27 November 2007 - Media
Statement - Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism - TUESDAY, 27 NOVEMBER
2007: The Tsitsikamma National Park Marine
Protected Area is the oldest Marine Protected
Area in Africa. Its marine life is one of
our most important national assets. In addition,
this MPA is a refuge for breeding populations
of a number of over-exploited line fish
species. The Park and MPA are also major
tourist attractions. It is visited by more
than 200 000 people per annum.
In order to protect and grow marine resources
local communities have, since 1975, been
progressively excluded from fishing in the
Tsitsikamma MPA. In 2000, because of the
collapse in line fish stocks, my predecessor
decided that no fishing whatsoever would
in future be permitted in this MPA.
MPAs are a key part of our strategy to
manage vulnerable eco-systems in a sustainable
way. They are the life-support system critically
needed to resuscitate ailing oceans and
collapsing fish stocks. They provide a refuge
for fish, and indeed all marine species,
to increase in quantity, size and reproductive
output. MPAs also increase catches outside
reserves as juveniles migrate. Because of
our determined and forward-looking approach,
South Africa today counts amongst the world
leaders in implementing the goals set at
the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development
- 18% of South Africa's coastline falls
within formal protected areas.
It is, inter alia, against this background
that I duly considered recent proposals
for the opening of parts of the Tsitsikamma
MPA for recreational fishing.
In considering the issues at stake, I met
with local leaders and personally visited
the area in October. I also requested DEAT
to advise me on the matter. DEAT recommended
that limited fishing in the MPA be allowed,
albeit on an experimental basis (for a period
of 12 months) and exclusively to local fishers
who are members of the local angling forum.
After careful consideration of this proposal,
I have decided to uphold the status quo
by not allowing any fishing in the MPA.
The reasons for originally closing the MPA
in 2000 and the prevailing underlying circumstances
have not changed. It is important to note
that this decision will not have an impact
on food security in the area as the issue
dealt with is a matter of recreational fishing.
At a fundamental level, the establishment
of “no-take” MPA’s are in line with our
well-considered and justified World Summit
on Sustainable Development (WSSD) commitments
as well as our general fisheries management
approach. We have a core responsibility
to manage our fish stock sustainably for
the benefit of future generations. In doing
that, we must balance the need for equitable
development today with the right of future
generations to be able to do the same.
Opening this MPA to recreational fishing
will set a dangerous precedent in a conservation
area that is closed to all, for the benefit
of all. Allowing a few people access for
recreational purposes would negate the benefits
that accrue to all South Africans. A decision
to open this MPA would effectively have
signaled a broader shift in policy on the
part of government and the beginning of
a new approach that is neither sustainable
nor in line with our stated objectives.
In addition, opening the MPA would undermine
its biological sustainability. Certain line
fish species are already managed as an “emergency”.
The impact of catches in the MPA will lead
to a decline in abundance because many of
the resident fish species are slow growing.
This, in turn, will reduce the effectiveness
of the reproduction potential and distribution
of eggs and larvae - therefore diluting
the pool of reproductive fish as well as
the availability of fish outside of the
MPA. Line fish catches in particular, have
collapsed almost everywhere along our coastline.
Simply put - there is insufficient breeding
fish to replenish line fish stocks. Only
MPAs hold these breeding fish in sufficient
quantities to provide for new fish recruitment.
If the MPAs themselves are opened to fishing,
the entire national fishery will be further
jeopardised.
Finally, it was also clear to me that,
because of various practical constraints
and peculiarities, it will be extremely
difficult for effective compliance measures
to be put in place to ensure that fishing
activities comply with permit conditions.
This will further expose the MPA to unnecessary
risk.
In conclusion, opening the MPA will no
doubt make a few people happy in the short-term.
In the long-term, there will be a greater
loss to the eco-system as a whole. That
loss will be shared by many more South Africans.
MPAs are a short-term sacrifice for a worthwhile
long-term gain. Opening the MPA for the
exclusive use by a few will bring into question
the value of MPAs by the remainder of fisherfolk.
I therefore call on local communities to
respect this decision. It is in the interest
of the whole nation and long term sustainable
and equitable growth and development. In
this instance I do not want to put at further
risk the interests of fisherfolk who rely
on line fish for a livelihood by giving
access to recreational fishers to an important
breeding ground of many of our line-fish
species.
Riaan Aucamp
