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

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.