Kreef quota reallocation favours small-scale fisheries
The article, “Court bid to save kreef going extinct” (July 8), accuses fisheries management of manipulating fishing quotas to favour certain interest groups at the expense of sound management.
The issue in contention by the World Wide Fund for Nature is the allocation of quotas in West Coast rock lobster.
Over the past 12 years we have shifted about 30% of the lobster total allowable catch from the offshore commercial fishery to the near-shore hoop-net fishery so as to accommodate greater numbers of small-scale fisheries.
The determination for total allowable catch is in line with the provisions of section 2 of the Marine Living Resources Act, and the allocation of quotas balances scientific, ecological, economic and social justice interests.
We hold the view that biological and scientific considerations are important, but were the government to fall for the WWF push, this would blunt diversification and leave the sector as an exclusive reserve for white companies, including foreign fisheries, while the people remain paupers. We are not prepared to travel that route.
This court action, which we are opposing, is a subterfuge designed to scupper radical economic transformation within the fisheries economy.
Khaye Nkwanyana, spokesman for the minister of agriculture, fisheries and forestry
Decision risks stock collapse
As fishery scientists with knowledge of South Africa, we are aware of the background to the court case described in the article of July 8 and share the concerns of other scientists about recent decisions in managing the West Coast rock lobster (kreef) resource.
South Africa has a justifiably high international reputation due to its promotion and implementation of sciencebased fishery management. It is of concern to see the erosion of this approach.
While we support the right of any country to take social and economic factors into account, decisions that favour very short-term economic interests at the risk of stock collapse and consequent economic and social collapse are not in the best interests of either fishers or the environment.
We hope that the authorities will return to the evidence-based management that has been a feature of the success of South African fisheries management over the past two decades.
Professors Tony Smith, Keith Sainsbury, Denzil Miller and Cathy Dichmont, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania
Hogwash that I insisted on Trust
In your editorial, “Is Ramaphosa willing to sacrifice our rights to the Zulu king’s blackmail?” (July 8), you declare the Ingonyama Trust Act “a law passed in the final days of apartheid, at the behest of IFP leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi, who demanded it as the price for his participation in the election of 1994”.
It’s absolute hogwash.
On April 19 1994, Nelson Mandela, FW de Klerk and I signed the Memorandum of Understanding for Reconciliation and Peace, in which the IFP agreed to participate in the 1994 elections. The conditions for our participation are captured in the MoU, and none of them make any mention of the establishment of a trust or even legislation around communal land in KwaZulu.
The Ingonyama Trust Act was never part of negotiations and was passed by the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly after negotiations were concluded. The assembly was well within its rights to pass legislation of this kind and it neither needed nor sought permission from the National Party government.
When the Ingonyama Trust Act came before parliament in 1997, it was amended to the full satisfaction of every party. During the debate the ANC declared that the act “makes it possible for this province to move ahead with the programme of development”. The act has been legitimately in place for 24 years.
Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, IFP president
Stop making refugees scapegoats
On Wednesday, the media disseminated COPE leader Mosiuoa Lekota’s call for the introduction of refugee camps.
South Africa does not have an immigrant influx problem.
We have a broken immigration regime, an underresourced Department of Home Affairs, and a leadership incapable of putting together or implementing a coherent policy framework.
Our constitutional democracy is built on the founding values of dignity, equality and freedom. There is no dignity in refugee camps.
That Lekota would suggest such dehumanising treatment of our vulnerable African brethren as a cheap electioneering gimmick is beneath his esteemed stature as a freedom fighter. Scapegoating refugees won’t fix our problems.
Busisiwe Langa, Cape Town
‘Tribe’ is colonial terminology
Kindly ask Mr Mthombothi, an African elder, to refrain from calling us, as Africans, “tribes”.
That is a demeaning and derogatory term which was used by colonialists, racists and slave masters when referring to us as primitive people. As an African, I really find it offensive.
Thulani Ngcobo, Midrand
Zuma blames his old foe
While losing a child can never be easy for a parent, Jacob Zuma’s extrapolation that harsh media reporting exacerbated his son Vusi’s lupus condition, “Media worsened son’s illness, say Zumas” (July 8), seems a dishonest opportunity to lash out at the fourth estate for doing its job.
Medical reports indicate that lupus is a chronic disease caused when a person’s immune system attacks its own tissues. The parallel to the ANC’s factionalism is apparent as the party devours itself. Thembelihle Williams, East London
Write to PO Box 1742, Saxonwold 2132; SMS 33662; e-mail: tel[email protected]daytimes.co.za; Fax: 011 280 5150 All mail should be accompanied by a street address and daytime telephone number. The Editor reserves the right to cut letters