Content uploaded by Moenieba Isaacs
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Moenieba Isaacs on Aug 08, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
SAMUDRA Monograph
1MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
SAMUDRA Monograph
Marine Conservation
and Coastal Communities:
Who Carries the Costs?
A Study of Marine Protected Areas and Their
Impact on Traditional Small-scale Fishing
Communities in South Africa
Jackie Sunde and Moenieba Isaacs
International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
www.icsf.net
MPAs
SOUTH AFRICA
About the Authors
Jackie Sunde, a Member of ICSF, is Research and Advocacy
Co-ordinator, Masifundise Development Trust, Cape Town,
South Africa. She can be contacted at jackie@masifundise.org.za
Moenieba Isaacs is Senior Lecturer-Researcher, Programme
for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), School of Government,
The University of the Western Cape, South Africa. She can be
contacted at misaacs@uwc.ac.za
SAMUDRA Monograph
Marine Conservation
and Coastal Communities:
Who Carries the Costs?
A Study of Marine Protected Areas and Their
Impact on Traditional Small-scale Fishing
Communities in South Africa
Jackie Sunde and Moenieba Isaacs
International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
www.icsf.net
SAMUDRA Monograph
Marine Conservation and Coastal Communities: Who Carries the Costs?
A Study of Marine Protected Areas and Their Impact on
Traditional Small-scale Fishing Communities in South Africa
Written by
Jackie Sunde and Moenieba Isaacs
April 2008
Edited by
KG Kumar
Layout by
P Sivasakthivel
Cover
Women waiting to meet the Chief
at the Mkambati MPA, South Africa
Photo by
Moenieba Isaacs
Printed at
Nagaraj and Company Pvt Ltd, Chennai
Published by
International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
27 College Road, Chennai 600 006, India
Tel: +91 44 2827 5303 Fax: +91 44 2825 4457
Email: icsf@icsf.net
www.icsf.net
Copyright © ICSF 2008
ISBN 978 81 906765 0 2
While ICSF reserves all rights for this publication, any portion of it may be freely
copied and distributed, provided appropriate credit is given. Any commercial use of
this material is prohibited without prior permission. ICSF would appreciate receiving
a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
The opinions and positions expressed in this publication are those of the authors
concerned and do not necessarily represent the offi cial views of ICSF.
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... vii
Preface ............................................................................................................................ ix
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... xiii
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
Section I: The History of Conservation in South Africa ................................ 4
Framework of Analysis .................................................................................. 5
Section II: South African National Legislative and Policy Frameworks,
Authorities and Jurisdictions .......................................................... 7
Section III: National Reporting on Biodiversity Conservation
and on the Programme of Work Targets ........................................ 12
Section IV: Fisheries Policy and Management in South Africa ........................ 15
Section V: Presentation of Key Issues from Five Marine Protected
Areas in South Africa .......................................................................... 18
1. Langebaan Lagoon MPA, Western Cape ............................................... 19
2. iSimangaliso World Heritage Site, including Maputaland
Marine Reserve and St Lucia Marine Park KwaZulu Natal ............... 22
3. St Lucia MPA–The Sokhulu Mussel Harvesters and Line Fishers ..... 27
4. Tsitsikamma MPA ...................................................................................... 29
5. Mkambati Nature Reserve within the Pondoland MPA ....................... 33
Section VI: Discussion and Findings ................................................................ 37
Section VII: Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................. 40
Endnotes ......................................................................................................... 43
References ......................................................................................................... 44
Appendix I: List of Key Informants and Sources ............................................... 48
Appendix II: List of Interviews for Mkambati Case Study ................................. 49
Figure: Marine Protected Areas and Small-scale Fishing Communities
in South Africa ................................................................................ 2
SAMUDRA Monograph
vMPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ANC African National Congress
CBC community-based conservation
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CCRF Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
COP Conference of Parties
DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
EC Eastern Cape
ECPB Eastern Cape Parks Board
EKZNW Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GOMBR Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve
GOMNP Gulf of Mannar National Park
ICSF International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
IWPA iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority
km kilometre
KZN KwaZulu Natal
MCM Marine and Coastal Management
MER marine extractive reserve
MIMP Mafi a Island Marine Park
MLRA Marine Living Resources Act
MLT Mkambati Land Trust
MPA marine protected area
mn million
NEMA National Environmental Management Act
NGO non-governmental organization
NORSA Norway-South Africa Marine Fisheries Co-operation Business Plan
NPAES National Protected Area Expansion Strategy
NSBA National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment
PA protected area
PA PoW Protected Areas Programme of Work (of the CBD)
PoW PA Programme of Work on Protected Areas (of the CBD)
Rrand
SAMUDRA Monograph
vi
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
RDP Reconstruction and Development Programme
SANParks South African National Parks
SFTG Subsistence Fisheries Task Group
TAC total allowable catch
TCAF Tsitsikamma Community Angling Forum
UCT EEU University of Cape Town Environmental Evaluation Unit
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
US United States
WHCA World Heritage Convention Act
WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development
WWF-SA World Wide Fund for Nature-South Africa
SAMUDRA Monograph
vii MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this report would like to thank the fi sher and coastal
communities of the Mkambati Reserve, Langebaan, Sokhulu and Mabibi,
who participated directly in the workshops and discussions that inform the
content of this study. In addition, we would like to thank all the key informants
who provided their valuable time to assist with the research for this study.
SAMUDRA Monograph
ix MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
PREFACE
As the conservation of marine resources becomes a growing global priority,
the concept of marine protected areas (MPAs) is being widely propagated.
Since most MPAs are located in coastal areas of great biodiversity, their
development has direct relevance and concern to the livelihoods, culture and
survival of small-scale and traditional fi shing and coastal communities.
An MPA is considered to be any coastal or marine area in which certain uses are
regulated to conserve natural resources, biodiversity, and historical and cultural
features. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defi nes an MPA as “any
defi ned area within or adjacent to the marine environment, together with its
overlying waters and associated fl ora, fauna, and historical and cultural features,
which has been reserved by legislation or other effective means, including custom,
with the effect that its marine and/or coastal biodiversity enjoys a higher level of
protection than its surroundings”.
As an area-based management tool, MPAs are considered useful in implementing
both the ‘ecosystem approach’ and the ‘precautionary approach’, since their
design involves managing pressures from human uses by adopting a degree of
protection, which can range from strict protection, where all use activities are
barred, to less stringent measures like sanctioning areas where multiple uses are
allowed and regulated.
In 2004, the Seventh Meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP7) to the CBD
agreed that marine and coastal protected areas, implemented as part of a wider
marine and coastal management framework, are one of the essential tools for the
conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity. The meeting
noted that marine and coastal protected areas have been proven to contribute to
(a) protecting biodiversity; (b) sustainable use of components of biodiversity; and
(c) managing confl ict, enhancing economic well-being and improving the quality
of life. Following on this, Parties to the CBD subsequently agreed to bring at least
10 per cent of the world’s marine and coastal ecological regions under protection
by 2012. In 2006, only an estimated 0.6 per cent of the world’s oceans were under
protection.
Protected areas (PAs) need to be seen not just as sites copious in biodiversity
but also as regions historically rich in social and cultural interactions, which
often have great importance for local livelihoods. In practice, however, MPAs
SAMUDRA Monograph
x
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
have increasingly become tools that limit, forbid and control use-patterns and
human activity through a structure of rights and rules. While numerous studies
have examined the ecological and biological impacts of MPAs, few have focused
on their social implications for communities and other stakeholders in the area
who depend on fi sheries resources for a livelihood. A particular MPA may be
both a “biological success” and a “social failure”, devoid of broad participation in
management, sharing of economic benefi ts, and confl ict-resolution mechanisms.
Clearly, for MPAs to be effectively managed, it is essential to consider the social
components needed for the long-term benefi ts of coastal communities.
It is in this context that the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers
(ICSF) commissioned studies in six countries to understand the social dimensions
of implementing MPAs, with the following specifi c objectives:
• to provide an overview of the legal framework for, and design and
implementation of, MPAs;
• to document and analyze the experiences and views of local communities,
particularly fi shing communities, with respect to various aspects of MPA
design and implementation; and
• to suggest ways in which livelihood concerns can be integrated into the
MPA Programme of Work, identifying, in particular, how local communities,
particularly fi shing communities, could engage as equal partners in the MPA
process.
The studies were undertaken in Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa, Tanzania and
Thailand. Besides the Mexico study, the rest were based on primary data collected
from selected MPA locations within each country, as listed in the table opposite.
The studies were undertaken in the context of Programme Element 2 on
governance, participation, equity and benefi t sharing in CBD’s Programme of Work
on Protected Areas (PoW PA, also referred to as PA PoW), which emphasizes the
full and effective participation of local and indigenous communities in protected
area management. Taken together, the studies provide important insights into the
MPA implementation process from a fi shing-community perspective, particularly
on issues of participation.
It is clear from the studies that the most positive examples of livelihood-sensitive
conservation come from Brazil, where communities are in the forefront of
demanding, and setting up, sustainable-use marine extractive reserves (MERs).
Communities there are using PAs to safeguard their livelihoods, against, for
example, shrimp farms and tourism projects. The Brazil study also highlights the
many challenges faced in the process, which are related, among other things, to the
SAMUDRA Monograph
xi MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
need for capacity building of government functionaries and communities; funding;
strong community/fi shworker organizations; an interdisciplinary approach; and
integration of scientifi c and traditional knowledge.
Country Case Study Locations
Brazil • Peixe Lagoon National Park, Rio Grande do Sul
• Marine Extractive Reserve (MER) Mandira, Sao Paulo
• Marine Extractive Reserve (MER) Corumbau, Bahia
India • Gulf of Mannar National Park (GOMNP) and Gulf of
Mannar Biosphere Reserve (GOMBR), Tamil Nadu
• Malvan (Marine) Wildlife Sanctuary, Maharashtra
South Africa Five MPAs in three of the country’s four coastal provinces,
namely:
• Langebaan Lagoon MPA
• Maputaland MPA
• St Lucia MPA
• Tsitsikamma MPA
• Mkambati MPA
Tanzania • Mafi a Island Marine Park (MIMP)
Thailand • Had Chao Mai Marine National Park, Trang Province,
Andaman Coast
• Ra Island, Prathong Island, Prathong Sub-district,
Kuraburi District, Phang Nga Province, Andaman Coast
On the other hand, the studies from India, Mexico, South Africa Tanzania and
Thailand indicate that communities do not consider themselves equal partners in
the MPA process. While, in all cases, there have been recent efforts to enhance
community participation, in general, participation tends to be instrumental–
communities are expected to participate in implementation, but are not part of
the process of designing and implementing management initiatives. The studies
also document clear costs to communities in terms of livelihood options lost,
expulsion from traditional fi shing grounds and living spaces, and violation of
human/community rights. The affected communities regard alternative livelihood
options as providing limited, if any, support, and, in several cases, as in South
Africa, Tanzania and Thailand, they do not perceive substantial benefi ts from
tourism initiatives associated with the PAs. There tends to be a resistance to MPAs
among local communities, a mistrust of government and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that lead such processes, and violations of rules and
regulations, undermining the effectiveness of the MPA itself.
SAMUDRA Monograph
xii
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
The studies in this series of SAMUDRA Monographs stress that there is a strong case
for putting in place, or strengthening, a legal framework for supporting community
rights to manage resources, building the capacity of both governments and
communities, strengthening local organizations, and enhancing institutional co-
ordination. They also highlight the need for more, independent studies on MPA
processes from the community perspective, given that the few existing studies
on social dimensions of MPA implementation have mainly been undertaken by
MPA proponents themselves. Where clear examples of violations of community
rights, and unjust costs on communities are identifi ed, easily accessible redressal
mechanisms need to be put in place, nationally and internationally
Empowering indigenous and local fi shing communities to progressively share the
responsibility of managing coastal and fi sheries resources, in keeping with the
CBD’s PA Po W , would undoubtedly meet the goals of both conservation and
poverty reduction. This is the challenge before us. The future of both effective
conservation and millions of livelihoods is at stake.
Chandrika Sharma
Executive Secretary, ICSF
SAMUDRA Monograph
xiii MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Research conducted on fi ve MPAs in South Africa indicates that traditional,
small-scale fi shing communities1 living in, or adjacent to, MPAs are bearing
the costs of marine conservation, with few benefi ts accruing to them.
Each of the fi ve case studies in this research highlights different key issues of
concern.
The Langebaan MPA captures the contradictions inherent in claims that MPAs are
a useful fi sheries management tool and that the biological benefi ts of protected
areas (PAs) will automatically ‘spill over’ into the adjacent communities. Further,
it demonstrates that failure to include the local fi shers in decisionmaking will
undermine any attempts at implementing a sustainable management plan for the
MPA.
The Maputaland MPA provides a stark example of an instance where ecotourism
initiatives are not benefi ting a local community but are further excluding the
community and restricting their access to resources. The importance of an
approach to participatory governance that empowers the fi shers to participate
effectively, not just instrumentally, is clearly demonstrated.
The St Lucia MPA highlights key issues related to approaches to co-management,
the indivisibility of fi shers’ rights from broader socioeconomic rights and the
challenge of developing institutional arrangements that can accommodate the
often competing objectives of MPAs.
The Tsitsikamma MPA has recently come under scrutiny as the traditional fi shing
communities living adjacent to the park, who used to fi sh in the park, brought
an application to have the MPA re-opened for very restricted access to fi shing,
largely on grounds of cultural and traditional use, rather than for food-security
reasons. After much debate amongst the scientifi c community, government and
other stakeholders, the Minister took a decision not to open this no-take area.
This case study brings under scrutiny the issue of the ‘value’ of different kinds of
benefi ts–ecological, economic, social, spiritual and cultural–and the reductionist
arguments that have prevailed during the public debate.
The Mkambati Nature Reserve MPA forms part of the Pondoland MPA. This case
highlights the standoff between traditional authorities and the government over
access to marine resources. The traditional harvesting ground of the Ndengane
community has been declared a no-take zone since 1994. However, the Ndengane
SAMUDRA Monograph
xiv
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
community continues to harvest and use the notion of ukjola2 (Kepe, 1997).
In most cases, the fi shers are not arrested as the civic organizations and tribal
authorities tend to support ukjola as a process of legitimizing informal rights.
The fi ndings from this research suggest that while South Africa has articulated its
commitment to fulfi lling international and related national obligations to ensure
that local communities and indigenous people participate in the management
of PAs, and share equitably in their benefi ts, MPAs lag behind their terrestrial
counterparts in this regard. The integration of MPA legislation with fi sheries
management legislation in South Africa constrains interpretation of the broader
social justice imperatives inherent in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Protected Areas Programme of Work (PA PoW ), and a biological conservation-
oriented fi sheries science dominates the agendas of these PAs. The marginalization
of the traditional small-scale sector within fi sheries policy and management
in South Africa in general spills over into the management of MPAs. Far from
adopting a responsible, ‘enabling’ approach to traditional, small-scale fi sheries,
current management of marine resources in MPAs contributes to the further
exclusion of these fi shers, and undermines their traditional livelihoods.
The resilience of fi shers to these impacts depends on a number of context-specifi c
factors in each park. During the past year, the mobilization and organization of
traditional fi shers living in, and adjacent to, all fi ve MPAs have increased. This
has occurred as a result of spontaneous local responses to the MPA in two cases
and, in the other three cases, in response to the social movement of fi shers
emerging around the demand for an equitable, participatory policy for the small-
scale fi sheries sector. Confl icts between park authorities and these communities
are likely if the marginalization of these fi shers is not addressed. There is an
urgent need for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT)
to review its policy and management of the marine component of its PAs, and put
in place the necessary policy and institutional mechanisms that will ensure that the
rights to effective participation in governance and equitable sharing in the benefi ts
of MPAs are enjoyed by traditional fi shing communities.
SAMUDRA Monograph
1MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
Marine Conservation
and Coastal Communities:
Who Carries the Costs?
A Study of Marine Protected Areas and Their
Impact on Traditional Small-scale Fishing
Communities in South Africa
INTRODUCTION
South Africa has a long history of commitment to MPAs, dating back to
1964 with the proclamation of the fi rst MPA in Tsitsikamma. This was in
direct response to the call by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) in 1962, at the fi rst IUCN International Conference at which a
global system of PAs was called for (Faasen, 2006). Subsequently, South Africa
has participated actively in international processes to promote MPAs, signing and
ratifying the Ramsar Convention and the CBD and, more recently committing
itself to the PA Po W.
This study examines fi ve MPAs in South Africa and spans three of the country’s
four coastal provinces3. Langebaan Lagoon MPA in the West Coast National
Park lies approximately 100 km northwest of Cape Town in the Western Cape.
The St Lucia MPA and the Maputaland MPA are adjacent to one another within
the Greater St Lucia World Heritage Park, recently renamed iSimangaliso Park
Wetlands Authority, on the northeast coast in KwaZulu Natal. The Tsitsikamma
MPA, South Africa’s oldest MPA, is located in the Eastern Cape Province, along
the southeast coast of the country. The Mkambati Nature Reserve MPA is located
along the northeastern part of the Eastern Cape (EC) and forms part of the larger
Pondoland MPA.
SAMUDRA Monograph
2
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
• Maputaland
St Lucia
• Mkambati
• Tsitsikamma
• Langebaan
Source: DEAT: South Africa Environmental Outlook Report 2006
Figure 1: Marine Protected Areas and Small-scale Fishing Communities in South Africa
SAMUDRA Monograph
3MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
For the purpose of this paper, MPAs are defi ned as marine environments that
are protected in designated ways from human activity. All MPAs constrain
human behaviour, and the major objective of MPAs is the conservation of marine
ecosystems. MPAs are also a management tool for biological and ecological
conservation (Blount and Pitchon, 2007:103). Currently, at the time of conducting
this research, South Africa has 19 MPAs declared under the Marine Living Resources
Act (MLRA) of 1998, covering almost 18 per cent of the coastline. Two of these
are strictly ‘no-take’ MPAs in their entirety; eight are multi-zoned but include strictly
no-take ‘sanctuary’ zones, while the others comprise a combination of controlled
zones, allowing for limited fi shing, and restricted zones allowing for some tourism
and recreational non-extractive use. The primary objective of MPAs in South Africa
is the conservation of marine environments, while assisting with the management
of fi sheries by protecting and rebuilding economically important stocks.
The aim of this study is to provide specifi c examples of practice that contribute to an
overview of the way in which MPA policy and management are affecting small-scale
fi shing communities living in, or adjacent to, these parks. Drawing on international
and national commitments and obligations towards these local communities as
a framework for evaluating implementation, the study highlights key concerns
pertaining to the current policy and management of MPAs in South Africa.
Section I locates the study within the history of conservation approaches in
southern Africa and provides a brief overview of the framework of analysis
used in the study. It identifi es the key principal commitments to MPAs and other
international instruments towards which South Africa has an obligation, and
which form the backdrop for the study.
Section II focuses on South African national legislative and policy imperatives that
shape marine conservation, fi sheries rights and management in the country. Areas
of authority and contiguous jurisdictions are highlighted.
Section III presents a brief summary of the status of the PA PoW implementation
relevant to the country’s MPAs, drawing on the Third National Report on the
Programme of Work.
Section IV discusses the key features of fi sheries policy and management in South
Africa in order to locate the claim by many South African scientists that MPAs are
a critical fi sheries management tool.
Section V presents key concerns from each of the fi ve MPA research sites.
The fi nal Section VI discusses the fi ndings, presents conclusions and puts forward
recommendations for the focus of future advocacy, training and information work
on this issue.
SAMUDRA Monograph
4
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
SECTION I
THE HISTORY OF CONSERVATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
The declaration of MPAs in South Africa over the past half-century and their
impact on fi sher and coastal communities need to be examined in the context of
the political economy of the country and the shifting approaches to conservation
in the region as a whole. In southern Africa, a ‘fortress conservation’ approach
has dominated nature preservation and the establishment of PA s for much of the
20th century. The resultant controversies around these PAs have been focused on
the way they were set up and their negative impact on communities dependent on
local resources (Whande, 2007). The sites of contestation were located in colonial
and apartheid rule over natural resources and the disregard of local indigenous
knowledge and forms of environmental protection. The creation of PA s also
coincided with the rapid period of industrialization of the economy in South
Africa. The complex linkages between cheap African labour to support Afrikaner
and British settler economic interests and scientifi c management principles
dominated the creation of PAs (Carruthers, 1989 and 1995).
With the political landscapes changing in other parts of Africa from the 1960s,
efforts towards community-based conservation (CBC) gained ground as a solution
to exclusive PAs. Global questions of social justice and sustainable development
prompted a new conservation mindset that would address social and equity issues.
The new conservation approach unfolding in Africa recognized the limitations
of the preservation ideology of ‘fortress conservation’, and created space for
restructuring relationships between State and local communities. This shift from
‘nature as protected through exclusive State control’ to nature ‘as managed through
inclusive, participatory, community-based conservation’ gained popularity within
the shift to more democratic governments. Devolution of responsibilities and
participation in decisionmaking were key in this new approach to conservation in
southern Africa.
The election of the fi rst democratic government in South Africa in 1994, the
adoption of a democratic constitution, and a focus on the need to introduce more
democratic, participatory processes, added weight to this shift in approach to PA
management in South Africa. Post-apartheid legislative and strategic frameworks
attempted to fi nd a consensus between the conservation and developmental
needs of South African citizens. This was articulated in the Reconstruction
and Development Programme (RDP, 1994) for South Africa, which stated that
the primary objective of the new fi sheries policy would be the upliftment of
impoverished coastal communities through improved access.
SAMUDRA Monograph
5MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
South Africa hosted the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in
Johannesburg in 2002, and played a leading role in the acceptance of the target
that a “representative network of MPAs be established by 2012” as part of the
Programme of Implementation accepted at the Summit. The country also hosted
the Vth International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Parks
Congress in Durban in 2003, during which a number of critical recommendations
were accepted pertaining to the role of PA s in promoting poverty relief, equitable
sharing of benefi ts, and sustainable livelihoods4. In addition, South Africa is party
to a number of international and regional conservation and fi sheries management
instruments that promote the use of MPAs as a key conservation and fi sheries
management tool, including the World Heritage Act, the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO).
While the emphasis on social and economic justice was important in bringing
about a paradigm shift in South Africa in the past decade, leading to attempts to
balance conservation and development needs in the country’s approach to PAs as a
whole, there has, more recently, been a resurgence of stricter forms of protection
globally. Turner (2004) and Whande (2007) have argued that this has led to a
waning of interest in community-based conservation in relation to terrestrial PA s
in the region.
There are thus contradictory trends that have impacts on MPAs as a component of
PAs. On the one hand, concepts such as fi sheries ‘co-management’, ‘sustainable
livelihoods’ and ‘poverty alleviation’ have gained popularity among donors in post-
apartheid fi sheries management in South Africa. However, fi sheries managers are
simultaneously strongly infl uenced by fi sheries science and the promotion of a
strict precautionary approach. In the last few years, fi sheries management in South
Africa has adopted an ecosystem management to fi sheries and declared 18 per
cent of the coast as MPAs. The way this tension between conservation and social
justice imperatives shapes the management of MPAs in South Africa needs to be
understood in the context of the vulnerability, structural poverty, and livelihood
needs of coastal communities in South Africa.
FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS
This study has drawn on a number of different theoretical frameworks to assess
the impact of MPAs on small-scale fi shing communities and to evaluate the role
that MPAs are playing in realizing the rights and social development of these
communities.
SAMUDRA Monograph
6
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
The CBD PoW PA Programme Element 2: Governance, participation, equity and
benefi t sharing, Goals 2.1 and 2.2, and related targets and suggested activities,
provide the basis for this study. Specifi cally, the goals and targets include:
Goal 2.1: To promote equity and benefi t sharing
Goal 2.2: To enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local communities
and relevant stakeholders
This framework is complemented by indicators drawn from the extensive body
of work on measuring poverty, as well as specifi c studies on measuring the
contribution of MPAs to poverty eradication5. The framework of analysis will
incorporate the following key issues6 to further guide discussion of MPAs in South
Africa: control of open access; management and zoning; the involvement of
coastal communities in governance; the costs and benefi ts of MPAs; and science
and traditional knowledge.
SAMUDRA Monograph
7MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
SECTION II
SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY
FRAMEWORKS, AUTHORITIES AND JURISDICTIONS
International commitments and imperatives towards marine conservation are
refl ected well in South Africa’s national legislation. The Constitution of South
Africa, Bill of Rights, Section 24, includes the right to the environment. It states:
“Everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or
well-being; and to have the environment protected, for the benefi t of present and
future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent
pollution and ecological degradation; promote conservation; and secure ecologically
sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifi able
economic and social development” (South African Government 1996: Constitution
of the Republic of South Africa, No 108 of 1996, Chapter 2, Section 24).
In order to give effect to this right, the South African government has enacted a
suite of laws that further consolidates various aspects of these provisions. The
National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) 107 of 1998 provides the
principal legislative framework for environmental governance in South Africa.
NEMA translates the environmental principles and rights contained in the
Constitution into legal provisions, and identifi es procedures and mechanisms
for implementing these principles. Of particular importance to MPAs and any
development initiatives based on coastal resources are the provisions relating
to co-operative governance and the inclusion of civil society in environmental
management (Sisitka and Fielding, 2006:38).
The Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA) of 1998 places the overall authority
for allocating rights to, and managing, marine living resources, for both inshore
and coastal resources, in the hands of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism. Responsibility for the establishment and management of MPAs thus
falls under this Act and is the competence of the DEAT. The section on MPAs in
the MLRA does not directly refl ect any of the socioeconomic and cultural aspects
identifi ed in the general principles informing the MLRA and hence is rather limited.
It states that the Minister may declare an MPA for the following objectives:
(a) for the protection of fauna and fl ora or a particular species of fauna or fl ora
and the physical features on which they depend;
(b) to facilitate fi shery management by protecting spawning stock, allowing stock
recovery, enhancing stock abundance in adjacent areas, and providing pristine
communities for research; or
SAMUDRA Monograph
8
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
(c) 000 to diminish any confl ict that may arise from competing uses in that area
(DEAT, 1998, Section 43).
Related legislation includes the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity
Act 10 of 2004, which makes provision for the management and conservation of
biological diversity, noting the objective of “the fair and equitable sharing among
stakeholders of benefi ts arising”. The National Environmental Management:
Protected Areas Act of 2003 has the explicit objective of providing for the
declaration and management of PA s, but excludes MPAs, which are declared
under the MLRA. The PAs Act incorporates key principles related to co-operative
governance in the declaration and management of PAs and the need to “promote
sustainable utilization of PAs for the benefi t of people, in a manner that would
preserve the ecological character of such areas; and to promote participation of
local communities in the management of PAs, where appropriate” (Protected
Areas Act, 2003). All of the abovementioned legislation provide clear recognition
of the need to protect biodiversity and maintain a strong human rights-based
approach. Environmental rights are balanced with socioeconomic rights.
Marine conservation and the management of all marine resources comprise
a national competency falling under the DEAT. Within the department, the
responsibility is with the branch, Marine and Coastal Management (MCM). The
MLRA is the primary legal instrument for the protection of MPAs within this
context. Prior to the promulgation of the MLRA, marine conservation was
characterized by a range of overlapping and confusing local and provincial
ordinances and regulations. Although the responsibility for marine conservation
lies at the national level, the recently tabled Bill on Integrated Coastal Management
places a considerable responsibility for coastal management and land-use planning
–aspects that impinge on MPAs directly–in the hands of provincial authorities and
steering committees (Integrated Coastal Management Bill, 2007).
Before the MLRA came into effect, MPAs were managed by the South African
National Parks Board, a statutory agency responsible for managing most of South
Africa’s terrestrial PAs, together with the provincial nature conservation agencies.
This national board is now known as South African National Parks (SANparks).
After the MLRA was introduced, MCM has taken over responsibility for ensuring
implementation of legislation. The relative neglect of MPAs has been blamed
on these confusing institutional arrangements whereby, in most MPAs, SANParks
continues to be the managing authority but without authority over the legislation
pertaining to the marine component. SANParks manages six of the MPAs,
while local municipalities manage two. Other implementing agencies include
iSimangaliso Wetlands Authority, Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal (KZN) Wildlife, the
SAMUDRA Monograph
9MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
provincial conservation body in KwaZulu, and the East Cape Nature and Cape
Nature Conservation.
Of considerable relevance to this paper is the fact that the management of
fi sheries in South Africa and the management of MPAs are controlled by the same
legislation, and this has led to the integration of the two. Some have argued that
this constitutes a strength as MPAs are regarded as a tool for fi sheries management,
while others have suggested this hampers the effective planning of MPAs (Sisitka
and Fielding, 2005). Leading fi sheries scientist Colin Attwood has argued that
“the ability to zone fi shing activities effectively, to make ‘no-take’ MPAs, the
ability to cast MPA objectives in fi shery terms, and the ability to make fi shers pay
for the management of MPAs, are benefi cial consequences of having common
legislation governing fi sheries and marine conservation” (Lemm and Attwood,
2003). The effect of this integration is that some of the broader MPA functions
related to social-justice goals appear neglected. From the perspective of this
paper, it appears to lead to a limited conceptualization of the purpose and benefi ts
of MPAs, framing the primary benefi ts within a narrow fi sheries-science paradigm.
Recognition of the need to ensure that traditional communities share in the
benefi ts of PAs is a well-entrenched principle in the legislative framework, as are
commitments to recognizing traditional rights, and the need to ensure that the
communities participate in, and benefi t from, these areas. This is particularly so
for the terrestrial areas covered by the PAs Act but less so for the MPAs, as the
MLRA is not specifi c on these aspects.
Over the past fi ve years, considerable efforts have been made by DEAT to develop
policy to realize these international and national commitments to protecting
biodiversity and, in particular, the cultural and social aspects. South Africa’s
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2005), Strategic Objective 4
states: “Human development and well-being are enhanced through sustainable
use of biological resources and equitable sharing of benefi ts” (DEAT, 2005b:62).
This Strategic Objective acknowledges the political injustices of the past in terms
of access to, and control over, resources. It notes that “rights of access and use
need to be coupled with a renewed sense of ownership and responsibility for
management of natural resources” (DEAT, 2005b). It also recognizes that access
issues are broader than direct-use issues, and includes promoting access to land,
broadening access to PAs, promoting access to information, and ensuring informed
participation in decisionmaking” (DEAT, 2005b). It does note, however, that “ in
some cases, to ensure conservation and/or sustainable use, rights of access may
need to be balanced against other rights. For example, while no one can be denied
their rights, the State may, nevertheless, put restrictions on those rights through
SAMUDRA Monograph
10
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
regulations, so that one person’s rights do not infringe on another person’s rights,
including the rights of future generations” (DEAT, 2005b).
This participatory, equitable and human-rights-based perspective has fi ltered into
the Biodiversity and Conservation Branch within DEAT, SANParks policy and
practice. However, the emphasis appears to be on terrestrial parks and no specifi c
policy exists for the management of MPAs. MCM has begun drafting a policy
for MPAs but this was put on hold (pers. comm., Alan Boyd, 2007). Although it
has neither released a policy for MPAs specifi cally, nor developed a programme
to house this responsibility, MCM has made its general policy intentions with
regard to MPAs public through a number of statements by the Minister7. DEAT
intends increasing the coastal area under protection, extending the cover currently
provided to estuaries and, in general, intends developing a more consolidated
MPA network. A National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES) is being
developed by the Biodiversity and Conservation branch within DEAT, which will
cover MPAs as well. DEAT is also busy developing a plan for the declaration of
offshore MPAs (Boyd, 2007).
DEAT facilitates a regular People in Parks forum for both the marine and terrestrial
components of PAs. “This initiative aims to make sure that communities living in
parks or adjacent to them…enjoy direct benefi ts from the parks” (Boyd, 2007:1).
MCM has not released a policy on People in Parks or how it intends addressing
related issues in MPAs as yet; however, it is now attending these meetings on a
regular basis, and links between this agenda and MCM’s own work with small-
scale fi shers is noted (Boyd, 2007). MCM appears committed to moving towards
implementing a multi-zoning approach to MPAs, although with considerable
emphasis remaining on the need for ‘no-take’ zones. This approach has been
recently underscored by the Minister’s decision on the Tsitsikamma ‘no-take’ zone,
as will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report. DEAT is considering a
proposal to re-zone the Dwesa-Cebe MPA, which is currently a ‘no-take’ MPA, into
a sustainable-use area. This will allow the local community to harvest resources on
a restricted basis (Boyd, 2007). While no direct reference is made to the CBD PA
PoW in MCM’s documentation on this issue, it would appear as if a sustainable-
use and multi-zoning perspective is increasingly being adopted by MCM, but the
approach appears to be inconsistently implemented.
There appears to be a hiatus when it comes to translating national legislation into
policy commitments in terms of MPAs specifi cally. Despite a fairly clear and well-
articulated legislative framework, South Africa’s actual institutional arrangements
for the management of MPAs have been chaotic and contradictory over the past
four decades, and have prioritized the conservation objectives.
SAMUDRA Monograph
11 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
Notwithstanding its mandate, MCM’s involvement in MPAs on the ground has
been limited to fi shing law enforcement. “The actual management of an MPA
is usually undertaken by conservation agencies, which do not make the laws
applicable within it. In contrast, conservation agencies managing terrestrial PA s
usually have land tenure, allowing for a better integration of legislation, marketing,
fi nancial control and on-the-ground management. It is this split of legislative and
management authority that has hindered the upliftment of MPAs” (Sisitka and
Fielding, 2006).
Very recently, some progress has been reported on this matter. Funding
and contractual agreements have been agreed upon with fi ve of the biggest
implementing agencies, iSimangaliso, Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, EC Parks Board,
and Cape Nature, covering 11 of the 19 large MPAs. Contracts for partial support to
local municipalities are being considered for the two smaller MPAs of Helderberg
and Sardinia Bay (Boyd, 2007).
SAMUDRA Monograph
12
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
SECTION III
NATIONAL REPORTING ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
AND ON THE PROGRAMME OF WORK TARGETS
South Africa has only relatively recently developed a coherent framework for data
management and reporting on environmental indicators, but, from the perspective
of MPAs, this appears to still be dogged by the general fragmentary nature of
institutional arrangements.
In 2005, DEAT completed the Development of the National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan. This Plan was based on an assessment of South Africa’s
biodiversity context, which included a national-scale spatial assessment (National
Spatial Biodiversity Assessment–NSBA) with a marine component. This was
also the fi rst time that an ecosystem approach was used to assess the status of
biodiversity (DEAT, 2005b). The spatial biodiversity assessment of the marine
environment indicated that 65 per cent of South Africa’s 34 marine biozones
are threatened (with 12 per cent assessed as “critically endangered”, 15 per cent
as “endangered”, and 38 per cent as “vulnerable”) and 35 per cent as “least
threatened” (DEAT, 2005b). The study noted that “there is considerable lack of
understanding of subsistence use of terrestrial and coastal resources in South
Africa, except that it is known to be extensive” (DEAT:2005b). It is important to
note that the marine component of the spatial conservation assessment did not
include an assessment of sustainable use, and was clear in that it did not attempt
to be a tool for fi sheries management.
Despite this dearth of information during the scoping and assessment process,
the focus on the rights of traditional communities within terrestrial PA s and
the importance of community participation and sharing in benefi ts was still
incorporated into the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Thus,
although these goals were developed for terrestrial PAs, they also provide a
framework for assessing progress in the marine component of PAs.
In 2005, South Africa completed the Third National Report to the CBD. The
responses provided by the South African government’s CBD focal point, copied
below, reveal once again that much of the interventions undertaken in compliance
with the CBD Programme of Work are driven by the terrestrial parks and there
is little, if any, integration with MPAs. No reference to the CBD Programme of
Work is made in any of the Marine and Coastal Management MPA documentation
for the report.
SAMUDRA Monograph
13 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
In response to the key Programme of Work Targets in relation to Article 8
(j) on traditional knowledge and related provisions, South Africa reported the
following:
• It has not “created and developed capacity-building programmes to involve
and enable smallholder farmers, indigenous and local communities, and
other relevant stakeholders to effectively participate in decision-making
processes related to genetic use restriction technologies”.
• It has not “supported indigenous and local communities in undertaking fi eld
studies to determine the status, trends and threats related to the knowledge,
innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities” (Decision
VII/16).
• It has not initiated a legal and institutional review of matters related to
cultural, environmental and social impact assessment, with a view to
incorporating the Akwé:Kon Guidelines into national legislation, policies,
and procedures.
• It has not used the Akwé:Kon Guidelines in any project proposed to take
place on sacred sites and/or land and waters traditionally occupied by
indigenous and local communities (Decision VII/16).
In response to the questions on capacity building and participation of indigenous
and local communities, South Africa reported the following actions:
• It has taken “some measures to enhance and strengthen the capacity of
indigenous and local communities to be effectively involved in decision
making related to the use of their traditional knowledge, innovations and
practices relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity”
(Decision V/16).
Examples provided to support this included, amongst others, the fact that DEAT
developed community-based natural resources management guidelines in 2003
and “at the Greater St Lucia Wetlands Park, fi shing communities are encouraged
to continue practising their traditional fi shing practices” DEAT, 2005a). Although
this question was answered positively, the examples provided by the country
focal person are not supported by the fi eldwork conducted for this case study on
MPAs.
• It has developed “appropriate mechanisms, guidelines, legislation or other
initiatives to foster and promote the effective participation of indigenous
and local communities in decisionmaking, policy planning and development,
SAMUDRA Monograph
14
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
and implementation of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
at international, regional, sub-regional, national and local levels” (Decision
V/16).
The supporting statement for this response was: “For all policy development,
planning, legislation, etc., extensive processes for community participation are
required. These requirements are legislated.” It must be noted that for the recent
public participation processes for the development of a new subsistence and
small-scale fi sheries policy, the communities involved in this research did not
participate effectively in the policy process8.
• It has put mechanisms in place “for promoting the full and effective
participation of indigenous and local communities, with specifi c provisions
for the full, active and effective participation of women in all elements of
the programme of work” (Decision V/16, annex).
This was motivated by the fact that South Africa has set targets for the participation
of previously disadvantaged individuals, including women, the youth and the
disabled in all aspects of governance and the economy. This research indicates
that men and women from traditional fi shing communities are not participating
fully or effectively in the management and governance of MPAs or in benefi ting
equally from these areas.
• South Africa has not “established national, sub-regional and/or regional
indigenous and local community biodiversity advisory committees”.
• South Africa has not “assisted indigenous and local community organizations
to hold regional meetings to discuss the outcomes of the decisions of the
Conference of the Parties and to prepare for meetings under the Convention”
(DEAT, 2005a).
SAMUDRA Monograph
15 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
SECTION IV
FISHERIES POLICY AND MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA
Fisheries management in South Africa has been closely linked to the establishment
of the fi shing industry in the country. The industry has a long history that dates
to pre-colonial times. However, in the more recent past, it has been dominated by
large, white-owned, highly capitalized interests.
The new democratic government, elected in 1994, inherited not only the
apartheid legacy of poverty, unemployment, a poor educational system and an
unequal distribution of resources, but also white monopoly capital and Afrikaner
capital deeply entrenched in the established fi shing companies. The latter was
not keen to relinquish any of their control to new entrants (Van Sittert, 2003).
According to them, the formal part of the fi sheries sector was performing well
in economic terms, and the resource was well managed and they hardly needed
any restructuring or further development planned by government. According
to Hersoug (1996), 40 years of apartheid and more than 300 years of colonial
discrimination had left the fi shing sector with features of an extremely uneven
distribution of resources between whites and blacks, a skewed distribution of fi sh
resources between small-scale and large-scale operators, a totally uneven regional
distribution of catching and processing possibilities, and a fi sheries administration
dominated by white administrators with little legitimacy among the predominantly
black coastal population.
In 1994, a reform process was initiated, but progress in poor, previously marginalized
fi shing communities has been slow. Even during the policy formulation process,
impoverished fi shing communities were already being sidelined, as the government
adopted a more neoliberal stance by overlooking community participation in the
redistribution of rights, and promoting a large, commercially and export-oriented
macroeconomic strategy.
Despite the importance of the subsistence sector, most coloured and black
fi shers were never formally recognized, and fell under the category of recreational
fi shers, where they were supposed to harvest limited amounts of fi sh for personal
consumption only. Although it was illegal to sell under the recreational permits,
most of them made a living through selling their catches (Branch et al., 2002).
During the past 15 years, the discourse on South African subsistence fi shing has
changed dramatically. The post-1994 new fi sheries policy had to incorporate all the
coastal provinces of South Africa and hence had to be seen to be accommodating
SAMUDRA Monograph
16
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
the more subsistence-oriented fi shers of the eastern seaboard. The MLRA (1998)
recognized commercial, recreational and subsistence fi shing, and thus provided
some legal recognition to some of these fi shers, for the fi rst time. The MLRA
defi nes a subsistence fi sher as “a natural person who regularly catches fi sh for
personal consumption or for the consumption of his or her dependants, including
one who engages from time to time in the local sale or barter of excess catch,
but does not include a person who engages on a substantial scale in the sale of
fi sh on a commercial basis” (MLRA 18 of 1998: 12). The Subsistence Fisheries
Task Group (SFTG)9 further elaborated on this defi nition by stating: “Subsistence
fi shers are poor people who personally harvest marine resources as a source of
food or sell them to meet the basic needs of food security; they operate on, or
near to, the shore or estuaries, live in close proximity to the resource, consume or
sell the resources locally, use low-technology gear (often as part of long-standing
community-based or cultural practices), and the kinds of resources they harvest
generate only suffi cient returns to meet the needs of food security” (SFTG, 2000).
Those artisanal and small-scale fi shers who were excluded by this defi nition have
continued to advocate for their inclusion over the past nine years, but with little
success.
South Africa’s fi sheries management system is largely framed by the 1995 FAO
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and UNCLOS. Fisheries managers
have committed South Africa to implementing an ecosystem approach to fi sheries
by 2010 and to meeting the WSSD targets on both restoration of fi sh stocks by
2015, and 20 per cent of the coast to be protected within MPAs by 2012. As will
be seen from the case study discussion below, these goals appear to be driving the
MPA management agenda in South Africa, and MPAs are referred to by fi sheries
managers as a critical fi sheries management tool.
In 2002, the Minister introduced the Medium-term Rights Fishing Policy, based
primarily on an individual quota system, which allocated rights for four years. This
was followed, in 2005, by the General Policy for the Allocation and Management of
Long-term Fishing Rights. Both these policies were geared towards the allocation
of rights for 22 commercial species to commercial enterprises, and tended to lead
to the exclusion and marginalization of the majority of traditional, small-scale and
artisanal fi shers.
In the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu Natal, DEAT commenced with the allocation
of subsistence exemptions to a limited number of individual fi shers who were
harvesting on what was defi ned as a subsistence basis. Those fi shers living within
MPAs in these two provinces were designated ‘subsistence’, and a process of
allocating exemptions and permits began. Traditional artisanal and small-scale
SAMUDRA Monograph
17 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
fi shers remained marginalized. Following pressure from fi shers and the threat of
litigation by Masifundise and other organizations working with traditional fi shers,
the Minister fi nally signed a Court Order in May 2007 agreeing to develop a new
legislative and policy framework that would accommodate traditional small-scale
fi shers in South Africa. This process is currently under way. It will include those
fi shers who were defi ned as subsistence by the MLRA but, to date, have only
received exemptions and have never been recognized as full rights holders.
CO-MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA
Following the establishment of the Subsistence Task Group in 2000, the principle
of co-management was strongly encouraged in those communities defi ned by
MCM as subsistence communities, and it was argued that “the few established
successful co-management structures should be used as models for local fi sheries
management structures” (SFTG, 2000). As will be seen from the discussion
presented in the Mkambati, Mabibi and Sokhulu case studies, the experience of
fi sheries co-management has been mixed.
In South Africa, as elsewhere in the world, co-management at the local, community
level refers to involvement of fi shers in management of their fi sheries to improve
their livelihoods. However, there is no clear and universally accepted defi nition of
co-management, even though it continues to be seen as a panacea for resolving
problems of inequitable, undemocratic and ineffi cient fi sheries management
(Isaacs et al., 2005). Experience so far indicates that existing co-management
arrangements have primarily focused on conservation and management of fi sh
resources rather than on using them to facilitate economic development in fi shing
communities, or as an instrument for poverty alleviation (Hauck and Sowman,
2003; Hara Raakjær Nielsen, 2003).
SAMUDRA Monograph
18
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
SECTION V
PRESENTATION OF KEY ISSUES FROM FIVE MARINE
PROTECTED AREAS IN SOUTH AFRICA
METHODOLOGY
This study included participatory research with four traditional fi shing communities,
as well as a documentation study of a fi fth community living adjacent to, or in,
MPAs in South Africa. The fi eldwork, undertaken between October 2006 and
December 2007, comprised focus-group meetings, community meetings, individual
interviews using a semi-structured interview schedule, documentation of selected
oral histories, interviews with key informants, and a review of literature; however,
not all of these methods were used in each fi eld site10. The process with the
Langebaan fi shers from the West Coast National Park and Mkambati Nature
Reserve was more intensive than the brief fi eldwork conducted with the St Lucia
and Maputaland communities as the researchers have been working with these
fi shers on issues pertaining to the MPA for an extended period of time11.
The aim was to try and integrate the case-study fi eldwork process with the national
small-scale fi shers’ policy process that is currently under way in South Africa, and
to turn it into an opportunity to facilitate and initiate participatory action. The
policy process has put the issues of preferential access for traditional small-scale
fi shers and ‘community rights’ fi rmly on the agenda, along with the right to be
consulted in policy formulation, to participate in co-management and to allow for
the integration of indigenous knowledge in research initiatives.
Importantly, all fi ve of the sites were proclaimed MPAs prior to the current
legislation governing MPAs and prior to the development of the CBD Programme
of Work and the South Africa National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
As a result, none of the parks conducted baseline studies on their impact on the
communities; to date, none of the parks has developed databases to monitor
the impacts on the livelihoods of these communities. The very rural nature of
many of these communities renders census data as not truly representative; there
is a paucity of reliable, accurate socioeconomic data on all these communities.
It has not been possible, within the time constraints of this study, to conduct a
detailed survey of socioeconomic conditions; the study has had to rely primarily
on existing data. There is a need for much more nuanced data on each of these
communities as it is not easy to assess the impacts on livelihoods retrospectively.
The case study on the Tsitsikamma MPA depends heavily on desktop research and
SAMUDRA Monograph
19 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
draws extensively on the recent fi eldwork undertaken by Helene Fassen for her
thesis (Faasen, 2006). The case study on the Mkambati MPA relies on the fi eldwork
of Kepe (1997, 2001, 2004) and Whande (2004) on land-based livelihoods.
1. LANGEBAAN LAGOON MPA, WESTERN CAPE
HISTORY OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND THE FORMATION OF THE MPA
The West Coast National Park is located approximately 100 km west of Cape
Town. This park is the location for a unique MPA, the Langebaan MPA, which
encompasses South Africa’s only true lagoon, Langebaan Lagoon. The lagoon
was initially declared a PA in 1976 under the National Parks Act No. 57 of 1976.
It was subsequently declared a National Park and MPA under this legislation.
Following the promulgation of the MLRA, the park was also declared under the
new fi sheries management legislation in 2000. The lagoon, together with the
Sixteen Mile Beach MPA nearby, comprises a combined length of 66 km (Lemm
and Attwood, 2003:74). The Lagoon MPA comprises three zones: Zone A, where
the catching of commercial and recreational line-fi sh is permitted, together with
the use of fi shing net for those with net fi sh permits. (Recreational power boats,
sailing boats, water ski-ing and kite-surfi ng are allowed in this zone.);
Zone B, where only those fi shers with net fi shing rights are allowed to fi sh; and
Zone C, which is a no-take, sanctuary zone where no boats or extractive use are
permitted.
The history of the local Langebaan traditional fi sher community can be traced
back hundreds of years. However, this history has not been recognized in the
establishment and management of the MPA. On the contrary, the local traditional
fi sher community that lived in, and adjacent to the park, has been systematically
dispossessed of their culture, tradition and livelihoods by the MPA over the past
20 years. It would appear that many of the traditional fi shers of Langebaan
occupied a unique class position for much of the fi rst half of the 20th century, as
workers on offshore fi shing vessels that travelled far for many months, and then
as owner-operators of their own small wooden fi shing vessels at home on the
lagoon, where they caught harders (Liza richardsonii) and a few other line-fi sh for
their livelihoods. When they returned from working for the fi shing industry, they
immediately resumed their traditional fi shing activities in the lagoon.
The lagoon was zoned as a protected area in 1976, and administered by the South
African Transport Services, which was the ports authority at the time. Initially,
the fi shers did not need a permit to fi sh but fi shing vessels had to be licensed.
Subsequently, permits were issued to the fi shers by the ports authority. At the
SAMUDRA Monograph
20
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
onset of the 1980s, there were 27 fi shers with permits to harvest harders in the
lagoon, using drift-nets. These permits supported approximately 60 households’
livelihoods, as each permit holder had a ‘bakkie maat’ and women and children
were directly involved in the drying and preparation of the catch.
The fi shers remember nostalgically how, when they were young, the whole
community was involved in net fi shing, and how they depended on the lagoon for
their livelihoods. Those who had boats were able to provide work for other fi shers.
The men caught the fi sh, and the women were directly involved in mending nets,
preparing for fi shing, and cleaning and processing the catch. There were even a
few women who also went to sea. The “kinders dra die mandjie” (“the children
carried the basket”) and were responsible for checking that the dried fi sh, known
as ‘bokkoms’, was brought in at night and taken out in the mornings.
Prior to the 1980s, Langebaan village was undeveloped, and there was very little
construction taking place there. The lagoon was then declared a national park
under the SANParks and an MPA in 1982 and zoning introduced. None of the
fi shers was consulted about the establishment of these zones. During the mid-
1980s, the park authorities began buying neighbouring farms and incorporating
them into the park. These farms were typical of the farms of the area within
the broader apartheid landscape of this period, in which one found a complex
constellation of race and class relations. Many of the coloured fi shermen worked
for white farm owners, tending their livestock, and fi shed to supplement their
meagre incomes. Community members harvested a variety of local plants and
herbs for both consumption and medicinal purposes. They also made brooms,
which they sold for extra income, and used the reed for thatching roofs, and cow
dung for the fl oors of their homes.
ACCESS RIGHTS TO MARINE RESOURCES
The declaration of the MPA was a turning point for many of the fi shers who were
gradually forced off the farms that were now incorporated into the park. While
there were 27 permits at the time of declaration of the MPA, the management
gradually reduced the number of permits. Following the introduction of the new
fi shing-rights allocation system, the number was further reduced, and now only
seven coloured and three white fi shers have rights to net fi sh in the lagoon. Two of
the other fi shers who were previously fi shers for net fi sh were allocated West Coast
rock lobster permits, and one of these two also received a white mussel harvesting
permit. The only option for the remaining, approximately 40, traditional fi shers
is to purchase a recreational permit, which allows them limited line-fi sh from one
zone only, and which they may not sell. Their catches are not sustainable and do
not provide for basic household food security. Without any access to alternative
SAMUDRA Monograph
21 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
livelihood opportunities, and due to a lack of access to information and credit to
facilitate leverage on tourism opportunities, these fi shers are very vulnerable to
the impact of development on the lagoon. Currently, they feel that they are being
“squeezed from all sides”.
The park is now managed by SANParks through a service agreement signed with
MCM. The park experiences a number of diffi culties in managing the marine-
related aspects under these arrangements (pers. comm., MPA management,
2007). In practice, this means that MCM, at the national level, determines the
total allowable effort and catch for the various species in the lagoon, and it
manages the application for, and allocation of, fi shing rights to the local fi sher
community. The SANParks management is responsible for compliance within its
areas of jurisdiction, but MCM is responsible for allocating research permits and
exemptions for the MPA waters.
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, SCIENCE AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Neither those fi shers with legal rights to fi sh nor those without are able to
participate in the management of the lagoon, and there is no effective mechanism
for consultation. The ‘Stakeholder Forum’ of the Park, while an important and
necessary forum, is not an appropriate mechanism for addressing fi sher-specifi c
issues as it comprises a range of diverse stakeholder groups, each with very
different needs and interests. In this context, the seemingly neutral discourse of
‘user groups’ is problematic. The discourse on rights has become distorted so
that the park authorities appear to believe that their task is to balance the rights
of different user groups–that is, to ensure that the ‘rights’ of the wealthy elite to
holiday and enjoy a range of water sports are protected, at the expense of the
poor fi shers who depend on their use of the resource for their livelihoods.
The fi shers are not invited to participate in research into the status of the stocks
in the lagoon; their traditional knowledge has not been accommodated; and nor
are they party to the decisionmaking on the total allowable catch (TAC) for the
lagoon. As a consequence, they do not support the TAC that has been set, and
many of those who do not have rights are harvesting illegally as they believe that
there is plenty of fi sh. There is no system of co-management in the lagoon.
A review of some of the available scientifi c literature on the state of the stocks
targeted by the Langebaan fi shers, coupled with interviews with two fi sheries
scientists working in the lagoon, provided inconclusive evidence that would
support the current strict limitations on the Langebaan Lagoon net fi shers and
the zoning regime of the marine park12. The government scientists justify the
strict zonation and limited effort allowed on the grounds that the net fi sh by-catch
SAMUDRA Monograph
22
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
in the Langebaan Lagoon has an impact on overexploited line-fi sh species. They
regard the MPA restricted zones as a critical fi sheries management tool in this
regard. They assert that the ‘spillover’ and ‘recruitment’ benefi ts of the MPA will
ultimately benefi t the fi shers, an assertion that they use to justify a precautionary
approach to the total allowable effort in the lagoon. The fi shers have to bear the
full cost of this approach through the restricted TAC and the tight zonation policy,
while a very large number of recreational fi shers are permitted to continue to
utilize the lagoon. This has had drastic impacts on the well-being and livelihoods
of the traditional fi shers in the lagoon.
EMPOWERMENT, GOVERNANCE AND PARTICIPATION
The fi shers have not perceived any benefi ts from any of the projects within the
MPA, and investment in the area for the tourism industry has only benefi ted a few
elites and workers in the construction industry. At present, there are great pressures
on the lagoon ecosystem, and it would appear that the fi shers are bearing the brunt
of measures to try and address these pressures. The recreational fi shing effort is
considerable but no attempt is being made to limit it. There are unconfi rmed
reports that there is poaching from defence force offi cials but the issue is not being
addressed. The Saldanha harbour authorities intend to expand the harbour, and
an environmental impact assessment has been commissioned but the fi shers have
not been consulted. Tourism projects along the shore of the lagoon are driving up
the number of users on the lagoon, increasing user confl icts. Within this context,
the fi shers tend to locate the source of the problem as the establishment of the
MPA and the fi sheries management regime that has accompanied it. Despite
repeated attempts to meet with the government fi sheries department to negotiate
their rights to fi sh in their traditional waters and to participate in the management
of the lagoon, the fi shing community in the Langebaan Lagoon MPA remains
marginalized, continuing to illegally harvest a wide range of species, which they
believe is justifi ed, given that they are excluded from harvesting their preferred
traditional species, the harders.
2. iSIMANGALISO WORLD HERITAGE SITE, INCLUDING
MAPUTALAND MARINE RESERVE AND ST LUCIA MARINE
PARK, KWAZULU NATAL
St Lucia and Maputaland comprise a network of two MPAs that both fall within
the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park, now known as iSimangaliso Wetland Park
Authority (IWPA). iSimangaliso was declared a World Heritage Site in 1999 and
has also been recognized as a Ramsar site. St Lucia MPA was declared in 1968,
subsequently under the auspices of the MLRA in 1998 as well as in terms of
SAMUDRA Monograph
23 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
the World Heritage Convention Act (WHCA) No. 49 of 1999. Similarly, the
Maputaland MPA, which was originally declared under Provincial Ordinance
15 of 1974, now falls within the MLRA and the WHCA (Lemm and Attwood,
2003:13) The IWPA is the management authority for the World Heritage Site
and is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Protected Areas Act as well
as the international obligations arising from the WHCA. This also entails giving
direction to the policy, planning and management of the park, and all ecotourism
and other economic and social activities, including promoting the development
of communities living within the park’s boundaries. The IWPA has contracted the
provincial conservation agency, Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife (EKZNW), as
its nature conservation agent. EKZNW is responsible for the management of the
marine conservation component and, as part of this, the fi sheries component. For
this role, the EKZNW has a management agreement and contract with MCM, the
national branch responsible for fi sheries management, which delegates the role to
the provincial agency. As the agency is also responsible for fi sheries management
within the province as a whole, the marine conservation aspect of its MPA work
is, in fact, an extension of its fi sheries management function in the province.
The overlapping areas of jurisdiction between iSimangaliso and EKZNW, albeit
for different functions, create considerable confusion, and there appears to be
competing perspectives when it comes to issues related to research processes and
protocols as they pertain to the fi shing communities.
HISTORY OF THE PARKS AND THE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The history of iSimangaliso Park is one of community displacement in the name of
conservation, and repeated clashes with authorities over the harvesting of marine
resources. Until recently, the entire park area was subject to land claims in terms
of the restitution process inherent in the Land Claims Act. Beginning in the 1960s
and continuing into the 1990s, traditional communities were forcibly removed from
their lands in order to accommodate the apartheid conservation lobby.
Until the promulgation of the MLRA in 1998, traditional fi shers and inter-tidal
harvesters were treated as criminals, and experienced repeated harassment from
the authorities for their use of marine resources. Over the past 11 years, the
provincial fi sheries authority, now known as EKZNW, has begun working with
these communities, trying to implement a regulatory and monitoring system.
After decades of mistrust between the authorities and the communities due
to the harvesting having been regarded as ‘illegal’, the process of empowering
communities to participate in a regulatory system that is defi ned and circumscribed
at the national government level is a very challenging one.
SAMUDRA Monograph
24
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
There are several communities of traditional fi shers and harvesters living in
iSimangaliso borders. On the recommendation of the EKZNW staff, this study
selected two of these communities, namely, Mabibi and Sokhulu.
MAPUTALAND MPA–MABIBI COMMUNITY
The Mabibi community comprises approximately 200 traditional households,
living in an isolated rural setting between the shores of Lake Sibaya and the
coastal forest reserve of Maputaland. The community is descended from the
Northern Zulu and Thonga people and lives under traditional authority. It has
traditionally harvested inland lake, coastal inter-tidal, fi sh and forestry resources,
and undertaken agricultural production in order to survive. Infrastructure in the
village is very limited. There are only two schools, one a pre-primary and the other
a primary school. There is a health clinic situated next to the primary school.
Residents have no running water or electricity; however, a scheme is currently
under construction to extend water and sanitation services to the community.
The Mabibi community has a lengthy history of harvesting marine resources for
subsistence purposes. Mussels (P. perna), limpets (Fisurella and Patella spp.) and
red bait (Pyura stolonifera) are the primary inter-tidal resources that are harvested
(EKZNW, (1), 2006). It is believed that communities have been harvesting
invertebrate organisms along the shore for several hundreds of years (EKZNW,
2006). Traditionally, women and children undertook this harvesting and “it has
become an integral part of the social and cultural fabric of tribal life” (EKZNW,
2006). Harvesters no longer use traditional tools but a variety of modern
instruments such as axes, hoes, pangas and sharpened vehicle spring blades to prise
the organisms off the rocks (EKZNW, 2006). In addition to harvesting inter-tidal
organisms, these communities have depended on shore-based line fi shing for their
food security. These subsistence fi shers make up a very small proportion of the
line fi shers along the coast, and most of the fi shers are recreational. They harvest
small, more plentiful species such as karanteen, blacktail, pinky and stonebream
(EKZNW (2), 2006).
GOVERNANCE OF MARINE RESOURCE ACCESS AND USE
Until as recently as 2003, the harvesting of marine resources was unregulated.
In 2002, EKZNW began working with the local fi sher community to build their
capacity to establish a joint management committee to manage the harvesting
of inter-tidal organisms. This approach was based on the World Wide Fund for
Nature-South Africa (WWF-SA)-funded EKZNW projects at eNkovukeni, north
of Mabibi in the Kosi area, as well as the successful EKZNW-managed Sokhulu
Mussel Harvesting Project, where joint management committees had been
SAMUDRA Monograph
25 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
established13. The Mabibi project aimed to introduce co-management with the
overall objective of ensuring “sustainable use of the resources and conservation
of biodiversity” (WWF-SA, 2004).
Currently, there is a joint co-management committee, representing both the
predominantly female harvesters and male line-fi shers. Four community monitors
were elected in 2006, and a system of permits and bag limits was introduced in
the past year.
The community has identifi ed the following problems that they experience in
relation to the harvesting of marine resources and the MPA:
LACK OF ACCESS TO THE SEA
The Mabibi fi shers and harvesters do not have direct access to the sea but the
local luxury tourist resort, the Thonga Beach Lodge, built on their land, has a road
to the sea, which the fi shers may not utilize. The community has tried to address
this issue by repeatedly bringing it to the attention of the park authorities but have
been told that they cannot get an access road of their own. The park has closed
the launching of vessels from this shore to the general public, and only the local
Thonga Beach Lodge may launch vessels from this shore.
PROHIBITION ON OWNING AND USING NON-MOTORIZED
AND MOTORIZED VESSELS
The traditional, local community is not allowed to use any vessels. They are not
even allowed to utilize non-motorized vessels such as canoes, yet the Thonga
Lodge is allowed a vessel. The community perceives this as very unfair and feel
frustrated as they would like to be allowed to offer canoeing to local campers and
visitors as an alternative income-generating option.
LIMITS PLACED ON USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES
The community wishes to “own our own place”, and feels “badly treated by
KZNW”, the authority it perceives as responsible for limiting the harvesting of
marine resources. The community express frustration with the limits on bag size
and numbers. It feels that the limits are not sustainable. It also feels that it is not
fair that their members are limited to the same catch as the recreational fi shers.
OPPORTUNITIES, BENEFIT SHARING AND EQUITABLE ACCESS TO RESOURCES
The Mabibi fi shers and harvesters have not heard of the CBD and are not aware
of their rights to participate in the MPA decisionmaking or of any provisions
SAMUDRA Monograph
26
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
to ensure that they share in the benefi ts. The community is adamant that their
members are not able to participate in the management of the MPA or broader
iSimangaliso Park. The community states that it has not received any benefi ts or
investments from the community levy. The participants said that the tourist lodge
and the camp provide employment for approximately 45 local persons, but these
are not necessarily from the fi sher group. Apart from this, they do not perceive
any benefi ts for their community. On the contrary, they complain that there is no
monitoring of the fi sh that the lodge catches, and the lodge has privileges that
they do not have, such as access to a boat and an access road to the beach.
There are very few alternative livelihood options for the members of the
community. Only two persons from the community have participated in the
Coast Care Project, and only for a limited period of time, after which they were
unemployed. The park has not provided any training for them on any form of
alternative livelihoods.
The community appears constrained by the limited allocations to subsistence
fi shers, and the broader lack of access to opportunities. Community members
admitted to harvesting and fi shing beyond the legal limits and outside their
subsistence permit conditions. For example, they are also harvesting crayfi sh,
which they are not permitted to do. They also expressed frustration at the current
limits, and, when questioned, did not articulate concerns regarding the state of the
resources or impact of increased exploitation of these resources.
The fi shers do not appear empowered to advocate for resources or for their
right to participate in decisionmaking. It is not clear as to the extent to which
this is blocked by the local traditional authority structures. There is no indication
that they perceive a link between their rights to marine resources, their rights
to co-management and their rights to broader socioeconomic development. The
committee does not actively advocate on behalf of the fi shers, a condition that
is possibly exacerbated by the remoteness of the village, and there is no transfer
of capacity from the fi shing ‘co-management’ skills to broader community
concerns.
Desktop research conducted subsequent to the visit to the fi sher community
revealed a number of surprising facts that the community did not mention,
despite repeated probing around the issue of benefi ts and impact of the park. In
2002, the Wetlands Park Authority initiated an ecotourism project in Mabibi to
stimulate opportunities for the local community, and entered into an agreement
with a private company to develop a luxury lodge. The Thonga Beach Lodge and
the Mabibi Campsite have become benchmarks for the development of private-
SAMUDRA Monograph
27 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
sector/community partnerships in ecotourism. The local community, through the
Mabibi Community Trust, owns a 68 per cent share in the R6.5-mn (US$870,000)
Thonga Beach Lodge and a 51 per cent share in the campsite (Mail and Guardian,
30 November 2004). The fact that the community is not aware of the potential
‘benefi ts’ fl owing to them from this lodge highlights the lack of adequate and
effective participation of the community in the planning process and their lack of
awareness about their rights.
The very poor infrastructure in Mabibi and the lack of facilities suggest that though
funds are being put into a trust for the community, there has been a breakdown
in the actual allocation of these funds for community development, and the
benefi ts are not “trickling down”. It would appear that there are several reasons
for this. The existing hierarchical structure of the local tribal authority, and the
relatively new and weak local government, with limited capacity, are undoubtedly
contributing towards the lack of social and economic development in these
communities. However, the fact that the local co-management structure focuses
largely only on fi shing permits, and operates within a fairly narrow ecological focus
on the resource, appears to have contributed to the fact that the fi shers are not
empowered to question the current situation. There is no institutional mechanism
or process for facilitating the fi shers’ access to alternative sources of livelihoods,
and, in a context where the fi shers do not see any benefi ts from participating in
the co-management committees, it is unlikely that this will be sustainable.
3. ST LUCIA MPA–THE SOKHULU MUSSEL HARVESTERS
AND LINE FISHERS
The Sokhulu fi shers and mussel harvesters live on the southwest border of the
park within the jurisdiction of the Sokhulu Traditional Authority. The community
has traditionally harvested marine resources along the coast, both within and just
outside the borders of the park, along a 20-30-km stretch of coast between St
Lucia estuary mouth and Njokanjane (Harris et al., 2003). Harvesting of mussels
dates back hundreds of years. It would appear that traditionally, the harvesters
were women who used a rotational system, moving from one site to another as
mussels became depleted (Harris et al., 2003).
Prior to the 1980s, the community practised this traditional use of marine
resources. There was no national legislative framework to accommodate this type
of marine resource use, and the communities continued with little interference. In
the 1980s, however, the provincial government introduced, and began enforcing,
permit requirements and bag limits. This brought the harvesters into repeated
clashes with law enforcement offi cers. The impact of this on the harvesters, and
SAMUDRA Monograph
28
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
indirectly on the resource, has been documented by Jean Harris.14 As a result of
growing concern by the conservation authorities at the time about the increasing
exploitation of mussels along this coast, predominantly by recreational harvesters,
research on the harvesting of inter-tidal mussel stocks commenced in 1994. This
brought the increasing confl ict between the Sokhulu mussel harvesters and the
park’s board offi cials to the attention of management staff. In response, a long-
term project was initiated to establish a joint management committee, with funding
from the Green Trust and WWF-SA. An area outside the park, at Dingini, was
designated for their subsistence use, and community monitors were selected. An
experiment was set up with the women, identifying different zones for harvesting,
which enabled them to understand the impact of overharvesting on the mussels.
Over time, the harvesters were also encouraged to use less damaging tools for
removing mussels off the rocks. In the following fi ve years, a range of capacity-
building and training opportunities were provided to the committee and some
community members. (Harris et al., 2003).
Decision making within the co-management system in Sokhulu has operated at two
levels (Harris et al., 2003). Initially, decisions regarding the placing of subsistence
zones and the TAC were made by the provincial conservation authority, with
inputs from researchers, and the community committee representatives made the
decisions about who should gain access and the number of bags allowed per
person. Subsequently, the responsibility for deciding the TAC was devolved to
the joint committee. The joint committee representatives now have equal voting
power. A constitution has been developed, and roles and responsibilities of
members of the co-management committees have been outlined.
Despite having their own co-management committee, the fi shers and mussel
harvesters express a range of fr ustrations and concerns regarding local management
of the resources. They experience ongoing user confl icts with recreational fi shers,
many of whom are extremely racist and blame them for the high crime rates in the
area. They are also unhappy with current zone regulations and bag limits, which,
they say, are inadequate for their basic needs. They feel it is unfair that recreational
fi shers are allowed to harvest a large quantity of resources but yet they, who
depend on the resources for their livelihoods, are so restricted.
The fi shers and mussel harvesters do not appear to locate the existing limits
within the current subsistence fi sheries management policy, and this adds to their
frustration, as they perceive recreational fi shers as having more power than they
do; yet, they do not question this from a rights perspective. As with the Mabibi
community, the Sokhulu fi shers and harvesters did not participate in the drafting
of the management plan. This was discussed with the committee members but
not with the broader community, and it has yet to be translated into Zulu.
SAMUDRA Monograph
29 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
The community of harvesters and fi shers does not appear to have been able to
transfer any of the confi dence or capacities gained through the co-management
process to the struggle for their basic socioeconomic rights.
OPPORTUNITIES AND LIVELIHOODS
Currently, 116 mussel-harvesting permits have been issued in Sokhulu. The
community harvests the mussels primarily for household consumption; however,
a small amount is sold. The harvesters cook, shell and sell the mussels in cans.
The market value is low–in 1995, the selling price was R2 (US$0.26) per can–and
thus the resource had more consumption than sale value (Harris et al., 2006).
There is a small group of male line fi shers who harvest within strict daily bag
limits, of equal size to those allocated to the recreational fi shers. Both groups
complain that the bag limits are insuffi cient for them to survive, and there are
few alternative livelihood options for the fi shers in the area. A few get temporary
work collecting wood for the local sawmills. Many people rely on childcare grants
and pensions. They do not benefi t from Coast Care, the DEAT project and the
Poverty Alleviation Project that removed alien vegetation.
It would appear that the weak local government, coupled with a strong tribal
authority, which is not in close contact with the fi sher and harvesting community
within the broader Sokhulu community, is one of the primary problems. It is
also suggested that perhaps because these residents do have access to marine
resources for their livelihoods, they are not targeted by the park authorities for
poverty-relief and alternative livelihood projects. As noted in relation to Mabibi,
because of a lack of institutional mechanisms within the fi sheries conservation
authority to address issues of alternative livelihoods, and between the EKZNW
and iSimangaliso, the issue of alternative livelihoods for these communities has
never been adequately addressed. The communities are marginalized in relation
to poverty-relief options as they are perceived as having an income, and yet the
‘subsistence’ income they are allowed is insuffi cient to sustain their livelihoods.
4. TSITSIKAMMA MPA
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE COMMUNITIES LIVING IN THE PARK
Tsitsikamma MPA, which lies within the Tsitsikamma National Park, is the oldest
MPA in South Africa and the fi rst to be established in Africa. It was established
in 1964, prior to any international or national recognition of MPAs as a tool for
the conservation of marine resources. The Tsitsikamma MPA is one of the largest
MPAs in the country. With a shoreline of 57 km and as a single no-take reserve, it
protects 11 per cent of the county’s temperate south coast shoreline, a signifi cant
SAMUDRA Monograph
30
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
marine biome, given its role as a nursery for many reef species. Although the park
was declared in 1964, the Tsitsikamma Forest Park was declared the Tsitsikamma
National Park only in 1989. However, during the intervening period, considerable
interventions were made to begin to extend the park’s jurisdiction and add a
considerable amount of land to the park. Subsequent proclamations traversed
the Covie community that had already been subjected to forced relocations and
the dictates of the forestry authorities (Conway and Xipu, 2005). Those Covie
residents who still lived in the original area were very dependent on fi shing as a
source of food and were cut off from accessing the sea through the erection of
fences that cut across the Covie commonage. These residents were never consulted
about the action nor did they receive any compensation (Conway and Xipu, 2005).
Similarly, residents of the neighbouring villages of Thornham, Coldstream and
Storms River were largely cut off from easy access to their livelihoods.
The history of marine resource use in the area dates to the 19th century (Delius,
2002 in Faasen, 2006). The communities living in the Tsitsikamma area relied
heavily on the surrounding forest and coastline for their sustenance. The Khoisan
community made a living as woodcutters but supplemented their meagre earnings
with fi sh that they caught along the rocky shores.
Initially, angling from the rocks and the collection of bait species was permitted
when the Park was established, but the fi shers had to purchase an entry permit
(Faasen, 2006). Shore-based angling was allowed to continue throughout the
park for the following 11 years until 1975. In that year, it was limited to 15 sites
and then subsequently further limited in 1978 to a single 3-km stretch, with no
bait collection allowed. In 2001, the entire area was declared a no-take zone.
Throughout this period, the local community advocated actively to retain access
to their historical fi shing site through the formation of the Tsitsikamma Angling
Union. The fi shers, together with other recreational anglers who used the area,
wrote petitions, memorandums and met with SANParks and other key offi cials.
They also met with MCM representatives (Faasen, 2006).
In September 2006, the community living immediately adjacent to the park, under
the auspices of the Tsitsikamma Community Angling Forum (TCAF), launched an
active campaign to restore their access to their historic fi shing site and requested
the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, van Schalkwyk, to open the
park under tight restrictions, to a limited group. They proposed opening a corridor
of 10 km, which would only constitute 13 per cent of the total area. The fi shers
would assist with monitoring the catch and stocks.
Following this request, the Minister announced in March 2007 that this request
would be considered. In response, a ‘Statement of Concern’, signed by 124
SAMUDRA Monograph
31 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
members of the marine science community throughout South Africa, was sent to
the Minister. In this document, the scientists offered their “learned advice that the
Tsitsikamma National Park should remain closed to any form of fi shing”. This
was motivated strongly with 13 points that they stated were based primarily on
biological and economical grounds (Statement of Concern, 2007).
On 27 November 2007, the Minister took a decision not to open the park for
any fi shing, and to retain its no-take status. In a very strong statement, he further
declared his intention to extend the areas under MPA control: “Because of our
determined and forward-looking approach, South Africa today is among the world
leaders in implementing the goals set at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable
Development…At least 18 per cent of South Africa’s coastline falls within formal
protected areas” (DEAT, 2007). Minister van Schalkwyk said a decision to open
this MPA would effectively have signalled 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 stated objectives. He added that opening the MPA would “undermine
its biological sustainability” (DEAT, 2007).
As a result of this decision, the communities living adjacent to the park continue
to have no access to their historical fi shing grounds. It is believed that many of the
fi shers fi sh illegally in the park (Faasen, 2006). A survey of their attitudes towards
illegal fi shing in the park indicated that the majority of the residents interviewed
believed they had a right to fi sh there and, in the face of the recent decision,
they are likely to continue to do so. Seventy-seven per cent of the respondents
supported illegal fi shing in the park. Only 16 per cent reported that they benefi t
from the park. Six per cent of the respondents who denied having benefi ted from
the park had worked for Coast Care, and 17 per cent had worked for the Working
for Water Programme. This suggests that they did not know the park was the
implementing agency for these poverty relief projects or they did not see their
employment as a benefi t (Faasen, 2006). Half of the respondents who felt that
they do not benefi t from the park stated that they feel that the benefi ts of the park
accrue to a few select individuals (Faasen, 2006).
THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY’S PERCEPTION OF THE BENEFIT FLOWS WITHIN
AND FROM THE PARK
An examination of the debates around the benefi ts and perceived value of the
park and the ‘no-take’ zoning aspect of the park provides important insights into
the current dominant discourse on MPAs in South Africa.
As noted above, the marine scientifi c community’s response to the possible
opening of the no-take zone was that “ the marine biodiversity protected within
SAMUDRA Monograph
32
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
the Tsitsikamma National Park is of immense ‘value’ to the nation as a whole and
its protected status should not be compromised by the needs of a few” (Mann,
Bruce, 2007). They also stated that “opening of the MPA to fi shing would thus
result in the rapid depletion of healthy stocks to the detriment of the local fi shery
and, more importantly, to the detriment of the commercial and recreational fi sher
operating in areas adjacent to the MPA” (Mann, Bruce, 2007). They go on to
argue that “as scientists we need ‘evidence-based’ arguments, and we have very
valuable economic and social research on the issue commissioned by WWF-SA”
(Mann, Bruce, 2007). This ‘very valuable’ research referred to is a study that was
commissioned by WWF-SA in order to try and provide a preliminary estimate of
the costs and benefi ts of the Garden Route MPAs.
Clearly, this raises the issue of how to ‘value’ and quantify the worth of biological
stocks, and cultural identity and history in a country where the history of local
communities has been systematically devalued. One of the claimant communities,
in this instance, had their land expropriated from them for the formation of the
park, while the others lost access to their livelihoods. Since many of them have
been forced to fi nd alternative work over the past 20 years, their dependence on
the resource for livelihoods is diffi cult to prove. Currently, only 2 per cent depend
on wild foods for survival, but the others argue strongly that they still supplement
their incomes with fi sh, and that this is also an important cultural tradition. This
aspect has not been valued and the recent (2006) WWF-SA report fails completely
to even acknowledge that this is the primary motivation for the claim by these
communities. Instead, the fi shers are referred to as ‘recreational anglers’. The
study commissioned by WWF-SA on the economic value of the MPA is held in
high regard by the marine science community and is now often quoted in support
of MPAs in South Africa. The fi ndings indicate that the ‘costs are far outweighed
by the benefi ts’ and a fi gure of R33 mn (US$4.4 mn) is given as the total economic
value of the Garden Route MPAs (Turpie et al., 2006).
This study is an excellent example of the way in which the discourse on benefi ts
of MPAs is being argued, devoid of any location in the political economy of
the fi shing industry. Nowhere in the report is the cultural and spiritual value
of the MPA for the traditional fi shing community estimated, and this ‘non-use’
value is not factored into the value of the park, nor is the loss of access for
these communities accounted for. The study also fails to note the history of the
exclusion of many traditional small-scale fi shing communities from the allocation
of line-fi shing rights.
It would appear from the language of the WWF-SA report on the value of Garden
Route MPAs, and other statements made by scientists during interviews for this
SAMUDRA Monograph
33 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
research, that, in a context where conservationists feel that their authority based
on biological conservation ethics is failing them, they have to resort to economic
reductionism in order to justify, and motivate for, conservation measures. They
are appropriating concepts of ‘equity’ and ‘benefi ts for all’ in an attempt to lobby
the politicians, on the one hand, and the economists, on the other, knowing that,
in the current macroeconomic climate, it is costs and benefi ts that ultimately count
the most. The Minister stated in his speech on the decision to uphold the ban on
fi shing in the Tsitsikamma that “allowing a few people access for recreational
purposes would negate the benefi ts that accrue to all” (DEAT, 2007).
The concept of equity has been appropriated so that equity must, according to the
politics of the day, mean equal benefi t sharing for all. Notions of past and present
injustices, and the concept of preferential benefi ts to those who are marginalized
or have historical rights do not feature in this approach. The way that cultural
identity is embedded in marine seascapes and space is not accommodated. This
raises a broader debate regarding the balancing of constitutional rights, particularly
environmental rights, with social rights.
5. MKAMBATI NATURE RESERVE WITHIN
THE PONDOLAND MPA
The Mkambati Nature Reserve is located within the Pondoland MPA in the
Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The Pondoland MPA is the largest
in South Africa, covering 1,300 sq km, which include 90 km of coastline, and
extending approximately 15 km out to sea to the 100-m isobath. The area falls
under three different tenure regimes–communal settlement, State land used for
parastatal agricultural projects, and the State-owned Mkambati Nature Reserve.
This reserve covers 6,120 ha, and was declared a reserve in 1920 for people who
had leprosy and later, tuberculosis. Mkambati Nature Reserve was proclaimed as
a nature reserve in 1977. In 1998, the MPA was declared under Section 43 of the
MLRA. Subsequently, the marine reserve has been incorporated into the larger
Pondoland MPA in terms of Section 43 of the MLRA, and the original Mkambati
MPA was de-proclaimed (ECPB, 2007). It currently falls under the Protected Areas
Act 57 of 2003 as a Provincial Nature Reserve (ECPB, 2007).
The community initiated a land claim for their land in terms of the Restitution
of Land Claims Act of 1994. In terms of the settlement agreement signed in
this regard, the Mkambati Land Trust (MLT) now holds the land on behalf of
the community. The Eastern Cape Parks Board (ECPB) is responsible for the
protection, conservation and biodiversity, in accordance with the management
plan and provincial and national legislation (ECPB, 2007). Until recently, there has
SAMUDRA Monograph
34
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
been no management agreement between MCM and DEAT or ECPB, and limited
assistance from MCM on management and especially, compliance activities (ECPB,
2007). The role of traditional authorities in the new democratic structures is unclear
and contested (Cousins, 1996). A co-management committee was established
in 2004 between the Mkambati Land Trust representatives and the delegated
management authority as part of the land claims settlement agreement.
THE NDENGANE COMMUNITY
The Ndengane community resides less than 2 km from the coast within the
Mkambati Reserve and derive primary protein from exploiting marine resources
like abalone, brown mussels, limpets, crayfi sh, oysters, fi nfi sh, and seaweed (Fielding
et al., 1994). The community comprises 3,000 inhabitants in 83 households and
is dominated by female-headed households. The community maintains a rural
livelihood, with a strong infl uence on indigenous knowledge systems. The members
of the community derive their livelihoods from land-based resources, for example,
livestock, medicinal plants and food crops. Some of the poor in the community
share labour on farms in exchange for food; they also get seasonal employment on
government public works and poverty-alleviation programmes, and tourism in the
parks also adds to some of the income to households. Many households survive
on various forms of cash income through government welfare grants (pensions,
childcare), migrant remittances, and beer brewing.
Kepe (1997) and Whande (2004) state that marine resources form an important
source of protein in the poor households who do not have livestock and land. In
Ndengane, villagers with limited livelihoods tend to utilize the marine resources,
selling some to the tourist market and consuming the rest at home. The traditional
harvesting site for the Ndengane community has been the rocky shore between
the Mnyamene and Magongo Rivers south of the Msikaba River. In particular,
the area between Mkambati and Msikaba Rivers, which falls within the Mkambati
Nature Reserve, has been used by fi shers. Since 1994, this harvesting area has now
been declared a no-take MPA zone. Although fi shers are aware of the governing
regulations regarding closed seasons and no-take zones, they continue to harvest,
and use the notion of ukjola (Kepe, 1997). In most cases, the fi shers are not arrested
as the civic organizations and tribal authorities tend to support ukjola, a process
of legitimizing informal rights. The exploitation rate of marine resources is also
affected by the social and economic conditions (lack of alternative livelihoods,
high unemployment and poverty), which are attracting more young adults into
harvesting.
There is a clear gendered division of labour, with women and girl children
harvesting mussels and limpets, and men being the primary harvesters of crayfi sh
SAMUDRA Monograph
35 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
and line-fi sh. Recently, (Kepe, 1997 and Whande, 2004) noted an increasing trend
of women harvesting lobsters for the tourist market, and some men also collecting
mussels, while young boys do both. However, most of the harvest is consumed at
home. Seaweed (Gelidium pteridifolium) is harvested by women and sold to local
licensed entrepreneurs (Kepe, 1997). In Ndengane, access rights for women are
determined through their kinship and network in the community. Women are not
allowed to raise their opinions or speak out at community meetings, unless they
are related to the chieftaincy. However, in the Role community, only 10 km from
Ndengane, women are represented on the co-management committee, and they
raise their opinions in meetings and engage in debates.
Of the 83 households, 90 per cent collect marine resources (mussels and crayfi sh)
and either consume them or sell them to the tourists visiting the Mkambati nature
reserve or owners of the coastal dwellings. According to the park offi cials, about
30 rights holders were allocated subsistence permits but there are also a large
number of households that fi sh on the post offi ce recreational permits.
ACCESS RIGHTS TO MARINE RESOURCES
MCM15 states that in 2006, 151 exemptions were issued in Ndengane (36), Role (76),
Mncambeni or Cuthwini (39) communities. In Role and Ndengane, MCM issued
East Coast rock lobster exemptions, which are valid from March to the last day of
October 2006. In Mncambeni/Cuthwini, 39 exemptions for brown mussels were
issued, valid for one year and renewable (MCM, 2006). It is important to note that
these allocations are exemptions for a period of a year, and it is not guaranteed
that the fi shers will be allocated rights again. The standoff between MCM and the
chieftaincy has resulted in no rights being allocated to the Ndengane community
in 2007, and the deputy headman has instructed his fi shers to continue fi shing
without a permit. The chieftaincy feels that MCM has consulted his community
to form a co-management group to assist with the monitoring and control
of harvesting and illegal fi shing activities in the no-take zone without getting
permission from him. MCM outsourced the setting up of local co-management
committee to a consultancy called Sustainable Coastal Development. According
to the consultant, the goal of this initiative is to form a representative group, and
they have tried, on numerous occasions, to get permission of the tribal authority,
with little success.
The community has identifi ed the following concerns: the lack of co-ordination
between government departments in implementing programmes and regulations
within the communities; overlapping roles and responsibilities of EC Parks and
MCM; lack of clarity of the roles and responsibilities of the co management
SAMUDRA Monograph
36
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
committee in relation to the tribal authorities; and the fact that the chieftaincy
and the fi shers were not consulted in the implementation of new regulations
in the MPA. The community members are unclear as to the impact of the new
subsistence permits on their traditional access to resources. The chieftaincy is also
unhappy with the fact that it is not clear as to how the community will benefi t
from the programmes the government intends implementing.
The standoff between the community of Ndengane and MCM clearly indicates the
insuffi cient involvement of local and indigenous communities, and their knowledge
in the establishment and management of the MPAs. The role of chieftaincy in
access to natural resources is still unclear. In Ndengane, the chieftaincy tends to
ignore the new regulations. If this confl ict is not dealt with, fi shers will continue
to use ukjola to justify illegal actions, with support from the traditional authority,
and this could compromise the resource.
SAMUDRA Monograph
37 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
SECTION VI
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
South Africa has a clearly identifi able legislative framework in place for the
establishment of MPAs, and has taken decisive actions over the past 40 years,
bringing as much as 18 per cent of the coastal zone under protection. Actual
policy on MPAs is lacking, however, and there is little evidence that the planning
and management of these MPAs is done within the framework of the CBD PA
PoW. MPAs are regarded as a critical fi sheries management tool, and the approach
to the zoning and management of these areas is driven by this perspective.
ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES
A closer look at the participants and benefi ciaries indicates that the benefi ts of
marine conservation and ecotourism within MPAs are contradictory for traditional
small-scale fi shers and harvesters, and most do not benefi t equitably from these
programmes. They do not experience benefi ts from increased protection of the
resources as the dominance of conventional conservation science ensures that the
limits on their harvests remain stringent and barely enable them to sustain their
livelihoods, in some cases not at all. Their identity as legitimate rights holders is
eclipsed by the notion of ‘stakeholders’. Some of them are ‘permitted’ to use the
resources on a subsistence basis, but not, however, entitled with a sense of rights.
In two of the case studies, we found fi shers’ access regulated through subsistence
permits. In the case of Mkambati, due to the standoff between offi cial authorities
(MCM) and traditional authorities, no access rights were allocated in 2007. For the
Covie community of the Tsitsikamma MPA, traditional access has been denied
completely through the declaration of a no-take zone, despite considerable
advocacy on their behalf to have their rights recognized. In Langebaan only seven
of the local traditional fi shers have access rights.
In response to these costs of ‘conservation’, fi shers in four of the fi ve MPAs
admitted to fi shing illegally, and have resorted to unsustainable harvesting
activities. In contrast, in three out of fi ve of the parks, recreational resource users
in, and outside, the parks continue to utilize the same marine resources with legal
sanction.
POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS
The lack of appropriate institutional mechanisms to facilitate integration of a
developmental approach and access to supplementary livelihood options or
SAMUDRA Monograph
38
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
poverty relief projects pervades both the management of small-scale fi sheries
and MPAs. Financial benefi ts from ecotourism have not yet ‘trickled down’ to
fi shing communities. Poverty alleviation and public-works programmes do not
target them as they are regarded as already having an income from harvesting
and catching of marine resources. Most of the case studies indicate a reduction
in marine-based livelihoods, even as the authorities are not offering any viable
alternative opportunities like, for example, land-based livelihoods or tourism. The
jobs that were created through poverty alleviation projects were short-term and
not sustainable. It is not surprising that MPAs are unable to enable fi shers to
diversify livelihoods, as there is absolutely no mechanism to facilitate this.
GOVERNANCE, PARTICIPATION AND CO-MANAGEMENT
All fi ve of the MPAs under discussion inherited an apartheid legacy of top-down
management. All fi ve are now trying to implement a participatory approach, which
is being driven largely by the terrestrial PA work in DEAT and within SANParks.
But the fi ndings of this research suggest that the fundamental paradigm within
which much of this participatory and co-management approach is located is not
one of empowerment. Committees’ capacities and skills are built in order to
meet the instrumental needs of orderly use, monitoring and compliance within
communities, and there is little transfer of the consciousness of their rights as
fi shers to other socioeconomic rights. This approach does not question and
challenge the power relations that lie at the heart of access to, control over, and
management of, resources in the country. As a result, these communities are still
subject to blatant forms of racism, discrimination and the inequities of a system
where powerful traditional structures control access to benefi ts and resources.
This narrow, instrumental approach to fi sheries management within MPAs results
in a failure to set up adequate institutional mechanisms that will facilitate access to
real livelihood alternatives and benefi ts for the community. In all but one of these
studies, there is a noticeable lack of integration with local government economic
development opportunities and tourism initiatives.
It is clear that the vulnerabilities and gaps in the general fi sheries management
policy in South Africa have impacts on the management of the small-scale fi shers
within MPAs. There is no policy to secure an enabling environment for fi shers, no
clear expression of their rights in policy, which leads to marginalization, exclusion
and failure to recognize their rights in terms of MPAs too. Notions of MPAs
as the fi sheries ‘safety banks for all’ abound. This attitude fails to locate MPAs
within the history of injustice and unequal access to marine resources upon which
South Africa’s current fi shing industry and recreational opportunities are based.
Specifi c groups have been systematically excluded and marginalized, and the poor
SAMUDRA Monograph
39 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
benefi t from neither the commercial fi shing industry for which MPAs are allegedly
compensating nor the commercial line fi shery and recreational fi shers who benefi t
from the ‘spillover’ and protection that MPAs are alleged to provide.
SAMUDRA Monograph
40
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
SECTION VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
South Africa has established the necessary legislative framework for ensuring that
indigenous and local communities share equitably in the costs and benefi ts of
MPAs, and participate in the governance of these areas. These legal commitments
have yet to be translated into clear policy directives for the marine component
of PAs , with the corresponding institutional mechanisms in place to secure their
implementation in practice. Currently, the costs of MPAs far outweigh the benefi ts
for small-scale fi shing communities who appear to be bearing the brunt of this
gap in policy and the resulting confusion and competing objectives. Traditional
fi sher and harvesting communities are not benefi ting equitably. Women in these
communities often bear the costs of the impact of such policies because of the
roles they play in sustaining their households. MCM needs to develop a policy for
the management of MPAs, along with norms and standards for the evaluation of
benefi t sharing and participation of local communities. While such a policy needs
to be articulated in conjunction with the General Policy on the Allocation and
Management of Fishing Rights, it should also embrace the broader ecological,
social and cultural imperatives that inform the web of life and well-being in coastal
communities.
International NGOs can contribute to this process by disseminating and drawing
attention to general guidelines on developing and enabling an MPA policy
environment as well as information on norms, standards and methodologies for
monitoring and evaluation of MPAs from the perspective of the impact on small-
scale fi shing communities.
MANAGEMENT OF MPAs
The failure to address the rights, needs and interests of traditional, small-scale
fi shers in South Africa’s general fi sheries management policy spills over into
the management of MPAs. This appears to be due, in part, to the linking of the
management of marine living resources with that of MPAs through the same
legislative framework, the MLRA. It is also, in part, infl uenced by the dominance
of a conservationist fi sheries science that fails to adequately address the social
justice and cultural imperatives informing the objectives of MPAs. The rights
of fi shers to preferential access to certain resources arising from their historic
dependence on them for their livelihoods, their past discriminatory exclusion or
SAMUDRA Monograph
41 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
their cultural histories are neither recognized nor balanced with the rights of other
resources users and marine species. In contrast, MPAs are currently playgrounds
for the rich, laboratories for marine scientists or protected paradises for marine
organisms. Traditional fi shing communities must subsist in marginalized zones
along the fringes, benefi ting from the as yet unproven ‘spillover’ effects.
MCM needs to develop a sustainable fi sheries-rights and management policy
for the small-scale sector that clearly recognizes the rights of these fi shers and
includes the policy mechanisms that will give effect to a community-rights-based
approach based on preferential access to specifi ed zones and a basket of resources
that can sustain their livelihoods. This management policy needs to integrate the
indigenous knowledge of fi shers with scientifi c knowledge of the stocks. The
application of this in MPAs must be recognized. The political will and commitment
to implement this must be conveyed to the marine science community, and a
fundamental paradigm shift facilitated so that a partnership between local fi shing
communities and fi sheries scientists can be established. The implementation of
integrated research projects that harness the indigenous knowledge of fi shers
and secure their participation, demonstrating the tangible benefi ts of MPAs, will
contribute enormously to gaining their support for the objectives of the MPA
authorities.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
The lack of appropriate institutional arrangements to facilitate the equitable
sharing of benefi ts and enable local fi shing communities to access and enjoy
the gains that accrue from tourism and other opportunities further impedes
realization of MPA development potential. MPA authorities need to put in place
the human, community-development capacity at the local level that will enable
communities to be integrated into local development opportunities and give the
necessary support to ensure leverage of these opportunities. Towards this end,
the managing authority for an MPA should be required to form a partnership with
both the local government and civil society in delivering integrated programmes
for local economic development.
PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE
The current approach to community participation in the governance of MPA
resources tends to be instrumental rather than empowering. Traditional fi shing
communities are unaware of their rights and are not empowered to participate
effectively and fully in the management of these resources. The absence
of an empowering, human-rights-based approach to capacity building for
co-management means that these coastal communities are unable to make the
SAMUDRA Monograph
42
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
links between their fi shing rights and broader socioeconomic rights. High levels
of poverty and social exclusion, poor infrastructure and inequitable access to
resources are common features across all fi ve of the case studies. The fragile
governance structures in coastal communities are often unable to deal with the
new enforcement regulations of regulating access, exclusionary criteria, the need
for sanctuaries, etc. Hence, it is important for the MPA process to be socially
acceptable and equitable, not undermine cultural values and practices, and offer
feasible alternative livelihood sources. This will require ongoing stakeholder
participation in co-management arrangements with authorities.
Government and MPA authorities and conservation agencies, research and
training institutions and civil society role players need to develop and implement
awareness-raising and capacity-building programmes that have the empowerment
of traditional, small-scale fi shers and harvesters living in, or adjacent to, MPAs
as a primary objective. These programmes need to provide accessible popular
information, appropriate to the literacy levels of these communities. Particular
attention should be paid to ensuring that women are enabled to participate fully
in the various related processes. International and national NGOs should play
a role in raising awareness of the CBD PA PoW so that these communities are
able to participate actively and effectively in both its implementation and in the
ongoing evaluation of progress towards the achievement of the objectives of the
Convention.
SAMUDRA Monograph
43 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
Endnotes
1. The term ‘small-scale fi shing community’ used in this study refers to all those in
the community who catch or harvest marine resources or are involved in pre- or
post-harvesting activities at the local level.
2. “This is a local term that refers to locally legitimized ‘stealing’ of a resource, based
on historical claims to it, that predate the existing legislation” (Kepe, 1997).
3. The case studies on Langebaan MPA, St Lucia, Maputaland and Tsitsikamma were
written by Jackie Sunde, while the case study on Mkambati Nature Reserve MPA
was written by Moenieba Isaacs.
4. See
Vth IUCN World Parks Congress Recommendations 5.29, 5.24–5.27, amongst
others.
5. See, amongst others, Lea M. Sherl et al., 2004.
6. The key issues were identifi ed with Antonio Carlos Diegues of the University of
São Paulo, Brazil.
7. See for example Media Statement on Tsitsikamma, dated 26 November 2007.
8. See Comments on Subsistence and Small-scale Policy. Masifundise, Cape Town, 2007.
9. The
SFTG consisted of two groups, the core group of 17 members with divergent
areas of expertise, and the consultative group of 20 members who provided
information and support to the core group. According to the detailed survey of
the SFTG, there were 143 fi shing communities along the entire coast, comprising
approximately 20,000 households, with some 30,000 subsistence fi shers. Of these,
only 30 communities were located in the Western Cape, with the majority in KZN
and EC (Isaacs, 2003).
10. See Appendix I for a list of key informants.
11. Moenieba Isaacs undertook responsibility for the Mkambati Study. The fi eldwork
for the Langebaan study was conducted by Jackie Sunde, with assistance from
community leaders, Norton Dowries and Solene Smith. The fi eldwork for the
Sokhulu and Mabibit communities was conducted by Sithembiso Gwaza and Jackie
Sunde and the desktop research on Tsitsikamma was done by Jackie Sunde.
12. See Hutchings and Lamberth, 2002 (a), (b) and Hutchings et al., 2002.
13. These projects have been well documented. See Harris, J M et al., 2003 and WWF-
SA Green Trust Project Progress Report, 2004.
14. See Harris et al., 2003
15. As stated in an email communication from Sandile Sibaya.
SAMUDRA Monograph
44
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
References
ANC (African National Congress). Reconstruction and Development Programme: A Policy
Framework. Johannesburg: Umanyano Press, 1994. (Also at: http://www.
policy.org.za/govdocs/rdp.html)
Blount, BG, and A Pitchon. “An Anthropological Research Protocol for Marine
Protected Areas: Creating a Niche in a Multidisciplinary Cultural Hierarchy.”
Human Organization. Vol. 66. No. 2 pp 103-111, 2007.
Boyd, A. State of Protected Areas Management in South Africa. Text of presentation
at MPA Managers Forum (26-28 Nov 2007) and also submitted to the People
and Parks meeting (not presented though), Cape Town: Marine and Coastal
Management, 2007.
Branch, G. M, Hauck, M. Siqwana-Ndulo, N. and Dye, H. “Defi ning in the South
African Context: Subsistence, Artisanal and Small-scale Commercial Sectors.”
South African Journal of Marine Science. 24: 475-487, 2002.
Carruthers, J. The Kruger National Park. A Social and Political History. Pietermaritzburg:
University of Natal Press, 1995.
Carruthers, J. “Creating a National Park, 1910-1926.” Journal of Southern African Studies.
15 (2) 188-216, 1989.
Conway, A and Xipu, T. Securing Post-settlement Support Towards Sustainable Restitution:
Lessons from Covie. Southern Cape Land Committee, 2005.
Cousins, B. Range Management and Land Reform Policy in Post-apartheid South Africa.
Occasional Paper Series. Bellville. PLAAS, 1996.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. South African Environmental
Outlook Report, 2006. Pretoria: DEAT, 2006.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Marine Living Resources Act of
1998. Pretoria: Government Gazette, 1998.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Report on the People in Parks
Workshop. Pretoria: DEAT, 2004.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2005a. South Africa’s Third
National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Pretoria: DEAT, 2005.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2005b. South Africa’s National
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2005. Pretoria: DEAT, 2005.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2007a. Pretoria: Media Statement,
10 April 2007.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 2007b. Pretoria: Media Statement,
27 November 2007.
SAMUDRA Monograph
45 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism National Environmental
Management Act of 1998, Pretoria: Government Gazette.
ECPB. 2007. East Cape Parks Board, Draft, Integrated Reserve Management Plan:
Strategic Management Plan, Mkambati Nature Reserve.
Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife. www.ekznw.org.za
Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife. Management Plan for Subsistence Line Fisheries in
KwaZulu-Natal. KZN Fishery 2, 2003
Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife. Management Plan for Subsistence Harvesting of Rocky
Shore Invertebrates in KwaZulu-Natal. KZN Fishery 3, 2006.
Faasen, Helene. Synergies between biodiversity conservation and sustainable rural
development of adjacent communities: A case study of the Tsitsikamma
National Park. Thesis presented in partial fulfi lment of the requirements
for the degree of Master in Science in Conservation Ecology. Stellenbosch:
University of Stellenbosch. 2006.
Fielding, P J, W D Robertson, A H Dye, B J Tomalin, R P Van der Elst, R P Beckely,
L E Mann, S L Birnie, M H Schleyer and T A Lasiak. Transkei Coastal Fisheries
Resources. Special Publications 3. Durban: The Oceanographic Research
Institute, Marine Parade, 1994.
FAO. Supporting Small-scale Fishers Through an Enabling Environment. Twenty Sixth Session,
March 2005, Rome: FAO, 2005.
Groenewald, Yolande. “Who Owns Tourism?” Mail and Guardian, 30 November
2004.
Hara, M and J Raakjær-Nielsen. “Experiences with Fisheries Co-management in
Africa.” In The Fisheries Co-management Experience: Accomplishments, Challenges
and Prospects. Ed. D C Wilson, J Raakjær-Nielsen and P Degnbol. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 2003.
Harris, J. et al. “The Sokhulu Subsistence Mussel Harvesting Project: Co-management
in Action.” In Waves of Change. Eds. M Hauck and M Sowman. Cape Town:
University of Cape Town, 2003.
Harris, J M. et al. “Redressing Access Inequities and Implementing Formal Management
Systems for Marine and Estuarine Subsistence Fisheries in South Africa”. In
Fisheries Management: Progress Towards Sustainability. Ed. T R McClanahan and
Juan Carlos Castilla. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007.
Hauck M and M Sowman. Waves of Change. Cape Town: University of Cape Town
Press, 2003.
Hersoug, B, “Same Procedure as Last Year? Same Procedure as Every Year! Some
Refl ections on South Africa’s New Fisheries Policy.” Southern African
SAMUDRA Monograph
46
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
Perspectives No. 56. Centre for Southern African Studies. Cape Town: School
of Government, University of Western Cape, 1996.
Hutchings,
K and S J Lamberth. 2002a. “Bycatch in the Gillnet and Beach-seine Fisheries
in the Western Cape, South Africa, with Implications for Management.” South
African Journal of Marine Science, 24: 227-241, 2002.
Hutchings, K and S J Lamberth. 2002b. “Catch and Effort Estimates for the Gillnet
and Beach-seine Fisheries in the Western Cape, South Africa.” South African
Journal of Marine Science, 24: 205-225, 2002.
Hutchings, K, S J Lamberth and J K Turpie. 2002. “Socioeconomic Characteristics of
Gillnet and Beach-seine Fishers in the Western Cape, South Africa.” South
African Journal of Marine Science, 24: 243-262, 2002.
Isaacs, M, M Hara and J Raakjær Nielsen. “South African Fisheries Reform: Past,
Present, and Future?” Policy Brief No. 16. Cape Town: Programme for Land
and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, 2005.
Kepe, T. “Environmental Entitlements in Mkambati: Livelihoods, Social Institutions
and Environmental Change on the Wild Coast of the Eastern Cape.” Research
Report No. 1. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS). Cape Town:
School of Government, University of Western Cape, 1997.
Kepe, T. “The Problem of Defi ning ‘Community’: Challenges for the Land Reform
Programme in Rural South Africa: Land Reform and Agrarian Change
In Southern Africa.” Occasional Paper Series. No. 6. Cape Town: School of
Government, University of Western Cape, 1998.
Kepe, T. “Waking Up From the Dream: The Pitfalls of ‘Fast-track’ Development on
the Wild Coast of South Africa.” Research Report No.8. Cape Town: Programme
for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) School of Government, University
of Western Cape, 2001.
Lea M Scherl et al. Can Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction? Opportunities and
Limitations. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2004.
Lemm, S and C Attwood. State of Marine Protected Area Management in South Africa.
Stellenbosch: WWF-SA, 2003.
Mann, Bruce. Statement of Concern. Newsletter of the Phycological Society of
Southern Africa. Vol.65: 6-7, June/July 2007.
MCM. Pers. comm. with Sandile Sibaya, Marine and Coastal Management, Cape Town,
2006.
Raakjær-Nielsen, J and M Hara. “Transformation of South African Industrial
Fisheries.” Marine Policy, 30(1): 43–50, 2006.
RDP (Reconstruction and Development Programme) 1994. A Policy Framework.
http://www.policy.org.za/govdocs/rdp.html
SAMUDRA Monograph
47 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
SFTG (Subsistence Fisheries Task Group). Draft Recommendations for Subsistence
Fisheries Management in South Africa. Cape Town: Chief Director, Marine
and Coastal Management, 2000.
Sisitka, L and P Fielding. South African MPA Management Training Course.
Grahamstown: WWF-SA and Rhodes University, 2006.
South African Government. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, No.108
of 1996. Government Publications, Pretoria, 1996. http://www.info.gov.za
Sowman, M, M Hauck and G Branch. “Lessons Learnt from Nine Coastal and Fisheries
Case Studies.” In Waves of Change. Ed. M Hauck and M Sowman. Cape Town:
University of Cape Town Press, 2003.
Turpie, J, B Clark and K Hutchings. The Economic Value of Marine Protected Areas
Along the Garden Route Coast, South Africa, and Implications of Changes in Size
and Management. Cape Town: Anchor Environmental Consultants and Percy
FitzPatrick Institute, University of Cape Town, 2006.
Van der Linde, H, J Ogletroppe, T Sandwith, Snelson and Y Tessema. Beyond Boundaries:
Transboundary Natural Resource Management in Sub-saharan Africa. Washington
DC: Biodiversity Support Programme, 2001.
Van Sittert, L. “The Tyranny of the Past: Why Local Histories Matter in the South
African Fisheries”. Ocean and Coastal Management, 46: 199–219, 2003.
Whande, W. “Contested Authority Over Land and Natural Resources in Rural South
Africa: Case Studies from Ndengane Village, Pondoland.” Unpublished
M Phil coursework thesis. Cape Town: Programme for Land Agrarian Studies
(PLAAS), The University of the Western Cape, 2004.
Whande, W. “Transboundary Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa: Local
Historical and Livelihood Realities Within the Great Limpopo Trans-frontier
Conservation Area.” Research Report No. 25. Cape Town: Programme for
Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), School of Government, The University
of the Western Cape, 2007.
WWF-SA. Co-management of Coastal Resources in the Maputaland Marine Reserve. Project
Report. Stellenbosch: WWF-SA and The Green Trust, 2004.
SAMUDRA Monograph
48
MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
APPENDIX I
LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS AND SOURCES
1. Mabibi, Sokhulu, Langebaan and Tsitsikamma Colin Attwood,
marine fi sheries scientist (personal interview)
2. Maria Hauck. Researcher, UCT EEU (personal interview)
3. Bronwyn James, iSimangaliso Research Manager
(brief telephonic discussion)
4. Jean Harris,
EKZNW wildlife ecologist (meeting)
5. Alan Boyd, director responsible for MPA management, MCM
(telephonic discussion and email)
6. Cedric Coetzee,
EKZNW Wildlife Manager (meeting)
7. Gijimane Myende,
EKZNW Extension Offi cer (meeting)
8. Phikelele Mbonambi,
EKZNW Extension Offi cer (meeting)
9. Nellie Gumede,
EKZNW Extension Offi cer (meeting)
10. Pierre Nel, Manager, West Coast National Park (telephonic discussion)
11. Mandla Zikhali, community leader (brief discussion)
12. Steven Lamberth,
MCM fi sheries scientist
(telephonic discussion and email)
13. Joyce Zikhali, community leader (brief discussion)
14. Solene Smith , community leader (meetings)
15. Norton Dowries, community leader (meetings)
16. Aaniyah Omardien,
WWF-SA Programme Manager
(brief telephonic discussion and email)
17. Henry Bruiners, Chairperson for the Tsitsikamma Community
Angling Forum (telephonic discussion)
SAMUDRA Monograph
49 MPAs IN SOUTH AFRICA
APPENDIX II
LIST OF INTERVIEWS FOR MKAMBATI CASE STUDY
1. Vuyani Mpiya, EC Parks and Manager of Mkambati Nature Reserve
2. Bongani Mvulo,
EC Parks and offi cial of Mkambati Nature Reserve
3. Andrew Motha, Marine and Coastal Management, Compliance
4. Pinky Gqirama, Marine and Coastal Management, Complaince
5. Tokello Poho, Marine and Coastal Management, Norway-South Africa
Marine Fisheries Co-operation Business Plan (NORSA)
6. Nobusika Mpongoma, Marine and Coastal Management,
Marine Protected Areas
7. Themba, Sustainable Coastal Development
ISBN 978 81 906765 0 2
SAMUDRA Monograph
Marine Conservation and Coastal Communities:
Who Carries the Costs? A Study of Marine Protected
Areas and Their Impact on Traditional Small-scale
Fishing Communities in South Africa
This study analyzes fi ve marine protected areas (MPAs) in South Africa, which
span three of the country’s four coastal provinces, namely, the Langebaan
Lagoon MPA, the Maputaland MPA, the St Lucia MPA, the Tsitsikamma MPA
and the Mkambati MPA. These MPAs were established primarily to conserve
marine environments, while helping to manage the fi sheries by protecting
and rebuilding economically important stocks.
The study provides specifi c examples of practice that contribute to an
overview of how MPA policy and management affect small-scale fi shing
communities living in, or adjacent to, the MPAs. The overall fi nding is
that traditional fi shing communities have to bear the costs of marine
conservation, with few benefi ts fl owing to them. A biological, conservation-
oriented fi sheries science dominates the agendas of these MPAs. Rather
than adopting a responsible, ‘enabling’ approach to traditional, small-scale
fi sheries, current management of marine resources in MPAs contributes
to the further exclusion of these fi shers, and undermines their traditional
livelihoods.
The study argues for a review of policy and management of the marine
component of South Africa’s protected areas. It calls for institutional
mechanisms that will allow traditional fi shing communities to effectively
participate in the governance of MPAs and share equitably in their benefi ts.
This study will be useful for analysts, researchers, non-governmental and
fi sher organizations, and anyone else interested in fi sheries, biodiversity,
conservation, communities and livelihoods.
ICSF is an international NGO working on issues that concern fi shworkers
the world over. It is in status with the Economic and Social Council of
the UN and is on ILO’s Special List of Non-Governmental International
Organizations. It also has Liaison Status with FAO. As a global network
of community organizers, teachers, technicians, researchers and scientists,
ICSF’s activities encompass monitoring and research, exchange and training,
campaigns and action, as well as communications.
