Kogelberg IMP - 2nd SH meeting Report.pdf - Anchor Environmental

KOGELBERG COAST INTEG
GRATED
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
REPORT OF THE 2 nd KEY
STAKEHOLDER MEETING
8 December 2009, Community
Hall, Kleinmond
Introduction
Anchor Environmental Consultants were appointed to develop an Integrated Coastal
Management Plan for
the Kogelberg Coast in line with the requirements of the new Integrated
Coastal Management Act (Act 24 of2008). The draft Kogelberg Coast Integrated Management Plan
(KCIMP) has been developed as part of the Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.) –
WWF Marine Programme, which is
an initiative
being implemented by key government agencies in
the Cape Floristic Region (Department of Environmental Affairs, Marine & Coastal Management,
CapeNature, SANParks, coastal municipalities, WWF and
other NGOs). The C. .A.P.E. Marine
Programme is aimed at strengthening conservation and
ensuring sustainable use of marine
biodiversity and resources by providing sustainable socio‐economic benefits to coastal communities
in the CFR. The programme is working to support the effective management of the coast in two
focal areas ‐ the Garden Route and
Kogelberg (from the Steenbras to Bot estuary) ‐ each of which
has high value biodiversity underpinning thriving
tourism industries.
This document reports on the outcomes of the second stakeholder meeting held in
Kleinmond on 8 December 2009. It provides a record of the proceedings of the meeting, of issues
raised at the meeting and outcomes. This document should
be read in conjunction with the Draft
Kogelbergg
Coast Integrated Management
Plan,
available
for download
at
www.anchorenvironmetal.co.za or on hardcopy
from the local libraries (Betty’s Bay and Kleinmond).
A full list of stakeholders present at
the meeting
and of slide presentations is providedd in Appendix
1
of this document.
Proceedings of the Meeting
Dr Clark of Anchor Environmental started the meeting by welcoming the participants and
introducing the team
from Anchor Environmental Consultants (AEC) and the Environmental
Evaluation
Unit (EEU).
He explained that the development of the KCIMP had been funded by the
C.A.P.E‐WWF Marine Programme which was running under the auspices of the Department of

Environmental Affairs. He indicated that the EEU and AEC had worked with the stakeholders to
develop the draft KCIMP.
The agenda for the meeting was then presented.
Agenda:
Registration and tea/coffee
Welcome and Introduction
Overview of the Kogelberg Coast Integrated Management
Plan:
Recap on path to present
Key elements of the draft KCIMP
Overview of the role and function of the Kogelberg Coastal
Committee
Way Forward
Closure
All
Anchor Environmental
Anchor Environmental –
Barry Clark and discussion by all
stakeholders
Anchor Environmental –
Karen Tunley and discussion by all
stakeholders
Anchor Environmental
Anchor Environmental
Dr Clark explained that the meeting would be interactive and questions and comments could
be made throughout the presentation. Furthermore he indicated that stakeholders had at least until
January 2010 to look at the draft and comment. He then presented a slideshow (included in
Appendix 2).
Recap on process to date:
Dr Clark listed the activities that AEC and the EEU had completed to date in the drawing up the
draft Kogelberg Coast Integrated Management Plan (KCIMP). These comprised of:
• The preparation of a situation assessment report which described the value and importance
of the Kogelberg Coast and provided the rationale for developing a management plan for the
coast.
• The first multi‐stakeholder meeting held on the 16 th September 2009 in which stakeholders
presented their issues, visions and concerns regarding the coast.
• Focus group meetings with authorities, the Overstrand Municipality, organised conservation
groups, recreational fishers and small scale fishers.
He then relayed that the drafting of the plan had been a difficult process as the stakeholders had
conflicting concerns and desires which could not all be integrated.
Vision:
Dr Clark indicated that the vision had been based on stakeholder inputs from the first multistakeholder
meeting and had been workshopped at the various focus group meetings. He explained
that the vision is a broad statement of intent and a description of what the stakeholders desire for
the future.
The vision presented was:

“The Kogelberg coast includes a diversity of habitats and resources that are locally and globally
significant and provide important socio‐economic, cultural and recreational benefits to local people
through a balance between conservation, sustainable use and development”.
Comment 1 – What about consultation with commercial fishers
Response – Barry Clark (BC): The EEU has engaged extensively with small‐scale inshore
fishers in several workshops and focus groups, which were advertised widely. The small scale fishers
are commercial fishers who will be influenced by this plan.
Comment 2 – Who are small‐scale fishers
Response – Serge Raemaekers (SR): These include rights holders, interim relief permit
holders and their crew as well as informal fishers. These are essentially fishers that fish for a
livelihood in the inshore/nearshore zone of the Kogelberg. The term small‐scale is used as it is in line
with policy discussions and international definitions.
Comment 3 – How will the opening of the abalone fishery impact on this plan
Response BC – We don’t foresee that there will be a problem.
BC – The KCIMP is not yet endorsed by the authorities. It is based 100% on issues raised by the
stakeholders. If you (the stakeholders) support the KCIMP the authorities will need a strong
argument not to implement it. The KCIMP is essentially your issues on paper that need to be
presented to the authorities and addressed by the authorities and local stakeholders through a comanagement
process.
Comment 4 – The co‐ordinates for the zonation and the boundaries of the MPA need to be included
in the plan.
BC – The KCIMP is still in draft form and we are happy to receive your inputs.
Objectives:
BC‐ These objectives are based on your concerns and inputs. We have tried to capture all of your
issues. The objectives of the plan are to:
1. Establish responsible and effective governance
2. Conserve biodiversity and ensure sustained ecosystem functioning – this is an important
objective that was brought up by several stakeholders. It is important as there will be no
resources, benefits or income without a functioning ecosystem.
3. Maximise local socio‐economic benefits – one of the strongest ideas put forward by several
stakeholders was that inshore resources should benefit local people not outsiders.
4. Improve enforcement and compliance
5. Ensure equitable access to coastal public property
6. Conserve and restore the sense of place and cultural heritage
7. Restore and maintain a healthy environment
8. Increase public awareness

BC – you can also provide feedback on the draft KCIMP in writing. Please look at the plan and raise
any comments or concerns by January next year.
Strategies:
BC – the strategies are a proposal of how to put the objectives into practice. The diagram of
objectives and strategies indicates that all the objectives are interlinked and essentially underpin
one another.
Zonation:
BC ‐ this is likely to be the most contentious section. A proposal that was supported in the focus
group meetings was the proclamation of one large zoned Marine Protected Area (MPA) similar to
that of the Table Mountain MPA which has no take zones and controlled areas in which a blanket
exemption has been granted.
A similar initiative is proposed for the Kogelberg however it will be designed to benefit local
communities through exemptions for the exploitation of inshore resources, like kelp, abalone and
rock lobster, in controlled zones by local small‐scale fishers only. It is proposed that a general
exemption be passed for all recreational fishers to fish in the controlled zones so as not to impact on
the tourism industry in the area. Exemptions will also be granted for the exploitation of offshore and
migratory resources by large scale commercial rights holders where applicable.
All exemptions will be granted within 80% of the coastline of the MPA, the remaining 20%
will be a no take sanctuary area. This no take area is necessary so to ensure that the inshore
resources (which are to be utilized exclusively by local small scale fishers and recreational fishers)
can be sustained from within the MPA. We need to identify 20% of the coastline to be declared no
take. The zones still need to be identified and negotiated. What we need from this meeting is in
principle support for the idea before we invest effort in determining where the no take zone/zones
will be located. The Bot Estuary Management Plan (EMP) has been integrated into this draft plan,
but we acknowledge that the Bot EMP is still not finalized. We hope that it gets carried forward and
incorporated in this KCIMP. It is important to understand that the one large zoned MPA is at this
point only a proposal and that if you support it in principle we can take it forward and present it to
Marine and Coastal Management.
Comment 5 – The Betty’s Bay MPA is the only section of the Kogelberg coast that is safe for angling
from the shore. Rooiels has a dangerous coastline. Angling must be allowed in Betty’s Bay MPA as it
attracts visitors and is the only area where geelbek can be caught. Anglers are not the only culprits
on the coast. Visitors scramble over rocks and allow dogs on beaches. If you close a section of coast
to angling you must close it to all users.
Response BC – We are not here to discuss where the no take zones will be located. This will
be taken up in negotiations next year once we have in principle support from you for a large zoned
MPA with 20% of the coast no take. The negotiation process will be a long process to be initiated
next year. One issue brought up in a focus group meeting regarding the closure of the Betty’s Bay
MPA was that of equity. Currently small scale fishers are not permitted to fish here while
recreational fishers can from the shore.

Comment 6 – the visitors will drown if not allowed to fish from the shore in Betty’s Bay and there
are large sections of the coast which cannot be accessed as there is private land adjacent to the
coast.
Response BC – The KCIMP is trying to facilitate access to coastal public property in line with
the vision and objectives of the Integrated Coastal Management Act.
Comment 7 – Do we just need to agree on the principle of the one large zoned MPA in this
meeting
Response BC – We are trying to get the word out and correct message out through this
meeting.
Comment 8 – Why was the map put up Has Colin Attwood’s plan been discarded
Response BC – The map was put up to stimulate discussion.
Comment 9 – What species are protected by the Betty’s Bay MPA
Response BC – Inshore resources and biodiversity
Comment 10 – Why not prevent access to species like Geelbek and Kabeljou on a seasonal basis
Response BC – It is difficult to manage an MPA on a seasonal basis
Comment 11 – Does “local” include visitors from Johannesburg
Response BC – No, but all recreational fishers will be allowed to fish in the controlled zones.
Comment 12 – Are offshore commercial fishers going to be allowed in the MPA
Response – Ken Hutchings (KH)– The offshore industry will be kept offshore as they have
depth limits. No trawlers will operate within the MPA, however commercial traditional line
fishers will most likely be allowed.
Comment 13 – But the commercial Snoek fishers are not local.
Response KH – The fishery is not viable if it is not nomadic as snoek are a migratory species.
Comment 14 – What about commercial fishers that harvest two or more species (dual harvest)
Response KH – This is not allowed.
Comment 15 – Will commercial fishers be allowed in the no take zones
Response KH – No, the no take zones are no take for everyone.
Comment 16 (Geoff Harris) – I was misquoted in the minutes from the recreational fishers focus
group meeting. I DO believe tourism plays a major role in the economy of the area. This being the
case, I did not make the ridiculous comment to the effect that “only a few rich people benefit from
tourism” which was credited to me at the focus meeting.
Comment 17 – The maps in the draft KCIMP and the presentation are different.
Response BC – I acknowledge the differences. The zonation plans are by no means final and
this one (in the presentation) was presented to stimulate thinking, which is why there are

question marks over the no take zones. The aim is to agree on the setting aside of 20% of
the coastline as no take zones so that resources can be sustained from within the MPA.
Locals will essentially be given “ownership” of certain inshore resources within the MPA, but
these will need to be managed in such a way so to ensure that the fishery remains
sustainable.
Comment 18 – Where did your proposed no take zones come from
Response – there was some consensus in the focus group meetings that called for the
closure of these areas to exploitation. It was expressed by some stakeholders that “the
Betty’s Bay MPA is already established and some fishing activities are restricted there, so
why not start there”
Comment 19 – I believe these areas have been predetermined. You (AEC) have not been
transparent; this process needs to be transparent. I have had many discussions on the beach with
certain members of the Betty’s Bay community and they have repeatedly mentioned the closure of
the areas proposed in this plan.
Response SR – We want to bring the decisions to a local level. That has been a principle aim
of this process. We have tried to keep things transparent and will continue to do so. The idea
proposed in this plan is an attempt to change scenarios and address issues. It is a creative
and innovative way of using the legislation governing MPAs to essentially create a balance
between conservation, livelihoods and leisure by allowing for local decision making. We are
starting from scratch and now have an opportunity to try something new in South Africa.
Zonation will be discussed and negotiated over the next year before anything is proclaimed.
Comment 20 – Nobody is against 20% or even 30% of the coast as no take zones, but the issue is
where these no take zones will be situated. The fishermen’s needs and issues are the only ones that
should be heard and taken into consideration in this regard. Leave decision making in cricket to the
cricketers, rugby to the rugby players and fishing to the fishermen!
Comment 21 – Who is going to pay for the implementation of this plan The ratepayers
Response BC – It will be divided amongst the various authorities. (Marine and Coastal
Management, Provincial and municipal) Funds may need to be raised.
Comment 22 (Dr Allan Heydorn – Chair of the Kogelberg Marine Working Group (KMWG)) – I have
written articles that have appeared in the Newspaper. These articles were not to propose, delineate
or assign no take zones but rather to express the importance of no take areas for the recruitment of
exploited species. I have a background and many years experience as a marine biologist. There is a
strong biological reason for the Betty’s Bay MPA; it is a good recruitment area. The articles were
written and published to allow discussion and all comments are welcome and are necessary to come
to the best possible long term solution for the Kogelberg. I am happy and grateful that the
preparation of the KCIMP is happening as it allows for and facilitates this necessary engagement
between stakeholders.
Comment 23 – There are still many aspects that need to be explored such as the use of the shore by
local anglers, kelp harvesting, and Hawston communities fishing in the Bot estuary.

Comment 24 – Why not use the plan prepared by Colin Attwood and shift the Betty’s Bay MPA East
Comment 25 – UNESCO has an obligation to incorporate a core area within the biosphere reserve.
This core area is the Betty’s Bay MPA, which is the only area that can be linked to the terrestrial
Biosphere Reserve.
Key Strategies and Action Plans:
The tables of strategies and actions as they appear in the draft KCIMP were presented by Dr.
Clark.
Comment 26 – AEC have been contracted to work on the Kogelberg Coastal Area. Would the MPA
begin and end on the same boundaries were AEC working in a broader area Are the boundaries not
arbitrary
Response BC – No. In accordance with the Integrated Coastal Management Act the boundaries
of the KCIMP (as a municipal coastal programme) should line up with the municipal boundaries.
This project was conceived before the Integrated Coastal Management Act was enacted and the
boundaries of the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve were used. The KCIMP will eventually be
expanded to incorporate the entire jurisdiction of Overstrand municipality and perhaps the
Overberg District.
Comment 27 – Will the law enforcement team be in addition to the current teams
Response BC – Not necessarily it could be combined with the current teams or be a separate
agency or group. What is here now is not working. We could possibly set up a team analogous to
the marines. It will be the job of the Kogelberg Coastal Committee to advise government.
Comment 28 – Will the municipality have to fund this enforcement team
Response BC – Not only the municipality but all agencies will need to work together and coordinate
efforts. Portions of the costs will have to be agreed, adopted and funded by different
agencies. The Integrated Coastal Management Act has placed responsibilities on the municipality
that will require funding. This needs to be a joint effort by government. The KCIMP is
highlighting the municipality’s responsibilities under the Integrated Coastal Management Act.
Overview of the role and function of the Kogelberg Coastal Committee
Ms Karen Tunley of AEC explained the institutional arrangements prescribed by the Integrated
Coastal Management Act, and the function and composition of municipal coastal committees. It was
proposed that the Kogelberg Coastal Committee (KCC) be convened and designated as the initial
municipal coastal committee (to be expanded in future) for the Overstrand Municipality. It was
suggested that KCC be comprised of one representative per interest group and all relevant
authorities. Interest groups need to identify and organize themselves and can, if needed, form subcommittees
to enable effective communication. Forms were distributed to allow for people to
propose interest groups and nominate representatives (Appendix 3).

Comment 29 – The representatives are going to be participating on this committee on a voluntary
basis, while the coastal manager, who will act as the secretariat will be getting paid a salary. Perhaps
it will be better to have an independent person chair the KCC
Comment 30 – The KMWG worked to devise and agree on strategies to improve management in the
Kogelberg. The KCC will be concerned with implementing strategies proposed in the KCIMP. The KCC
is broader than the Kogelberg Marine Working Group. The KMWG will no longer exist and KCC will
have the responsibility to take the implementation of the KCIMP forward.
Comment 31 – The purpose of the KCIMP is not to take away fishing rights but rather to ensure that
fishing can continue in future.
Comment 32 – Many fishers have made the commitment to stay the entire duration of the meeting.
For any further information or queries please contact:
Karen Tunley
Anchor Environmental Consultants
P.O Box 34035, Rhodes Gift, 7707
Tel: + 27 (0)21 701 3420
Email: karentunley@gmail.com
http://www.anchorenvironmental.co.za
ANCHOR
E N V I R O N M E N T A L
P.O. Box 34035, Rhodes Gift, 7707
www.anchorenvironmental.co.za

Appendix 1
List of stakeholders present at the second multi­stakeholder meeting on 8 December
2009 at the Community Hall, Proteadorp, Kleinmond
Group/Name Affiliation Email
Allan Heydorn Consultant (Chair of KMWG) heydaef@snowisp.c
om
Andre Muller Betty's Boat Club bettysbayboatclub@
vodamail.co.za
Andries Ernest
Jones
Avril Nunn Ratepayers Committee, Betty's Bay nunnaj@telkomsa.n
et
Barbara Jenman Betty's Bay bjenman@iafrica.co
m
C. Swarz Fishermen
Charl J. du Plessis Hangklip Boat Club
Charles Fuller
Charles Swartz
(company)
D Barry
D H Jacobs
D Swanepoel
D.D. Mitchell
Fisherman
Integrated Fishing Forum
Fishermen
Fishermen
Kleinmond
lobster@mweb.co.za
Dan Fick Ratepayer's Ass. BB (Chair & Federation) djfick@mweb.co.za
David Mellet Pringle Bay Aquatic Club davemellet@gmail.c
om
Derek Moolman Betty's Bay Fishing Club thumbprint@telkoms
a.net
Dick Lake BB Comers. Fisher
Dirk Brits Pringle Bay Aquatic Club britsdt@telkomsa.net
E. G. Carelse Fishermen
E. J. Coert Fisherman
ET Appollis
ex‐MCM inspector
Garth Fredericks KCDT kcdt@lantic.net
Geoff Harris R.E. Boat club gharris@xsinet.co.za
Giel De Kock SanParks GielDK@sanparks.or
g
Ian Gleeson Ratepayer's Ass. PB (chair) irgleeson@absamail.
co.za
Jaco Barry Fisherman
Jaco Smit
West Coast Rock Lobster
Joepie Engelbrech Betty's Bay Fishing Club thumbprint@telkoms
a.net

L.D. Weaver
Matt Dreyer
MM Abbass
Fishermen
Fisherman
Fishermen
Neil Fairall KOBIO fairi@itec.co.za
Neville Green Overstrand Municipality (Environmental Management) ngreen@overstrand.
gov.za
Nick Vorster Betty's Boat Club bettysbayboatclub@
vodamail.co.za
Nolan Swartz Previous c/d: Kleinmond; RL quota
P April
P Roos
Fishermen
P. Galileon Fishermen
P. Hemmer Fishermen
P.J.J. Carelse
Betty's Bay Fishing Club
West Coast Rock Lobster
Percy Mabunda Head: MCM Compliance Kleinmond pmabunda@deat.go
v.za
Richard Starke KOBIO richard@recirc.co.za
Rob Fryer Overstrand Conservation Foundation ocf@telkomsa.net
S Daniels
S P August
S.A.Carelse
Fishermen
Fishermen
Serge Raemaekers Env. Eval. Unit s.raemaekers@telen
et.be
Susan Swanepoel Chair: WCRL Association suzis@absamail.co.z
a
T Joemat
Theo Samuels
Fisherman
W. Mitchell Fishermen
W. Swarts Fishermen
Weon Haydricks
Wilfried C January
WCRL rightsholder (used to be chair of WCRL
association).RL quota holder, driver processing facility

Appendix 2
Power Point Slide Show presented by Dr Barry Clark at the second multi­stakeholder
meeting on 8 December 2009 at the Community Hall, Proteadorp, Kleinmond

Power Point Slide Show presented by Ms Karen Tunley at the second multi­stakeholder
meeting on 8 December 2009 at the Community Hall, Proteadorp, Kleinmond

Appendix 3
Nomination form distributed at the Stakeholder Meeting on 8 December
2009
NOMINATION FOR KOGELBERG COASTAL
COMMITTEE
NOMINEE
Please clearly print or type the following details about the interest group and person you are nominating.
You must ensure that all sections of this form are completed. This nomination form must be handed or posted
or
faxed or emailed to Anchor Environmental Consultants by 31 December 2009
(PO Box 34035 Rhodes Gift 7707, Fax: 021 650 3301, Email: karentunley@gmail.com)
I……………………………………………… (name of stakeholder) nominate the following person/s as
representatives for the ……………………………………………… (interest group) on the Kogelberg Coastal
Committee:
Surname:
It is most important that the
name given is accurate and
that the spelling is correct.
Forenames:
Postal Address:
Email:
Telephone no:
If known. (Incl. area code).