Seychelles report. In the Namibian one, it was pointed out that Namibia already participates in a number of regional research programmes. And the Mauritius report points out that SADC Marine Fisheries Sector project portfolio already has seven regional projects in various stages of implementation. These projects may provide a good basis for solving the problem of insufficient research.
2.4.4 Relevance of research to the productive fishery sector
The Tanzanian report argues that the relevance is minimal. A lack of co-ordination between policy-makers and research institutions has resulted in institutes doing research in isolation, and most of it is not of an applied nature. The Zanzibar report makes a similar point. In the case of Mozambique, it is argued that the research can be relevant but very little is published.
In Mauritius it is felt that the research is relevant but that nonetheless there is need for more stakeholder participation in defining research programmes in order to meet their needs. In Seychelles it is argued that research is necessary to assess the status of the resource, and ensure sustainable exploitation.
The situation is different in South Africa and Namibia because the research undertaken is very focused, being used to calculate TACs and also to identify productive fishing areas. Such research is clearly relevant.
As research funding tends to stagnate and decline around the world, fishery research institutes are increasingly being faced with the problem of how to prioritise their research and how to ensure that it is relevant to the needs of users. At the same time, fishery managers need to ensure that researchers are able to respond to the pressing fishery management questions that they face. It seems that most, if not all, SADC countries are faced with this problem. Consideration of mechanisms to prioritise research and develop effective links between research and users would seem worth while.
2.4.5 Links between the academic sector, national fishery research institutes and management authorities
In South Africa, there is a high level of co-operation which has been formalised into the South African Network for Coastal and Oceanographic Research (SANCOR). SANCOR interacts directly with fishery management authorities and with the national research funding body.
Seychelles Fishing Authority functions as both the management authority and the research institute, so there is necessarily a close link. It also co-operates with a number of foreign research institutes.
In Namibia there are no formal links but strong informal ones between national fishery management authorities and the academic sector. The situation is similar in Mauritius where the Albion Fisheries Research Centre, which operates as both the research and management arms of the Ministry of Fisheries, has strong informal links with the academic sector.
In Mozambique, only informal links exist. These depend strongly on the individuals involved.
In Tanzania and Zanzibar, frequent consultative meetings are held.
These links are greatly to be encouraged and where they are of an informal nature, it may be worth considering formalising them.
2.4.6 Dissemination of research results
Mechanisms used to disseminate research results include research reports, research publications, consultations between researchers and others, extension services, meetings and workshops, and the use of the mass media.
A number of suggestions were made for improvement, including improved linkages between researchers and the users of information, more stakeholder participation in the planning and review stages of research programmes, more funds allocated to research, use of the internet (websites), communications in plain language and possibly travelling roadshows to present the results of research.
2.4.7 Translation of research results into fishery management action
In general, it is reported that management measures are based on the best available research results and scientific evidence. However, it is not always clear what the process is by which the latter are translated into management measures.
In South Africa, research working groups make recommendations to the Department. These go to an advisory body where stakeholders can make an input before final submission of recommendations to the Minister. In Zanzibar, extension services are used to disseminate and encourage uptake of results at community management level.
Overall, it might be useful to look at the process via which research results become management action. How, for instance, should research results that are not from government research institutes be incorporated into the process?
2.4.8 Prioritization of fisheries research by the fishery management authorities
Only South Africa has a formalised system. Activities are prioritised by fisheries managers through their annual research budgets. Their plans are submitted to the advisory committee where they are assessed on the basis of their balance in addressing fishery management needs and supporting policy formulation. Otherwise, ad-hoc rules are followed for the choice of research projects. The problem of prioritization of research could usefully be addressed in order to ensure that the limited research funds available produce the greatest return possible.
2.5 Data
2.5.1 Improving data sets to bring them into line with the requirements of the Code
The data situation differs quite widely between SADC Member States. At the one end are countries such as Namibia, South Africa and Mauritius whose data sets already appear to meet the requirements of the Code. One interesting suggestion made in the South African report is that in order to be able to achieve regional collaboration, agreement should be sought on data verification systems and long-term archiving so as not to lose valuable information.
The system in Seychelles needs to provide more social, economic and market data.
In Zanzibar and Mozambique, there is a need for a general improvement in the data that are available.
Finally, the Tanzanian report highlighted the important point that improving data sets will only happen if sufficient personnel are available.
2.5.2 Data sharing arrangements exist with other SADC countries
Most countries provide statistical reports to the SADC co-ordinating unit. There has also been some sharing of environmental data between some SADC states in the context of different research projects.
3. RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES PRODUCTION
3.1 Responsibility in fisheries management
3.1.1 The environment
3.1.1.1 Coastal resource users competing with the fisheries sector
The fisheries sector in SADC countries faces serious threats from a variety of sources for the use of coastal resources. A pervasive problem is tourism and general recreational development. The tourism sector is generally much more significant economically (in terms of contribution to GDP for instance) than the fisheries sector. Hotel developments tend to use inshore waters both for recreational activities and for effluent discharge. The problems associated with tourism are often made worse due to growing domestic population.
Urbanisation, often accompanied by land reclamation is also a widespread problem. Such developments generally contribute to land-based marine pollution and where reclamation is involved destroy fish habitat including marshlands, beaches, grass beds and areas of coral reef.
Land-based pollution may also come from industrial development and agriculture. In Mauritius the textile industry is a particular problem with effluents from dying often being pumped into the sea. Fertilisers and pesticides used in agriculture also find their way into coastal waters.
The development of other natural resources may also conflict with fishing. Oil and gas exploration is ongoing in most countries, and offshore diamond mining on the Atlantic coast.
Aquaculture may also compete with fishing. In Seychelles, a planned pearl culture activity was stopped due to conflict with artisanal fishing. In Mozambique, it is expected that the aquaculture sector will develop over the next few years increasing competition for coastal resources. And in Congo, both offshore oil production and the establishment of a marine park represent constraints on fishing activity.
3.1.1.2 Integrating fishing with other coastal area activities
A number of approaches are used to try to integrate fishing with other activities.
A common approach is to encourage the adoption of fishing and other practices which avoid conflict. One way of doing this is through zoning (e.g. marine parks) of coastal and marine areas for fisheries eco-tourism, and for sport fisheries (Zanzibar, Seychelles).
Some countries (Seychelles, Mauritius) require an EIA to be carried and made public before development projects in the coastal area can be approved. In South Africa, the EIA framework is at the planning stage.
Tanzania involves fishing communities in decision making and in other coastal-related management, planning and development.
In South Africa, coastal zone management and marine resources are the responsibility of the same Ministry.
Despite these elements, it appears that this area could be further developed. Some national reports recognised this explicitly: in Mozambique, there is as yet no policy in this area, and in Mauritius there is a need to develop a more comprehensive coastal area management policy. It appears that this same need applies fairly generally in the SADC area.
3.1.1.3 Links between public institutions responsible for environmental monitoring and national fisheries authorities
In South Africa a number of institutions are involved.
In the case of Mauritius, the lead institution on environmental matters is the Department of the Environment. The Albion Fisheries Research Centre is responsible both for fisheries monitoring and for the monitoring the marine environment and marine ecosystem. This Centre is part of the Fisheries Ministry and collaborates with the Fisheries Protection Service which is responsible for enforcing legislation. The Environmental Protection Act established an inter-ministerial Environment Co-ordinating Committee on which the Ministry of Fisheries is officially represented.
In Zanzibar also, the various Departments concerned (Environment, Fisheries, Cash Crops, Fruit and Forestry, together with the Institute of Marine Science, and Municipal Councils) are linked through their membership of steering and planning committees.
In other countries (Seychelles, Tanzania, Namibia), whilst there is close collaboration between the different agencies involved, the links tend to be limited to meetings, workshops and seminars together with informal consultations as the need arises.
In Mozambique, three Ministries (Fisheries, Transport and Communications, and Environmental Affairs) are concerned with lines of communication between them (e.g. information on licences is communicated to the Transport Ministry and on processing plants to Environmental Affairs).
Overall, it might be worth while reviewing the situation to try to strengthen the position of the marine fisheries sector by formalising the need for the line Ministry to be involved in decisions concerning other sectors that may potentially have an impact on fishing.
3.1.1.4 Constraints faced by the public sector in the monitoring process
By far the most common problem identified in the national reports is the inadequacy of human and financial resources in order to fulfil the complex task (Tanzania, Zanzibar, Mozambique, Seychelles, Mauritius, South Africa)
The fact that Government has traditionally been organised along sectoral lines with no real culture of inter-governmental collaboration adds to the problem, particularly at the operational level where they may be no clearly established lines of intra-ministerial communication (Namibia, South Africa).
In Tanzania, the problem is complicated by poverty among fishing communities and a lack of awareness of the need to protect and conserve the environment leading to environmental degradation.
In order for Governments to meet their commitments to the Code of Conduct, new ways of addressing problems institutionally must be gradually developed in order that cross-cutting issues can be dealt with effectively. The generally identified lack of resources is probably a reflection of the low priority that has so far been accorded to this problem by most governments.
3.1.1.5 Awareness in the fishing sector of the importance of monitoring environmental conditions to protect itself against problems caused by other resource users.
Partly as a result of Government awareness-building campaigns, fishers throughout the SADC region seem well aware of the issue.
3.1.1.6 Possibilities for fishers who identify unfavourable environmental impacts caused by others
In Mauritius, fishers have formed associations and pressure groups to protect their rights and seek redress against polluters whose activities have negatively impacted the fisheries sector. A case is ongoing concerning development of three areas around Port Louis, but the principle of compensation has already been accepted.
Generally, fishers are simply able to report the incident to the Fisheries Authorities, who then decide what action to take. In Tanzania, Director of Fisheries is required to consult with appropriate institutions in order to ensure that a polluter cleans polluted water at his expense and within a specified time period.
This area appears to need further consideration in the SADC Member States. The fundamental issue is the rights that fishers have. The Mauritius case makes it clear that fishers have rights that can be protected legally. This is very important for the fisheries sector. Other countries might explore the extent to which a similar approach might be developed and/or encouraged.
3.1.1.7 Concerns of NGOs about the environmental consequences of fishing, and the impact of other users of the same resources on the environment
The NGO situation varies substantially within the SADC area. In some cases, there appears to be no NGO interest in the fishing industry (Mauritius, Namibia, Tanzania - marine).
In others, NGOs are concerned with both the direct and indirect impacts of fishing (South Africa, Zanzibar). It is reported that in South Africa, some NGOs do not consider fishing not a legitimate activity.
In Seychelles, NGOs may represent sectoral interest (e.g. conservation of sharks to promote viewing by tourists).
3.1.1.8 Legal constraints on those who would cause environmental damage
This is a very difficult area in practice. In many countries (Tanzania, Zanzibar, Mozambique, Seychelles), there is no real constraint, because legislation is inadequate, or the representatives of the legal system are not sufficiently aware of problem, or the penalties are too low to represent a real deterrent or it is difficult to obtain convictions. However, in Seychelles, foreign fishing activity is very well monitored.
In Mauritius the law is clear but establishing cause and effect in environmental problems is difficult so that in practice the legal provisions are ineffective. The situation is similar in South Africa.
To some extent, the problem reflects the lack of manpower and financial resources in this area but the problem is more difficult than that. There is clearly a need to identify the legal and practical requirements in order to bring this problem under control.
3.1.2 Conflicts and overcapacity
3.1.2.1 Conflicts in resource use
Various kinds of conflict exist. The most serious appear to be between different segments of the fishing industry itself. In Zanzibar, there has been conflict between fishers over dragnets which are used illegally, destroying fixed gears and causing environmental damage. The conflicts have been very serious. The authorities are attempting to control the situation through bye-laws which will be jointly enforced by villagers and the military. In Mozambique, the conflict is between inshore artisanal fishers and trawlers. An attempt has been made to resolve the problem by setting aside a 1-mile zone for the artisanal sector but this is difficult to enforce. A similar problem exists in Tanzania.
Conflict between commercial and recreational fishing is fairly widespread. And conflict between fishing and other coastal activities is mentioned above and is also widespread.
3.1.2.2 Actions being taken within the fishery sector to alleviate resource wastage by reducing the excessive use of inputs (overcapacity, subsidies,...)
In general, the control of capacity is in its infancy in the region. In South Africa, the Ministry has established an effort limitation committee with responsibility to match effort to TAC. The Committee also attempts to match each vessel’s “capacity” with its allocation.
In other countries, traditional management measures are adopted, including non-transferable vessel licensing coupled with no new entry (Mauritius) but this leads to constant demands for new licences; limitations on the size and number of trawlers (Tanzania), gear restrictions such as encouragement to use fuel-efficient engines (Seychelles) and regulations on the rigging of trawls to control the swept area (Tanzania).
Only Mauritius reports the use of a buy-back programme (in the case of the lagoon-based net fishery).
In order to meet the requirements of the Code of Conduct, and the International Plan of Action on Capacity, it appears that SADC countries will have to develop much further the instruments that they have available for the management of fishing capacity.
3.2 Issues of public concern
3.2.1 Socio-economic issues
3.2.1.1 Programmes to support the adoption of technologically and economically appropriate exploitation practices by local communities.
A wide variety of programmes have been adopted in the SADC area.
In Zanzibar, a co-management approach has been used. The Menai Bay Conservation Area (a project funded by WWF) has successfully reduced illegal fishing by involving local fishers in monitoring. And the Misali Island Conservation Project, also co-management, appears to be working well. It might, however, be noted that both projects are of recent origin; the challenge will be to ensure that they are sustainable.
In Mauritius, one approach has been to encourage the development of offshore fishing (using FADs) accompanied by the development of a new fishing technique (vertical longlines). The idea is to reduce pressure on overexploited traditional demersal species.
Seychelles has used technical conservation measures to achieve these goals (licensing, closed areas, gear restrictions, closed seasons, encourage selective gear). And similarly South Africa and Tanzania have both encouraged the use of less destructive (and more labour intensive fishing methods): for instance, in the case of the former, the use of ring nets instead of traps in the rock lobster fishery, and in the case of the latter the phasing out destructive fishing methods by providing environmentally friendly gear in Mafia Island Marine Park. Tanzania has also, in the Tanga Coastal Zone Management Programme, replaced beach seines with gill nets, and encouraged the development of alternative income-generating activities in coastal waters.
In Mozambique, there have been some programmes managed by the Institute for Small Scale Fisheries Development but the national report does not give details.
Only Namibia is a special case where this kind of programme has not been necessary (because of the absence of artisanal fishing).
3.2.1.2 Credit, subsidies and the like available to the small-scale fishery sector
The situation differs quite widely among SADC Member States. The most comprehensive support seems to be in the case of Mauritius, where fishers are eligible for subsidies (no customs duty on outboards, on fishing gear and safety equipment, fisher associations pay no duty on ice-making machines, ice-boxing and vehicles, free life jackets), welfare (allowances for bad weather, closed season, training, some scholarships for fisher family children) and credit (loans available to go offshore fishing, the aim being to reduce pressure on lagoon resources. These loans require vessel or engine and bad weather allowance as collateral which gives rise to some complaints but otherwise the system functions well.
In Seychelles, some credit in form of interest-free loans for vessel and engine up to US$10,000 is available. The Development Bank also provides loans with low interest rates and long repayment periods. There are fuel subsidies. Fishing gear, boats and engines obtained through Grant Aid are sold to fishers at cost price. In addition, fishers can purchase vessels, equipment and spares duty free. The credit schemes generally work well but the repayment record to the Development Bank is not good (over half of loans are in arrears). Registered fishers also qualify for social security benefits in case of illness.
In Mozambique, several NGOs providing micro credit to small scale fishery sector.
In South Africa, the Department of Trade and Industry has a loan guarantee scheme but this has not functioned well to date. The main problem is the lack of collateral as access rights are only granted on an annual basis. However, the Minister has announced that longer term rights will be issued in the future.
Tanzania and Zanzibar both previously operated such schemes but they did not function well. Repayment and lack of collateral were the major constraints.
In Namibia, no credit scheme exists. However, quota allocation used as a method to favour access for previously disadvantaged groups to fishing.
3.2.1.3 Organization of local communities into associations or other groupings
Most countries have such organizations and on the whole they appear to function well. In Zanzibar, it is reported that there are over 132 although some have collapsed due to lack of capital. Some of these groups were formed as the result of a loan or other assistance, and the members were not particularly committed. Experience in Mauritius suggests that it is easier to organise larger-scale activities, since over three-quarters of the banks fishers are in one of two associations. The rate of membership of artisanal fishers is much lower (in one of three main associations).
In South Africa, local community associations are primarily for artisanal fishers. They have only recently been constituted and are experiencing some teething problems. It is intended that they will eventually become the vehicle for co-management.
Seychelles is something of an exception. Associations have existed in the past but have not lasted. Currently only one association exists but there has recently been increasing interest on the part of fishers.
In Congo, the Government offers assistance to establish and develop fishers’ associations.
3.2.1.4 Research on the socio-economic effects of fishing
The amount of research being undertaken on the socio-economic effects of fishing is very uneven. Most countries report relatively little current work. In South Africa, there was some socio-economics in the past, but there is no such programme at present. However, the Department has commissioned an industry-wide economic study by sector and this is currently underway. In Mauritius, there has been no recent socio-economic research, although a proposal has been made to FAO/UNDP for a socio-economic study of the entire fisher community. Tanzania reports a very limited amount of such research, and Zanzibar none.
In the Seychelles, on the other hand, many such studies have been undertaken by local and foreign consultants, whilst in Mozambique, there are several research programmes directed towards socio-economics.
The national report for Namibia argues that because there is continuous monitoring by Ministry and other Government branches of the socio-economic effects of fishing, there need has not been felt for such research. Nonetheless, Namibia would be interested in participating in such research in the future.
On the whole, the impression gained is that this is an area that could be strengthened. Perhaps a SADC workshop to compare experiences and seek common elements of approach (e.g. survey design, analytical methods, interpretation of results) would be useful.
3.2.1.5 The rights, health and safety of fishery sector employees
This is an area that appears to require urgent attention in most countries. The best situation seems to be found in the cases of Seychelles and Mauritius but even here it is recognised that conditions in the fishing sector are below national norms.
Often health and safety in fishing is not included in legislation (Zanzibar, Mozambique, South Africa). In Namibia, there is no specific fisheries legislation, instead fishers are covered by general labour law. This may not be enough however when one considers that, in South Africa at least, fishing is considered the most dangerous activity of all sectors.
3.2.2 The public climate for fisheries exploitation
3.2.2.1 Responsiveness of the fishery sector to consumer needs
On the whole the sector seems responsive to its customers. In some SADC countries (Mauritius, Seychelles, Mozambique) there is very heavy demand for fish which is the main animal protein consumed.
In South Africa, the bulk of high value resources go to demanding foreign markets.
In Namibia, the main problem has been to stimulate fish demand since Namibians are not traditional fish consumers. The Government has successfully implemented a policy to gradually increase consumption, and per capita fish consumption has increased since independence from 4kg per annum to 8-12 now.
3.2.2.2 Government and fisheries sector attitudes to eco-labelling and marine stewardship
Attitudes ranged from positive (Tanzania, Namibia, Mauritius), favourable (Seychelles) to not opposed (South Africa). The South African national report felt that South Africa would follow the consensus of intergovernmental fora to which it is affiliated. In two national reports, it was felt that the issue was not relevant (Zanzibar, Mozambique)
3.2.2.3 Publicity by the fisheries sector of its adoption of responsible fishing
Where the fishing industry finds it useful, it has publicised its use of the concept. The best example is in the case of canned tuna from Seychelles. South Africa and Tanzania also report use of the concept.
On the other hand, Mauritius and Namibia say that it has not yet been used, whilst Mozambique and Zanzibar feel it to be irrelevant.
3.2.3 Role of NGOs
3.2.3.1 NGOs in the fisheries sector
The general impression is that NGOs are not particularly active in fisheries in the SADC area. Where they exist, they tend to fulfil one of two roles. Either, they focus on conservation, or they represent a lobby group for the sector in general or some element of it. In Mauritius the aim of the main NGO is to assist seamen in distress.
3.2.3.2 General attitude of NGOs towards fisheries exploitation
On the whole NGOs do not seem to be against exploitation, although some issues are mentioned in the national reports. In South Africa, NGOs are concerned by the impact on non-target species, and in Namibia, Greenpeace has expressed concern over seal-culling.
3.2.3.3 General attitude of Government and national fishing authorities towards NGOs
In general, Governments appear willing to collaborate with NGOs and to listen to their advice, provided that it is based on sound scientific principles. There is general recognition that NGOs are a legitimate expression of democratic rights and may be important to ensure that all stakeholder interests are represented in decisions on fisheries policy.
3.2.3.4 Activities by individual fishers or organizations in co-operation with NGOs to increase responsibility in fishing
Although the fisheries sector is seen to have a generally constructive relationship with NGOs, the number of activities at this level remains relatively small. In South Africa, exporters have adopted the codes of the Marine Stewardship Council and actively support its work. In Seychelles, the Fishing Authority has collaborated with an NGO in replacing shark nets by more selective longlines.
3.3 Co-operation at national, sub-regional and regional level
3.3.1 Regional and sub-regional co-operation programmes
The national reports are a little uneven on this question because some interpreted it to relate only to SADC initiatives, whilst others took a wider view. In the Tanzania report, SADC itself was seen as a regional co-operation programme ranking alongside others such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission.
One thing which emerges clearly is the existence of two groupings with distinct interests: the Atlantic seaboard states (Angola, Namibia, South Africa) and the Indian Ocean states.
On the Atlantic side, apart from activities foreseen through the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO), a number of regional programmes were mentioned, particularly the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Project (BCLME), the Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction Training Programme (BENEFIT). In addition, Namibia became a member in 1996 of the Intergovernmental Organization for Fisheries Marketing in Africa, and is considering a request to host the SADC regional unit of INFOPÊCHE, which is expected to be operational by end-2001.
On the Indian Ocean side, SADC Member States are generally members of organizations having a much broader membership. The question arises therefore of the potential interest of developing a SADC “position” within the context of such organizations and, if this is of interest, how to express it.
Examples of Indian Ocean organizations include the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) which has its HQ in Seychelles and members from all over the Indian Ocean; the Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Co-operation (IOMAC); the South West Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (SWIOFC) which is concerned with the management of demersal stocks, and which has Mozambique, Tanzania, Seychelles, and Mauritius as SADC members together with Madagascar, Kenya and Réunion; and the Regional Co-operation Programme of the Indian Ocean Commission (COI), which is concerned mainly with environmental programmes such as Coastal Zone Management and Coral Reef Monitoring and has Seychelles and Mauritius as SADC members together with Comoros and Madagascar.
Within SADC itself a number of regional programmes are being developed including the MCS project and the Regional Information Project launched in 2001. BENEFIT is also a SADC project.
Given the existence of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean interest groups, a big challenge facing SADC in the marine fisheries area appears to be the development of a SADC logic which encompasses the two groups.
3.3.2 Common actions among SADC countries in technical, economic, social, legislative and marketing aspects to increase the acceptance of the Code.
Although there is a general willingness to collaborate, it is clear that SADC faces a number of challenges in order to clarify its fisheries role and ensure that Member States obtain services from SADC that are useful to them. Different national reports tend to emphasise different aspects in line with national concerns. In the Indian Ocean, management of shared stocks, especially tuna, is seen as a key issue but of course a forum other than SADC exists to deal with this issue, so it is not clear precisely the role foreseen for SADC. Zanzibar and to a lesser extent Tanzania are the national reports that suggest the most extensive programmes for SADC. The former mentions a host of possibilities including MCS, joint utilisation of research results, joint technical and advisory committees on resource management, joint stock assessment, personnel exchange, reduced trade barriers, and marketing standards for products of SADC origin in addition to the management of shared resources. Tanzania mentions some of the same, and adds licence fee harmonization as another issue.
In South Africa, on the other hand, the national report suggests that there is a willingness to co-operate but cites as an example the fact that there is already extensive co-operation with neighbouring countries Namibia and Mozambique. But the importance of SADC membership (if any) in such co-operation is not clear. The Namibian report points to SEAFO and BCLME as examples of regional co-operation.
3.3.3 Sharing between SADC countries of information concerning the application of the Code
Generally responses to this question are positive. It is interesting to note however that the South African national report points out that the Regional Information project would lead to the establishment of a regional fisheries database but this project is not referred to in the other national reports. This suggests that there may be a need for wider dissemination of SADC activities, or possibly that different SADC countries have different expectations of the regional information project.
3.3.4 Institutions that might play an active role in promoting collaboration
The reports are unanimous that the impetus is expected to come from the Government institutions (including universities and research centres). Only the Zanzibar report suggests a very wide range of possible players.
3.3.5 Constraints to co-operation
The most common constraint was reported to be either a lack of human and financial resources or different levels of capacity between SADC member states. The South African report also suggested that the lack of common fisheries might be a problem whilst the Mauritian report indicated that the physical distance between countries might be a constraint, albeit not insurmountable.
3.3.6 MCS mechanisms
Mechanisms appear to differ quite widely between SADC member states. In Namibia, MCS is the responsibility of the Ministry of Fisheries, which makes use of patrol vessels, aircraft, and specialised vehicles along the coast, together with satellite-based monitoring. In South Africa, a system of fishing permits is supported by inspection at sea by the Navy together with onshore inspections. VMS is in the early stages of development.
In other countries also there is collaboration in MCS. In Seychelles, MCS is jointly undertaken by the Seychelles Fishing Authority and the Coastguard. In Mauritius, MCS comes under the Fisheries. Protection Service of the Ministry of Fisheries. All registered fishers must land at designated fish landing stations. The National Coastguard is empowered to control the EEZ but lacks the resources to cover such a huge area.
The national reports for Tanzania and Zanzibar suggest that MCS currently poses a problem.
3.3.7 The main shared stocks
The situation differs quite markedly between the Indian Ocean and Atlantic SADC seaboards. In the Indian Ocean, shared stocks seem to be limited to tuna and tuna-like species.
On the Atlantic, the South African report suggests that hake, pilchard, and prawns are shared whilst the Namibian report identifies pilchard as the most important shared stock.
3.3.8 Management of shared stocks
In the Indian Ocean, management comes under the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC).
On the Atlantic coast, the three countries have different management regimes so that there is no formal common management plan in place and each country manages its stock on its own. Namibia manages its pilchard stock as a quota species. The South African report points out that there is nonetheless co-operation between scientists in stock assessment.
3.3.9 Improving the management arrangements
In the Indian Ocean it is suggested that more countries should become IOTC members and that vessels should comply with the reporting requirements.
In the case of the Atlantic, the South African report suggests the joint management of shared stocks. Although the Namibian report goes along the same lines, it emphasises the need for scientists to determine the nature and extent of sharing in order for joint management to be possible.
3.3.10 Highly migratory and high seas stocks
For the Indian Ocean, this issue is covered in sections 3.3.7. to 3.3.9. above.
For the Atlantic, the South African report identifies the following stocks: tuna, swordfish, orange roughy, alfonsino and patagonian toothfish. The Namibian report emphasises tuna and swordfish.
Such stocks are managed internationally mainly through ICCAT and CCAMLR. A regional organization SEAFO exists. The South African report sees the ratification of SEAFO as the main hope for improved management.
3.4 Access arrangements
3.4.1 Access arrangements with foreign countries
A number of SADC countries have access agreements for the fishing of tuna. These include:
In addition there is a small bilateral agreement between Mauritius and Seychelles which allows 5 Mauritian vessels to fish in Seychelles waters.
The Tanzanian national report suggests that Tanzania has some agreements but no details are given.
Both Zanzibar and Namibia appear to have no formal intergovernmental agreements.
3.4.2 Concessionary access arrangements with foreign countries
Only in the case of Seychelles is it reported that concessionary arrangements exist. Two cases are identified: one where vessels are prepared to register under the Seychelles flag, the other in the case of regional preferences in the case of Mauritius and Kenya.
3.4.3 Advantages of being a SADC Member State
No country reports any particular advantage in the negotiation of access rights of being a SADC Member State. The Seychelles report suggests that this could become important in the future.
3.4.4 Fishing agreements between SADC Member States
The only agreement is that between Mauritius and Seychelles mentioned in 3.4.1. above.
3.4.5 Arrangements for companies from SADC Member States
There are no reports of particular arrangements for companies from one SADC Member State to invest in the fishing industry of another. Companies from SADC countries must follow the same arrangements as companies from any other country. However, as pointed out by the Seychelles national report, the entry into force of the SADC Trade Protocol may change things.
3.4.6 Arrangements for individuals who are nationals of SADC Member States
The general response is that foreign workers in the fisheries sector must comply with immigration rules in the same way as workers in any other sector. Nowhere does there appear to be an advantage to being a national of a SADC Member State.
In Tanzania and Zanzibar, it is reported that foreigners may work under normal conditions, but as in the case of the other SADC Member States, there are no special arrangements for SADC workers.
3.5 Trade in fishery products
3.5.1 Marketing
3.5.1.1 Exports to and imports from SADC countries over the past 5 years
The statistics reported are generally incomplete. As a rule, trade with other SADC countries is only a very small fraction of total trade in fish products. The major export market is the EU. The exceptions given are imports of frozen tuna from SADC countries for tuna canning in Mauritius and some trade in small pelagics and canned fish. Unfortunately, the national report for Namibia, the main exporting country did not report any statistics.
3.5.1.2 Contribution of fishery products to the balance of trade and to foreign exchange earnings
Export earnings from fisheries are generally very important to the SADC countries, especially for the island states (in Seychelles for instance fisheries exports represent around 94% of total exports). Regrettably, statistics for Namibia were not reported but FAO fisheries statistics show total Namibian fish exports in 1999 at 230,000 tonnes with a value of US$344 million.
3.5.1.3 Efforts to promote increased fish consumption, particularly for health reasons
There is a large variation in current consumption of fish in SADC countries and the need for active promotion of fish differs accordingly. Only Tanzania and Namibia report activities to promote increased fish consumption. FAO statistics show that fish consumption in 1997 for SADC varied from 65 kg in the Seychelles and 21 kg in Mauritius to 2 kg in Mozambique.
3.5.1.4 Impact of trade controls on fish products
Most reporting countries indicate that trade controls improve quality. Only South Africa certifies that fish exported has been caught legally.
3.5.1.5 Constraints on the international marketing of fish products, especially where due to foreign attitudes towards the environmental acceptability of fishery management or exploitation practices.
Potential problems are related to difficulties in following standards of export markets in general and the EU in particular but they relate to quality, packaging and labelling, and not to environmental issues or sustainability. It was sometimes felt (e.g: Tanzania) that embargoes by importing nations were not scientifically motivated.
3.1.5.6 Hidden barriers to the international trade of fish products
Potential problems are related to difficulties in following standards of export markets in general and the EU in particular but relate to quality and food safety. The EU accepts Angolan certificates only for unprocessed fish whilst South Africa is not allowed to export shellfish to the EU due to the lack of adequate water monitoring programmes. Tanzania suffered an EU embargo in 1999, although as mentioned in section 3.5.1.5. the motivation for the embargo is considered unscientific.
3.5.2 Quality and safety assurance
3.5.2.1 Consideration by the fishing sector of the importance of food safety in its harvesting and production.
All countries report the importance of food safety in general and how the following of regulations and standards is necessary in order to export, especially to the EU.
3.5.2.2 Incentives, and current control system, to ensure the nutritional value, quality and safety of fishery products.
The quality and safety of fish products has improved through increased requirements from export markets. Most countries report the use of HACCP systems. It is unclear though how this has been translated into national legislation with subsequent improvements in quality for domestically marketed products.
3.5.2.3 Co-operation between the fishing industry and other relevant actors to define rules and organise the control of quality
There seems to be no formalised co-operation between the fishery sector and other sectors. However, new legislation concerning food safety applying to all food products is forcing closer relationships between sectors as many of the perceived health hazards are the same for all foods.
3.5.2.4 Availability of trained staff to support the fishing industry in the implementation of quality assurance programmes and to verify their effectiveness
Responses vary between countries. Some countries report adequate personnel levels but most report inadequacies in both numbers and qualifications. All countries report improvements and ongoing training activities.
3.5.2.5 Effectiveness of the application of HACCP principles and the Codex Alimentarius
All countries report the required use of HACCP programmes and most consider the application to be effective. Mozambique and Mauritius report deficiencies in the effective application of HACCP.
3.5.2.6 Certification of shellfish-producing coastal areas
Several countries do not have any production of shellfish; most of those who do report monitoring of water quality.
3.5.2.7 Initiatives on the certification of fish products (as “being produced in an environmentally acceptable manner”)
All countries report that the main focus is on food safety and not on environmental issues. Domestic consumers are mostly price oriented.
3.6 New fisheries
3.6.1 Management policy towards new or exploratory fisheries
All countries naturally would like to see new fisheries developed, but there is general awareness of the need for precaution in such developments. Both Namibia and Seychelles require the use of an exploratory or trial period to demonstrate the viability of a new fishery before full commercial fishing can commence.
3.6.2 Approval process for new fishing ventures
The same basic principle is followed in all SADC countries, with local differences. Essentially, the system involves applications being made to the fishery management authorities who then consider the application against current policy and the current condition of the fishery involved, and advise the Minister as to the appropriateness of the proposal.
3.6.3 Access concessions granted to successful companies in the case of exploratory fishing
There is general recognition of the pioneer in cases where exploratory fishing leads to the development of a new fishery or a profitable new technique. This recognition generally involves preferential licence rights and may go so far, in Mauritius, as operators being granted sole rights for a limited period when they have carried out the preliminary survey and the exploratory fishing.
