Part 1: Issues
6.1 Stakeholder concerns
6.1.2 The quota system
The quota system was regarded by some to be the root cause of the problems between the various stakeholders. There were perceptions that the quota system was merely a continuation of the former system. Some also believed that it was structured for the commercial sector and that they were being favoured. There was also a sense that the quota system did not actually bring about true transformation.
If you look at the new policy that was brought in post ’94, it was actually a policy written for the big industry. And the small-scale fishers sort of had to squeeze in and fit in with that. It wasn’t tailored to their unique needs. (R10)
There hasn’t been change as to who actually has it… the piece of the pie… the commercial companies haven’t changed… they may have put in what I call a figure-head… so that they are representative in the company as far as directors are concerned… so because there is affirmative action in the company, they still get the rights to the fishery. (R9)
Others however differed on the transformation issue.
If you’re talking transformation in terms of demographics, it’s already been fully transformed – both on a race and on a gender basis; it’s pretty good. (R7)
One of the main problems was that only some people received quotas.
There were people that should’ve got but didn’t, and some that got but shouldn’t have got. So you have a situation where you have some happy people and a large number of unhappy people. (R13)
The main critique about the quota system was that it was seen to be a one-size-fits-all solution.
There was an understanding by some that the Government had good intentions but had
struggled to practically translate them. Some argued that the quota system may not have been such a bad thing but that it may have been more applicable to the commercial sector. Certain comments reveal that Government should not only have been more sensitive to the values of the communities, but should also have prepared people for what was coming.
The state, a person mustn’t say all this is bad. The big companies create work in our communities, so you can’t say they are bad. The state must protect the resources, so you can’t say they bad. But they tried a one-size-fits-all. And I think that’s where the mistake was.
There’s a quota system that you apply for, and if you don’t get, then you don’t get. And that’s wrong. I think the quota system is a good thing but it should have been done around how the people lived. And there should naturally have been improvements. I don’t disagree with that.
And then big business does to a certain extent create jobs. But not all of us benefited from the quota system. It should have been there, especially importantly for the protection of our resources. But it should have been around the way the fisherman lived. (R2)
Some felt that the real problem was that there was not enough communication and participation with all involved.
The allocation process was fair but there was insufficient consultation with the people that were living in the areas. (R13)
One of the issues with the commercial sector was that they were originally assigned rights on the basis that they were providing jobs to communities.
But initially, I think there was a move by the Department to allocate to commercial bodies, because there’s a group of thinking that commercial enterprises and industry, even small, medium and large industry, all of them generate jobs. And they generate a better quality of jobs. There isn’t enough fish to allocate to every person, so that was the thinking. (R15)
An issue raised by some was the temporary nature of the fishing business, resulting in workers receiving no benefits or being easily retrenched, as well as the fact that fishers had nothing to do once the fishing season was closed. The greatest problem however was with factories that were shut down and businesses which moved for financial reasons. Some of the fishing companies for example, decided to export rock lobster, which translated into the shedding of critical jobs, which had negative spin-off effects in the communities.
Even though from time to time there are a group of people who are benefiting from the commercial sector through job opportunities and fish factories. But you find that most of the fish factories are being closed down… there are fish factories that have closed down, which were seen as the main source of living to the locals, the reason being that the market is also a challenge. And where the factories are, they are moving also, shifting down eastwards.
Because it’s costly now to transport or to ship the resources up to the west. So they are moving factories down to the east, so they can minimise costs. So those people up there are left stranded. They’ve got nothing, and I mean nothing. (R8)
Some felt that the commercial companies should have taken more responsibility, and that Government should have intervened in creating jobs in the fishing communities, rather than relying on the commercial companies.
So I think there is a social responsibility for those companies to come in as partners to try and address it… And the very local nature, immediacy of this (small-scale) sector enables them to spread the benefits at local level, in a way that larger commercial industry tends not to do.
Benefits and profits tend to get centralized and held in the hands of a few monopolies in the commercial sector. (R10)
A few issues around recreational fishers were raised, such as the fact that they could obtain permits from post offices throughout the year. There was some frustration that recreational fishers had easy access, despite the fact that they were not dependant on the resources. There was also a feeling that Government was siding with them.
If you look at the quantities that are worked out for the recreational fisher, then it’s unreasonable. Yes, I know we must think about the injection that you get from the recreational fisher. It’s part of tourism. But there’s a difference with livelihoods, because it affects people on the ground, who make a living from the sea. (R5)
Some were distressed about people who obtained recreational permits and then used them illegally, while others were distressed about how recreational fishers were being treated.
MCM must stop demonising recreational fishing, small-scale fishers must stop demonising…
they picking on the wrong people. (R9)
A contentious point was the suggestion that recreational fishers could engage in other activities, because they were not reliant on fishing. This caused distress as it was argued that fishing was a
way of life for recreational fishers, just as it was for small-scale fishers. Some also pointed out that the sector did not present a threat as it was generally low effort.
… it’s custom and tradition… it’s sort of religion to go fishing and diving… Who are the bigger threat, those commercial guys or the guy that goes out with three people in his boat.
We are not the threat, we low impact, high reward. (R9)
There was also debate around whether recreational fishing made a valuable contribution to the coastal fishing towns. There was doubt as to who precisely benefited from tourism.
The value chain is quite difficult to unravel, but there are lots of jobs that are created downstream of recreation. (R7)
I’m not convinced it’s creating jobs and livelihoods and trickling down to these poor coastal communities. (R10)
The local filling stations employ local people, they stay at local B&Bs during fishing competitions. They require some fishing gear from locals, often they come with their own fishing gear, very specialised… but the bigger issue is that people may not see it coming down to them. (R15)