Part 1: Issues
6.2 Resource management
But if we apply for those people in our area, they reckon there is no more fish for the people making a living out of the sea… the Government wants to give us certain fish. It’s not sustainable… (R1)
Commercial off-shore got 80% while commercial near-shore got 20%, which to me is just not fair. (R5)
There was frustration that people failed to understand the issue of sustainability, and that species were being over-caught.
Some of the resources have been over-caught, which is one of the problems. But people do not see that as a challenge. (R8)
Others felt that there was a genuine interest in sustainability, which was not being noticed by others.
We know that tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, we still want to live from that resource. So how would we then destroy it if we want to protect it? We respect the sea, because it is our sustenance, because we live from it. (R3)
The high value of the WCRL was seen as a factor that created problems in the Western Cape, as it was in demand by the commercial, recreational and small-scale sector.
Another issue was that of the export-oriented market and value chain of the WCRL, particularly the difference between the initial price paid to a fisher and the end-price. Some also pointed to the difficulty around the fact that the small-scale sector was dependent on the WCRL for income as well. This added to the differences between the small-scale sectors in the various coastal provinces of South Africa.
… in the Western Cape there is no pure subsistence as is in the Eastern Cape and in KwaZulu-Natal, where they just consume themselves whatever they caught, and maybe a small proportion is sold for school fees and whatever other needs they have, to supplement their income. In the Western Cape they have the same needs, but they want to go more commercial, but not full-scale commercial. Rock Lobster… it’s a highly valuable resource. I think the Rock Lobster is a difficult one because of the value. (R15)
Some felt that the impact of environmental factors and climate change on marine resources should be taken more seriously. Others were anxious that MPAs would become the next hotly contested issue, as there was a perception that MPAs were being used to punish both the commercial and small-scale sectors.
6.2.2 Community factors
Community expansion and job loss was considered a serious threat to the marine resources.
You find that the number of people who are claiming to be true subsistence, bona fide fishers is increasing… the challenge of an ever-increasing number. People lose employment wherever, they come back home and they claim to be recognised, “I’m a subsistence or bona fide fisher”… the resources allocated cannot sustain the number of people who need or demand access to the resource. (R8)
A harsh reality was that there were hardly any other job opportunities in the coastal towns.
6.2.3 Indigenous knowledge
This was an issue that many respondents expressed strong views on. Some argued that scientists undertook research and made recommendations without consideration for the indigenous knowledge of communities.
And if MCMs researchers decide that there are no fish, but according to our indigenous knowledge, that daily come from the sea, there are. We have visions, our own understanding to use the resource sustainably. We today go out from the south, and we pick up a few fish, catch them with a hand line. Then we come tomorrow, if it is a sea day, then we go back to the same island where we catch more fish. Then we find a quarter, or more than a quarter to a half, and the fish don’t bite, then we move somewhere else, to another island and then the fish bite. (R3)
A challenging aspect was that not everyone understood numbers and mathematical modelling, and that people often had a simplistic way of understanding the status of resources.
But when we ask about the status of the resource, someone will say, “well, I’ve caught a lot of Lobster yesterday, so then the resource must be healthy”. But it may just be healthy in that particular place, not all over the coast. Maybe the whole resource is depressed. So the people
remember what they caught yesterday, but they don’t recall that five trips before that they caught nothing, so the average is not so good. So the time scales are different. (R7)
It however appears that the need for recognition of indigenous knowledge may have more to do with the desire to be included in decision-making.
The researchers don’t take our indigenous knowledge… it’s more that they don’t want to take decisions with us. (R3)
There was a sense though that progress had been made on this issue.
And I think if we had someone on our side who could talk the language of ecological science, it would have helped us find a common point sooner. I think they’re hearing us now and that we also care about the resource, we also want a sustainable system, they starting to listen to us. Because the community needs to be supported in sorting out what is indigenous knowledge and what are myths. That process needs to be handled very positively and creatively, it’s critical. There’s a huge gap that the scientists don’t include the fishers. Their knowledge must be integrated with scientific knowledge. But we mustn’t romanticize indigenous knowledge…
But actually, it’s so complex; we have to be realistic and critically aware. (R10)
We need to see the value in it and we need to engage it. That has to be balanced with national needs and with the whole range of the species. It also has to be balanced with what role does that location have in that species’ national population. But we haven’t engaged it at all. So maybe we could, we could engage. (R15)
One respondent however wondered whether the recognition of indigenous knowledge would resolve the problems.
Recognition of indigenous knowledge or not, I don’t know if it’s a solution to the problem at hand. (R8)