Download PDF (2.5MB) - Anchor Environmental

BOAT-BASED WHALE WATCHING
IN SOUTH AFRICA:
AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
Jane Turpie, Conrad Savy, Barry Clark & Lara Atkinson
Anchor Environmental Consultants, PO Box 34035, Rhodes Gift 7707
With inputs from
Tony Leiman 1 , Zyd Mzamo 1 , Leigh Lakay 1 ,
Ken Findlay 2 , Peter Best 3 & Simon Elwen 4
1 School of Economics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701
2 Cetus Projects, 13 Norfolk Road, Lakeside 7945
3 Iziko Museums of Cape Town
4 Mammal Research Unit, University of Pretoria
June 2005
Cover Photo: Ken Findlay

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Anchor Environmental Consultants were commissioned by DEAT: Marine and Coastal Management
to undertake a study of the boat-based whale watching industry in South Africa with a view to
providing recommendations as to how to maximise the value of the industry. The aims of the study
were to (1) describe the industry characteristics and activities, (2) determine profitability and reasons
for success or failure, (3) estimate the value of the industry, (4) highlight potential for growth and (5)
identify threats to growth.
The study was based on a literature review of the industry worldwide, surveys of permitted and nonpermitted
boat-based whale watching operators, and interviews with key informants in the tourism
industry.
Whale watching began as a commercial activity in 1955 in the USA, and spread rapidly around the
world from the late 1980s. By 1998, the phenomenon had grown to 9 million whale watchers in 87
countries or territories, with an estimated global expenditure of S$1049 million, of which $299 million
was spent directly on whale watching tours. Most (72%) of this is boat-based, and land-based whale
watching occurs mainly in ten countries, with South Africa being the top land-based whale watching
destination. Boat-based whale watching is relatively recent in South Africa. Boat-based whale
watching has become increasingly regulated around the world in order to minimise impacts on
whales, and South Africa has among the most stringent regulations.
Whale watching in South Africa forms part of a marine tourism industry which benefits from the high
diversity and accessibility of cetaceans and other marine attractions such as seabirds, seals, the
‘sardine run’ and coastal scenery. The whale watching aspect focuses on Southern Right, Humpback
and Bryde’s whales. Southern Rights dominate whale watching along the Cape coast, where they
spend the winter and spring (July – December). 90% of the visiting population occur within a mile of
the coast, predominantly in sheltered bays. Humpback whales are seen on migration up and down
the west and east coasts during May-June and October-December. Bryde’s whales are resident
along the Cape coast, in relatively low densities.
Boat-based whale watching began in South Africa in the early 1990s, and became legal for permit
holders in 1998. Marine and Coastal Management administers permits and is responsible for policing
the industry, except in KwaZulu-Natal, where KZN Wildlife takes responsibility for policing. Boatbased
whale watching is still classified as an experimental fishery, with permits being short-term and
renewable annually. The permit holders are represented by the South African Boat-based Whale
Watching Association (SABBWWA). There are currently 25 areas for boat-based whale watching
around the coast, with one permit per area in most cases (26 possible permits in total). Permits are
for a single boat, and the fee is based on passenger capacity (currently R6400 plus R1860 per
passenger).
18 permits are currently allocated. Half of the permit holders are in the Western Cape, which has 14
of the available permits and the highest proportion of permits that have been allocated. Some of the
permits are very recently allocated, and had not begun operating at the time of study.
Among the permit-holders, boat-based whale watching is largely an activity that adds value to a
marine tourism business. Specialist operators were rare and did not do well. In addition, many of the
marine tour businesses had links to other similar or complementary businesses (such as
accommodation establishments). Most operators offered marine tours thoughout the year, with whale
watching featuring during the whale season. Nevertheless, an average of 79% of income from the
permitted boat was estimated to be generated by whale watching. The boat-based whale watching
aspect of the business typically employs one or two individuals fulfilling the manager, skipper and
guide roles, and sometimes an additional person for administrative and marketing aspects. In most
cases this aspect of the business relies on one boat and one vehicle, plus a small office facility near
the launch site. A few had specialised equipment such as hydrophones. Catamarans were most
common, although a range of boat types were used, ranging from R115 000 to R5 million in value. A
typical boat is 5-10 m, with a capacity of 10-20 passengers. Boat size was limited where operators
had to launch from a beach or slipway, but larger boats (up to 50 passengers) occur in areas where
moorings are available. There is a trade-off between passenger capacity and number of trips per day:
most permit holders felt that a larger boat would improve their turnover, except for the very large boat

owners, who felt that a smaller, faster boat would allow more trips. Whale watching trips are typically
two hours long, compared with other marine tours that typically last an hour.
Peak demand for whale watching occurs from August to November, coinciding with the peak period
for overseas visitors and the local September holiday period. However, whale watching is feasible as
a year-round activity in some areas. Operators conduct up to 4 or 5 trips per day durng the main
season. Numbers of trips, passengers and occupancy rates vary greatly between operators, and
there were discrepancies between logbook and interview data. For operators that reported all trips,
whale sightings occurred on 23-82% of trips, whereas those that just reported whale trips had
sightings on 92-100% of trips. It was estimated that 26 000 passengers went on whale watching trips
in 2004, of whom 86% were foreign.
With prices per trip ranging from R150 – R650 (average R400), total turnover was estimated to be in
the order of R12.8 mililon. Most permit holders generate over R200 000 from whale watching trips
alone. Based on costs attributed to the boat-based whale watching aspect of the business, this
activity was estimated to be profitable for two-thirds of permit holders. The non-profitable businesses
were not operating at full capacity for various reasons. About half of turnover is profit. The success of
different permit holders was not significantly related to frequency of whale sightings, but there was a
strong relationship between the degree of investment in marketing and business turnover. High
profits were also generally recorded for operations with medium sized boats (16 – 30 passengers).
Other factors that probably influenced success included the capability of permit hodlers, the location,
e.g. in relation to tourist centres, and competition from other locations or operators, including nonpermitted
operators in the same area.
Boat-based whale watching is estimated to generate about R45 million in tourism expenditure in
South Africa, contributing some R37 million to Gross Domestic Product. Strictly speaking, the
economic impact of boat-based whale watching is the expenditure that would not have occurred in the
absence of the industry. It is difficult to assess the degree to which this is the case without carrying
out a survey of whale watchers. For the industry to have a really significant impact, boat-based whale
watching has to become a sufficiently significant component in the variety of attractions offered by
South Africa to swing tourists’ decisions about where to go on vacation. In other words, it has to be
competitive on a global scale.
In addition to permitted activity, there is considerable activity by non-permitted operators. The
permitted and non-permitted activities together provide a reasonable picture of the variation of
demand around the coast. This variation, in relation to numbers of permits currently on offer, can help
inform future management of the industry, such as where to concentrate activity. Four types of
operators were identified, with estimates of their numbers as follows:
Possible Permit
Non-permitted operators
permits holders Dedicated Incidental Opportunistic
West coast 3 1 1 3-5 2-4
Cape Metro 3 4 1 4
Agulhas Coast 5 5
Garden Route 4 4 1 1 2
Sunshine Coast 2 1 3
Border Kei 1 0 2
Wild Coast 2 1
Hibiscus Coast 2 1 1 3 5-6
Durban/Dolphin Coast 1 0 1 3-4
Zululand 1 0
Maputaland 2 1 2 4 2
There is no rigorous way of quantifying future potential of an industry. Assumptions have to be made
on the basis of the factors perceived to be important to the success of businesses in the industry.
The magnitude and future changes of these factors themselves often have to be estimated based on
expert opinion. This is certainly the case with boat-based whale watching. Future potential can be
assessed by examining the natural resources that contribute to the attractiveness of the service
offered, current occupancy levels and surplus capacity (taking cognisance of the influence of different

usiness characteristics and unrelated reasons for failure), the pre-existing tourist market and
accessibility and the constraints such as sea and launching conditions. We take these factors into
consideration in estimating the potential number of permits required in each area in order to maximise
industry potential.
Boat-based whale watching has grown steadily from 1999 to 2003, with numbers of passengers
remaining stable from 2003 to 2004, possibly due in part to the strengthening of the rand. Based on
possible seagoing days during whale season, it is estimated that the permitted boats are only
operating at about one third of their potential capacity. Some of this is due to certain boats that have
not yet begun operations, and others that are experiencing difficulties. The degree of non-permitted
activity suggests that the demand exists to take advantage of this spare capacity to some extent.
Taking the marketability of the resource base into account (the quality of whale watching), the
limitations imposed by sea conditions, and the existing demand as described by operators and
tourism agents, different parts of the coast were rated from poor to excellent in terms of their whale
watching potential. Based on existing demand, rather than potential demand that could be generated
by additional marketing, it is estimated that the coast could already support at least six additional
permits in some of the better areas. Note that current demand is a function of successful marketing
efforts by existing permit holders as well as regional tourism bodies. Taking untapped existing
markets into account, this could potentially increase to 11 additional permits. Demand could
potentially be increased in a number of other areas by marketing, although permit numbers will
ultimately be restricted by sustainability issues. Indeed, the decision on where to expand boat-based
whale watching activities in future should ultimately be decided on the basis of marketing strategy
(e.g. concentrating activity into high quality whale watching areas) and what the resource can
withstand, rather than where current demand exists. In the poor areas, where few of the possible
permits have been taken up, the activity may not be viable at present.
The increased number of permits should be seen as synonymous with an expansion in the number of
boats (i.e. each permit is for one boat). There is no economic reason for this to mean that the
additional permits should not go to existing permit holders. Indeed, multiple users working in the
same area would be expected to compete, which would create greater pressure on the resource,
whereas a single owner of multiple permits would have more of an incentive to protect the resource.
Moreover, allowing existing permit holders to have additional permitted boats rewards these operators
instead of penalising them by providing new permits to other operators in areas where they have
created demand.
In order to maximise the industry potential and minimise the obstacles to growth, the main
recommendations made with regard to its management by MCM are as follows:
• MCM and SABBWWA should enter into a co-management arrangement whereby SABBWWA
participates in permit allocation, law enforcement and performance assessment of permit holders;
• Communication should be streamlined through a dedicated liaison person from each organisation;
• The number of available permits should be increased in areas with high potential, subject to
environmental impact assessment, and reviewed on a regular basis;
• Allocation of permits should be based on a systematic set of criteria and weightings which include
indications of capability and likely success, black empowerment and quality of service;
• Permits should confer long-term rights, subject to annual payments and performance assessments
which check activity, compliance, monitoring and standards of service; and
• Permit fees should be used towards effective policing, data analysis, communication and research.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1
2. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODS..................................................................................2
2.1 Overall approach...................................................................................................................2
2.2 Consultation with management authorities and industry.........................................................2
2.3 Review..................................................................................................................................2
2.4 Questionnaire surveys and data collection.............................................................................2
2.5 Assessment of industry potential ...........................................................................................4
2.6 Capacity building...................................................................................................................4
3. WHALE WATCHING: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE...............................................5
3.1 General overview ..................................................................................................................5
3.2 South Africa in perspective....................................................................................................9
4. THE RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT OF BOAT-BASED WHALE WATCHING IN SOUTH
AFRICA...........................................................................................................................................12
4.1 The whale resource.............................................................................................................12
4.2 Management of boat-based whale watching ........................................................................13
4.3 Designated boat-based whale watching areas .....................................................................14
4.4 Permit charges....................................................................................................................16
5. PERMIT-HOLDER CHARACTERISTICS, SUCCESS AND ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION .17
5.1 Sensitivity and availability of information..............................................................................17
5.2 Distribution and history of permit holders .............................................................................17
5.3 Business characteristics......................................................................................................18
5.4 Employment........................................................................................................................19
5.5 Equipment and infrastructure...............................................................................................19
5.6 Boat characteristics, current and optimal capacity................................................................20
5.7 Use of permitted boats ........................................................................................................22
5.8 Trip characteristics ..............................................................................................................22
5.9 Seasonality, number of trips and passengers.......................................................................22
5.10 Prices and turnover.........................................................................................................26
5.11 Operating costs and profitability ......................................................................................28
5.12 What determines success .............................................................................................29
5.13 Contribution to the economy............................................................................................31
6. BBWW ACTIVITY AND DEMAND AROUND THE COAST .................................................34
6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................34
6.2 Western Cape .....................................................................................................................35
6.2.1 West Coast (Areas 1-3; Permits: 1 of 3) ......................................................................36
6.2.2 Cape Metro (Areas 4-6; Permits: 4 of 3) ......................................................................38
6.2.3 Agulhas Coast (Area 7-11; Permits: 5 of 5)..................................................................40
6.2.4 Garden Route (Area 12-14; Permits: 4 of 4) ................................................................42
6.3 Eastern Cape ......................................................................................................................44
6.3.1 Sunshine Coast (Areas 15-16; Permits: 1 of 2)............................................................44
6.3.2 Border Kei Region (Area 17; Permits: 0 of 1)...............................................................46
6.3.3 Wild Coast Region (Areas 18-19; Permits: 1 of 2)........................................................47
6.4 KwaZulu-Natal.....................................................................................................................49
6.4.1 Hibiscus Coast (Area 20-21; Permits: 1 of 2)...............................................................49
6.4.2 Durban Metro and Dolphin Coast (Area 22; Permits: 0 of 1) ........................................51
6.4.3 Zululand (Area 23; Permits: 0 of 1)..............................................................................53
6.4.4 Maputaland (Area 24-25; Permits: 1 of 2)....................................................................53
6.5 Summary of legal and illegal activity ....................................................................................57
7. FUTURE POTENTIAL OF THE INDUSTRY ........................................................................59
7.1 Past growth of the industry ..................................................................................................59
7.2 Current capacity and demand..............................................................................................60
7.3 Marketability of the resource base .......................................................................................61
7.4 Estimated potential of different areas...................................................................................62
7.5 The importance of standards and marketing ........................................................................68
7.6 Sustainability limits..............................................................................................................68
8. CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................70
8.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................70
8.2 Numbers of permits.............................................................................................................70

8.3 The permit system, conditions and incentives......................................................................71
8.4 Compliance, awareness and monitoring ..............................................................................72
8.5 Co-management .................................................................................................................73
8.6 Distributional issues ............................................................................................................73
8.7 Specific recommendations...................................................................................................74
9. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................76
10. APPENDIX 1. TOURISM INFORMATION OFFICES CONTACTED....................................78
11. APPENDIX 2. SUMMARY OF COMMERCIAL WHALE WATCHING AROUND THE WORLD
...........................................................................................................................................79
11.1 North America.................................................................................................................79
11.1.1 United States of America.............................................................................................79
11.1.2 Canada.......................................................................................................................79
11.1.3 Mexico........................................................................................................................80
11.2 Africa (other than South Africa) .......................................................................................81
11.2.1 Canary Islands (Spain)................................................................................................81
11.2.2 Namibia ......................................................................................................................81
11.2.3 Mozambique ...............................................................................................................82
11.2.4 Madagascar................................................................................................................82
11.3 Australasia......................................................................................................................82
11.3.1 Australia .....................................................................................................................82
11.3.2 New Zealand...............................................................................................................84
11.3.3 Tonga .........................................................................................................................85
11.3.4 Antarctica....................................................................................................................86
11.4 Europe............................................................................................................................86
11.4.1 Norway .......................................................................................................................86
11.4.2 Iceland........................................................................................................................86
11.4.3 Greenland (self-governing territory of Denmark)..........................................................87
11.4.4 United Kingdom ..........................................................................................................87
11.4.5 Ireland ........................................................................................................................88
11.4.6 Spain (not including Canary Islands) ...........................................................................88
11.4.7 Azores Islands (Portugal)............................................................................................88
11.5 South America ................................................................................................................89
11.5.1 Ecuador ......................................................................................................................89
11.5.2 Brazil ..........................................................................................................................89
11.5.3 Argentina ....................................................................................................................89
11.6 Central America and West Indies ....................................................................................90
11.6.1 Bahamas ....................................................................................................................90
11.6.2 Turks & Caicos Islands ...............................................................................................90
11.6.3 Dominican Republic ....................................................................................................90
11.6.4 St Lucia ......................................................................................................................91
11.7 Asia ................................................................................................................................91
11.7.1 Oman..........................................................................................................................91
11.7.2 Japan .........................................................................................................................91
11.7.3 Taiwan........................................................................................................................92
12. APPENDIX 3: NOTIFICATION OF PERMTS (1998)............................................................93
13. APPENDIX 4: NOTIFICATION OF PERMITS (2002)...........................................................96
14. APPENDIX 5: ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE WHALE RESOURCE............. 102
15. APPENDIX 6. STATUS OF BOAT-BASED WHALE WATCHING IN SOUTH AFRICA –
STATEMENT BY SABBWWA, JANUARY 2005............................................................................ 104

1. INTRODUCTION
The whale watching industry has undergone significant growth over the last ten years, associated with
the massive recovery of Southern Right and Humpback Whale populations along the coast. Whale
watching in South Africa started with land-based whale watching at Hermanus, and grew with the
area’s reputation as having the among best land-based whale watching in the world. Increasing
demand, as well as international trends, led to pressure for allowing boat-based whale watching,
which became legal in South Africa in 1998.
Prior research has indicated that land-based whale watching makes a major contribution to the South
African economy through the expenditure of visitors (Findlay 1997), but little or no work has been
carried out on the more-recently introduced phenomenon of boat-based whale watching in South
Africa. Judging by global trends, the industry has the potential to make a sizeable economic
contribution, provided that both the industry and the resource upon which it depends are managed
with appropriate foresight.
Up till now, the industry has been hampered by management problems and has not developed to its
full potential. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal
Management (MCM) commissioned Anchor Environmental Consultants to conduct an independent
study on the boat-based whale watching industry with a view to providing recommendations as to how
to maximise the economic value of the industry. The industry has not been assessed previously and
the results of this study will provide valuable information to guide management and development of
the sector according to sound economic principles, in conjunction with supporting biological data.
The aims of this study were:
1. To describe the industry in terms of its characteristics and activities;
2. To determine the profitability of licence holders in whale watching areas and identify reasons for
their success or failure in this regard;
3. To assess and quantify the overall value and economic impact of the industry as it currently
exists;
4. To highlight potential for future economic growth and provide recommendations on how to
maximise economic benefits; and
5. To identify threats to growth which prevent the maximisation of economic benefits and provide
recommendations on how to reduce these.
1

2. STUDY APPROACH AND METHODS
2.1 Overall approach
This study was based on an international literature review of boat-based whale watching, interviews
with major stakeholders in the boat-based whale watching industry in South Africa, and logbook data
submitted by boat-based whale watching permit holders to MCM as part of their permit requirements.
Information on resource quality was also taken into consideration.
2.2 Consultation with management authorities and industry
The study began with a meeting the client (MCM) in Cape Town in November 2004, to discuss the
characteristics of the industry and to identify key areas for focus that would result in relevant outputs
according to their management and policy needs. MCM supplied data on permit-holder details.
During client meetings and subsequent research, the researchers were made aware of the existence
of the South African Boat-based Whale Watching Association (SABBWWA). After initial contact
,concern was expressed by SABBWA that the study had been commissioned and the questionnaire
had been developed without their knowledge or input. The study was delayed for a period until
SABBWWA had given their inputs and were happy for the survey process to resume. Meetings were
held between the project leaders and members of SABBWWA in Knysna in December 2004 and with
the chairman in Cape Town in January 2005. An MCM representative was also present at the latter
meeting. During these meetings, the perceptions and concerns of SABBWWA relating to the industry
were discussed. This provided an important alternative and independent assessment of the current
management and industry characteristics to that provided by the management authority.
2.3 Review
The first part of the study was to conduct a review of boat-based whale watching. This included a
search for information on the boat-based whale watching industry in South Africa. The main output of
this task was a review of the whale watching industry internationally, in order to set the South African
industry within a larger context, in terms of the quality of resources, demand for whale watching and
its economic value, as well as the way in which boat-based whale watching is managed
internationally. The review also served to set a framework for understanding the industry and its
potential for growth through a review of its establishment and growth in South Africa, the existence of
supporting and enabling frameworks and a description of the existing patterns of management and
control of the resources.
2.4 Questionnaire surveys and data collection
Following this, questionnaire instruments were developed for surveying permit-holders and nonpermitted
operators. Clients could not be surveyed because the study had to be conducted out of
whale watching season. The permit-holder questionnaire sought to acquire information on the nature
of the businesses involved and services provided, limitations, levels of occupancy and capital and
operating costs associated with whale watching (Box 2.1). It also elicited the operators’ perceptions
of future trends in the industry and of management. Non-permitted operators interviewed included
marine tour operators that illegally conducted boat-based whale watching tours to varying extents,
and some that did not, but that could potentially. In addition to marine tour operators, interviews were
also conducted with hotel owners in the Border-Kei area and on the Wild Coast.
In total, 17 of the 18 existing permit holders granted the researchers time for interviews. Permit
holders were identified through contact details and related information provided by MCM and
SABBWWA. These interviews were conducted between December 2004 and March 2005, outside
2

the main whale watching season. All but one of the interviews was conducted in person. Though
relatively costly, this method allows for what is widely recognised as the most accurate collection of
interview data. Furthermore, visiting each area facilitated the identification of related stakeholders,
particularly non-permitted operators, and direct observation of infrastructure and conditions specific to
each area. This allowed the researchers to develop the best possible assessment of the
characteristics of each permitted area. Supplementary material, such as pamphlets and maps was
also collected from the operators as well as from general tourism outlets.
Concurrent with each of these site visits, an additional 29 non-permitted individuals were interviewed
during this study. The majority of these were identified during investigation and research in the field
and relied on information provided by permit holders, local tourism authorities and non-permitted
operators themselves. Other sources of information including launch-site controllers, NSRI volunteers
and tourism associations were used to add value and where necessary substantiate claims made
during interviews. The majority of these were identified opportunistically by other stakeholders. The
degree of animosity between many non-permitted and potential operators and permit holders also
provided the opportunity for a certain amount of triangulation regarding some of the perceptions of
different interviewees.
Box 2.1. Outline of the permit-holder survey instrument
Part One
• Description of the nature of the business and how whale watching fits in
• Years of operation
• Boat capacity
• Use of the licensed boat for whale watching versus other activities (%sea days & % income)
• Seasonality of activities (graph), and seasonality of demand (description)
• Typical trip, duration and area used
• Maximum possible trips per day, days per year
• Estimated actual days per year, and trips per day
• Demand relative to supply of trips
• Average occupancy on trips
• Changes over time
• Envisaged future trends
• Opinion on optimal boat size
• Value added by offering whale watching and by having a permit
• Existence and names of other operators in the area
• Their impact on the business – negative and/or positive
• Main constraints to growth of the whale watching aspect of the business
• How could management by MCM be improved
Part Two
• Tour prices and discounts
• Breakdown of tourists by origin
• Operating costs per trip
• Details of boat and other capital employed in the business
• Staffing and salaries
• Overhead costs
As noted above, the period for research and site visits occurred outside of the recognised boat-based
whale watching season. As a result it was not possible to interview actual clients in order to assess
the patterns of spending by whale watchers. Estimates of overall turnover related to the industry, in
terms of multiplier effects and their larger economic contribution to the SA economy, were thus made
on the basis of related regional and international studies.
3

2.5 Assessment of industry potential
A contact database of relevant stakeholders in the tourism sector was developed from various
sources, including information from tourist information offices on the internet, printed materials such
as pamphlets and personal referrals by other contacts. In total 28 tourism offices and were contacted
during this survey (Appendix 1). Tourist offices were organised into three main levels ranging from
provincial to regional and finally, where possible, local information offices. This spread allowed a
relatively complete picture of the tourism demand in these areas to be developed. Information was
collected in face-to-face or telephonic interviews with these relevant contacts and covered information
on the level of existing demand and trends in demand for marine tours, including boat-based whale
watching. Contacts were also asked as to their opinion on the number of operators which were
feasible based on the current demand for boat-based whale watching. These results were used to
categorise each whale watching area according to the existing demand for boat-based whale
watching.
The quality of the whale resource and other tourism attractions were also considered important to
take into consideration in assessing the potential of the industry. Whale experts Dr Ken Findlay
(Cetus Projects) and Dr Peter Best (Iziko Museums of Cape Town) were consulted in this regard, and
asked to describe and rate different areas of the coast in terms of the probability of encountering
different types of whales and the quality of whale viewing, based on available data.
2.6 Capacity building
Capacity building formed an important thrust of this study. Two previously disadvantaged postgraduate
students from the University of Cape Town’s School of Economics, Mr Zyd Mzamo and Ms
Leigh Lakay were engaged to provide assistance on aspects of the project. In addition, an MSc
student, Mr. Simon Elwen, based at the Mammal Research Institute/Iziko Museum’s Whale Unit,
assisted Dr Peter Best in the assessment of the resource quality and sightings frequency for whale
species in the permitted areas.
4

3. WHALE WATCHING: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
3.1 General overview
Whale watching, as a commercial enterprise, started in 1955 in southern California, where it focussed
on viewing the endangered grey whale migrations passing the coastline (Hoyt 2001, Garrod & Fennell
2004). An estimated 10 000 whale watchers visited the first official public whale watch lookout during
1955, with both numbers of whale watchers and whale viewing platforms increasing steadily up to the
mid-1980’s (Hoyt 2001, Greenpeace 2001). In the 1980’s the discovery of populations of blue whales
and Humpback Whales, as well as local small whale and dolphin populations off the coast of
California, allowed the industry to expand beyond its original dependence on the seasonal migration
route of grey whales (Hoyt 2001). The International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) moratorium on
whaling in 1986 further encouraged whale watching as a non-consumptive, sustainable use of the
resource, around the world (Woods-Ballard et al. 2003). Shortly thereafter, in the late 1980’s,
commercial whale watching grew rapidly as it spread to Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the
Canary Islands (Greenpeace 2001).
The first published world-wide survey on the value, extent and prospects of whale watching was
conducted by Hoyt (1992) during 1991 which reported that 31 countries and/or territories were
involved in commercial whale watching, with the number of whale watchers totalling just over 4 million
per year. This first global study estimated that total whale watching expenditures (the amount whale
watchers spent on tours as well as travel, food, accommodation and souvenirs) were US$317.9
million per annum, although only US$77 million of that was being spent directly on the cost of tours
(Hoyt 2001). A follow-up study in 1994 showed a 10% increase in the number of global whale
watchers to 5.4 million through 65 countries or territories, with an estimated total expenditure of
US$504 million (direct costs on tours US$122 million). By 1998 international whale watching had
grown to encompass over 9 million whale watchers (a growth of 12%) through 87 countries or
territories, yielding a total estimated expenditure of US$1049 million (direct costs on tours US$299
million, Hoyt 2001). On a global scale, whale watching has clearly grown into a major tourist activity,
which is capable of bringing substantial socio-economic benefits to the many communities around the
world in which it takes place (Garrod & Fennell 2004).
The report by Hoyt (2001) is currently the most recent, comprehensive documentation on worldwide
tourism numbers, expenditures and socio-economic benefits of whale watching. For each country or
territory involved in some degree of commercial whale watching, Hoyt (2001) summarises the
following information;
• The overall tourism and economic background
• An estimate of the number of annual whale watchers
• How much they spend on whale watching activities
• A socio-economic profile of whale watching tourists, operators and the community, and
• A concise assessment of the status and future of whale watching
A summary of activities in different whale watching countries is provided in Appendix 2. Once a
country claims more than a million whale watchers in a year, it is considered to belong to the “million
whale watch club” Hoyt (2001). In 1994, only the United States yielded more than a million whale
watchers, however, in 1998, Canada and Canary Islands (Spain) also reported more than a million
whale watchers. By 1998 both Australia and South Africa had recorded more than half a million
whale-watchers, and were anticipated to have exceeded a million by 2000. The fastest growing
whale watching country in the world between 1994 and 1998 was Taiwan, which grew from zero to 30
000 whale watchers during this period and continued to grow through 2000. Iceland, Italy, Spain and
South Africa were recorded as being the next fastest growing whale watching countries between 1994
and 1998. There is some evidence from visitor surveys that the whale watching growth in Iceland
may not have been as rapid if the country had resumed whaling. The fastest growing continent for
whale watching is Africa with an average 53% annual increase between 1994 and 1998, followed by
Central America and West Indies (47.4%). Subsequent to1998, the fastest growing whale watching
country in the world was recorded to be St Lucia in the eastern Caribbean, which had an
extraordinary annual increase of whale watchers between 1998 and 2000 of 685%. This has been
partly attributed to the fact that whale watch tour operators in this area have begun to market their
5

tours through the cruise ship industry and the first regional association of whale watch operators
(Caribbean Whale Watch Association) was formed. During the past decade, whale watching has
continued to expand in most countries where commercial whale watching has been established.
The World Tourism Organisation (WTO) predicts that tourist arrivals will continue increasing by on
average 3-4% annually beyond 2000. The annual rate of increase in whale watching between 1994
and 1998 was 13.6% and is likely to continue growing at a faster rate than that of predicted world
tourism growth rates. Even taking into account the recent reduction in world tourism, Hoyt (2001)
conservatively estimates that during 2001 as many as 10.1 million people went whale watching.
The most common form of whale watching is boat-based (72%) with a wide range of vessels being
used for this purpose, including anything from kayaks to converted ferry ships. Land-based whale
watching accounts for the remaining 28% of whale watching and is principally conducted in only 10
countries. In order for land based whale watching to successfully occur, the land-sea interface must
be of a specific terrain. High cliffs dropping off steeply into the ocean and locations where the edge of
the continental shelf drops off fairly close to land, allows the whales to come close inshore thus
facilitating good land-based whale watching. Commercial ventures in land-based whale watching are
globally dominant in four countries namely, South Africa, Canada, Australia and United States. Less
than 0.001% of all whale watching consists of aircraft tours.
Of the 83 cetacean species world wide, most are observed to some degree in various whale watch
programs. The most common focal species for whale watching industries are humpback, grey,
northern and southern right, blue, minke, sperm, short-finned pilot whales, orcas and bottlenose
dolphins. The blue and northern right whales are classified as endangered species while the
humpback and southern right whales are considered vulnerable (IUCN Red Data Book).
The interaction of whales and humans dates far back in history and whales have been a source of
fascination for coastal communities through the ages, with their images being evident in paintings,
coins and early writings (Orams 2002). Human interest in cetaceans has primarily been based on
commercial gain as a source of products for human use. Almost every large whale species was
hunted at some stage in history, resulting in severe depletion of their numbers. By the middle of the
20th century some species were on the verge of extinction (Orams 2002). Perhaps as a result of their
severe exploitation by humans, resulting in very low numbers and thus rarely been seen, in the past
50 years an increasing sense of compassion and empathy for these animals has developed. Whales
have become icon images for many environmental movements around the world. There are ongoing
debates at cultural, economic, political and scientific levels regarding the future management of
whales. Two opposing viewpoints emerge, one being that whales should be protected from any
consumptive use and the other that whales should be hunted on a sustainable basis (Orams 2002).
The International Whaling Commission (IWC), established in 1946, is the international agency
charged with management of large whales and with providing for the “conservation, development and
optimum utilization of whale resources”. On establishment, the IWC was anticipated to be prowhaling,
however, in more recent times the conflict between pro-whaling and anti-whaling within the
IWC has received much criticism from several government representatives. In recent decades, the
rapid growth in the whale watching industry has placed an additional economic value on live whales
(as opposed to dead whales) in that they have become a popular tourist attraction. The whale
watching industry however, is dependant on large numbers of easily accessible whales, purely for
viewing purposes, rather than for consumption. The requirements of the whale watching industry are
in direct conflict with that of the more traditional whaling industry. Some countries have even
managed to, thus far, sustain practises of both whaling and whale watching simultaneously (e.g.
Norway and Japan) although the two industries take place in different locations around the coastline
and target different species.
With the dramatic global growth in the commercial whale watching industry, it is not surprising that
there has developed an associated need for specific regulations or guidelines to regulate the industry
and minimise the negative impact thereof on the marine life and environment. There are widespread
concerns that this recreational activity, growing in popularity, may have serious negative impacts on
the whales. Whale watching has the potential to inflict some significantly negative impacts on the
animals, most obviously are those impacts which are associated with disturbance of the animals, due
to the close approach of boats (Garrod & Fennell 2004). If cetaceans feel threatened by the proximity
of humans, their typical response is to move away, either by diving or swimming to a different
6

location. Most cetaceans spend the majority of their lives in the open ocean where whale watching is
not viable, however, most species targeted by the industry come close to land during critical stages in
their lives e.g. to feed, breed, calve or nurse their young. It is at these stages in their life cycles that
the animals are most vulnerable and also most subjected to disturbance by whale watchers. There is
concern that repeated, intensive disturbance may impact negatively on foraging and/or hunting,
causing the animals to move away from rich feeding grounds and potential mates (Garrod & Fennell
2004). There have been reports of vessels moving between mother and calf pairs, causing the calves
to become separated from their food supply, stressed and in extreme cases, dying as a result of this
disturbance. The most dramatic form of disturbance caused by whale watchers is when boats
accidentally collide with whales causing physical injury and sometimes death of the whale.
Considering some of the potential impacts of commercial whale watching on cetaceans, governments
and non-governmental organisations around the world are increasingly acknowledging that some
level of whale watching management is required (Garrod & Fennell 2004). What is less evident is the
extent and type of management intervention that should be implemented. Some countries have
imposed “command and control” regulations that have been legally declared and disregarding the law
is considered a criminal offence, while others simply encourage tour operators and tourists to
voluntarily adopt a more responsible approach to whale watching. Many countries have established
semi-formal, voluntary guidelines or codes of conduct for whale watching activities.
Carlson (2001) provides a comprehensive compilation of all the whale watching regulations and
guidelines currently in place around the world and the reader is further referred to this document for
specific details that are not mentioned in this report. Garrod and Fennell (2004) analysed 58 such
codes of conduct from around the world and ultimately report that the voluntary guideline approach to
whale watching is increasingly being accepted as the preferred means of management. Accreditation
schemes (belonging to scientific and/or research linked organisations providing approval of the
operations) are also being promoted for management of whale watching (Berrow 2003). Most
countries or communities involved with whale watching have some regulations, including codes of
conduct which are voluntary, but have some degree of legal enforcement in specific areas e.g. marine
reserves or sensitive areas (Berrow 2003). Development of an internationally recognized voluntary
code of conduct that will be universally accepted by the world’s whale watchers is unlikely due to the
considerable diversity of whale watching operations around the world.
The formal legislative approach to whale watching management has often resulted in a complex array
of regulations where some aspects of different legislations are contradictory or overlap or where major
gaps exist in others. This creates confusion and misunderstandings when attempting to interpret the
different regulations intended for the whale watching industry (Garrod & Fennell 2004). The
legislation has, in many cases, failed to keep up with the rapidly growing and relatively new whale
watching industry, with growth occurring at a rate regulators failed to predict (Garrod & Fennell 2004).
A further problem with legally prescriptive regulations of the industry is that they are often poorly or
incompletely enforced, mostly due to many operators interacting with many highly mobile targets over
a vast area of sea being difficult and expensive to manage.
The informal management of the whale watching industry relies on voluntary implementation of codes
of conduct that are enforced by ethical obligation and peer pressure (Garrod & Fennell 2004).
Voluntary guidelines have the advantage of being relatively easy to introduce in a short space of time
and can be used to regulate the industry while more formal national regulations are being created and
introduced. Formal regulations constructed in this manner are considered to be based on experience
gained and to incorporate local knowledge, resulting in a mix of formal and informal regulations,
allowing authorities to modify aspects to local conditions while still maintaining a common set of basic
principles (Garrod & Fennell 2004).
In general, management of whale watching, in whatever form it occurs, is acknowledged to be
necessary and at the broadest level should aim to minimise the environmental and ecological
impacts, including the impacts on cetaceans, such as to allow long term benefits to both the whale
watching industry and the ecosystem (Greenpeace 2001). The basic principles are:
• Whale watching activity must allow cetaceans to continue whatever behaviour they are engaged in
at the time of contact. Care should be taken to ensure that they are not disturbed or interrupted in
their activities by the approaching vessel. This includes noise disturbance.
7

• The goal of whale watching should not be interaction but rather observation of undisturbed
cetacean behaviour. When cetaceans decide to interact with whale watchers, the cetaceans
should always control the duration and nature of such interactions.
• In the long term, whale watching should not lead to changes in cetacean behaviour or dynamics, a
change in habitat use or a decline in reproductive success.
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has established general principles for whale watching to
serve as a basic guideline to whale watching regulations or codes of conduct as a whole (see Box 1).
Box 1. General Principles for Whale Watching
The IWC Scientific Committee has agreed the following general guidelines for whale watching:
(1) Manage the development of whale watching to minimise the risk of adverse impacts:
(i) implement as appropriate measures to regulate platform numbers and size, activity, frequency and
length of exposures in encounters with individuals and groups of whales;
-management measures may include closed seasons or areas where required to provide additional
protection;
-ideally, undertake an early assessment of the numbers, distribution and other characteristics of the
target population/s in the area;
(ii) monitor the effectiveness of management provisions and modify them as required to accommodate
new information
(iii) where new whale watching operations are evolving, start cautiously, moderating activity until
sufficient information is available on which to base any further development.
(iv) implement scientific research and population monitoring and collection of information on operations,
target cetaceans and possible impacts, including those on the acoustic environment, as an early
(v)
and integral component of management;
develop training programs for operators and crew on the biology and behaviour of target species,
whale watching operations, and the management provisions in effect;
(vi) encourage the provision of accurate and informative material to whale watchers, to:
-developed an informed and supportive public;
-encourage development of realistic expectations of encounters and avoid disappointment and
pressure for increasingly risky behaviour.
(2) Design, maintain and operate platforms to minimize the risk of adverse effects on cetaceans, including
disturbance from noise:
• vessels, engines and other equipment should be designed, maintained, and operated during whale
watching to reduce as far as practicable adverse impacts on the target species and their
environment;
• cetacean species may respond differently to low and high frequency sounds, relative sound intensity
or rapid changes in sound;-vessel operators should be aware of the acoustic characteristics of the
target species and of their vessel under operating conditions; particularly of the need to reduce as far
as possible production of potentially disturbing sound;
• vessel design and operation should minimize the risk of injury to cetaceans should contact occur, for
example, shrouding of propellers can reduce both noise and risk of injury;
• operators should be able to keep track of whales during an encounter.
(3) Allow the cetaceans to control the nature and duration of ‘interactions’:
• operators should have a sound understanding of the behaviour of the cetaceans and be aware of
behavioural changes which may indicate disturbance;
• in approaching or accompanying cetaceans, maximum platform speeds should be determined
relative to that of the cetacean, and should not exceed it once on station;
• use appropriate angles and distances of approach; species may react differently, and most existing
guidelines preclude head-on approaches;
• friendly whale behaviour should be welcomed, but not cultivated; do not instigate direct contact with a
platform;
• avoid sudden changes in speed, direction or noise;
• do not alter platform speed or direction to counteract avoidance behaviour by cetaceans;
• do not pursue, head off, or encircle cetaceans or cause groups to separate;
• approaches to mother/calf pairs and solitary calves and juveniles should be undertaken with special
care there may be an increased risk of disturbance to these animals, or risk of injury if vessels are
approached by calves;
• cetaceans should be able to detect a platform at all times;-while quiet operations are desirable,
attempts to eliminate all noise may result in cetaceans being startled by a platform which has
approached undetected; -rough seas may elevate background noise to levels at which vessels are
less detectable.
8

3.2 South Africa in perspective
Boat-based whale watching regulations and the levels of activity and estimated expenditure for
different countries around the world are summarised in Tables 3.1 - 3.3. Table 3.1 shows that South
Africa has among the strictest regulations for boat-based whale watching in the world. It must be
noted, nevertheless that Hoyt’s (2001) estimates are regarded as extremely rough.
Table 3.1. Summary of regulations pertaining to boat-based whale watching in major whale watching
countries (source: Hoyt 2001)
Regulation/
Guideline
Permit
required
Caution
-ary
Zone
Minimum
distance
from
whale
Limit #
boats
per
whale
(close)
Limit
time of
encounter
Angle of
approach
restriction
Speed
restriction
Approach
females
with calf
Closed
areas
USA No 2 miles 100 yds 1 30 min Yes 7 knots -
Canada Yes 300 m 50 m 1 15 min Yes no - Yes
wake
Mexico Yes - 30 m 2 30 min Yes 4 knots - Yes
Canary Yes 300 m 60 m 1 - Yes slow - -
Islands
South Africa Yes 300 m 50 m 1 20 min Yes no No Yes
wake
Madagascar No 800 m 300 m 1 30 min Yes slow - -
Australia In some 300 m 100 m 1 No Yes no No Yes
areas
wake
New
Yes 300 m 50 m 1 - Yes no 200 m
Zealand
wake
Tonga No 300 m 100 m 1 - Yes 4 knots - -
Norway No 300 m 30 m 1 - - - - -
Iceland No - 50 m 1 not too Yes idle - -
long
United No - 200 m - - Yes 5 knots Minimal -
Kingdom
Azores Yes 200 m 50 m 1 30 min Yes - 100 m -
Islands
Brazil Yes - 50 m - - - - - -
Argentina Yes - 50 m 1 - - - No -
Dominican Yes 400 m 50 m 2 15 min Yes no - -
Rep.
wake
Oman No 300 m 50 m - - Yes no - -
wake
Japan No 200 m 50 m 3 60 min - slow 100 m -
Table 3.2. Proportion of global proportion of expenditure and number of operators for top 5 countries
based on Hoyt (2001) estimates.
Rank Whale watchers Operators Total expenditure
1 USA (48%) USA (268) USA (34%)
2 Canada (12%) Canada (237) Canada (19%)
3 Canary islands (11%) Australia (223) South Africa (7%)
4 Australia (8%) New Zealand (50) Canary Islands (6%)
5 South Africa (6%) Japan (45) Argentina (5.7%)
9

Table 3.3. Numbers of whale watching visitors, operators and direct and total estimated expenditures for
countries offering tours which include whales as an attraction, based on Hoyt (2001). Countries
are ranked by direct expenditures on whale watching.
Rank Country Start Whalewatchers
Operators
Direct
expenditure
(mill US $)*
Total
expenditure
(mill US $)
1 USA 1955 4,316,537 268 158.385 357.020
2 Canada 1971 1,075,304 237 27.438 195.515
3 Ecuador Early 1980’s 11,610 19.700 23.350
4 Canary Islands Late 1980’s 1,000,000 17.770 62.195
5 Antarctica 1980’s 2,503 18 15.348 16.600
6 Australia Late 1960’s 734,962 223 11.869 56.196
7 Mexico 1970 108,206 39 8.736 41.638
8 New Zealand 1987 230,000 50 7.503 48.736
9 Japan 1988 102,785 45 4.300 32.984
10 Brazil Mid 1980’s 167,107 4.071 11.314
11 Iceland 1991 30,330 12 2.958 6.470
12 Bahamas Late 1970’s 1,800 10 2.700 2.970
13 Dominican Republic 1986 22,284 22 2.307 5.200
14 United Kingdom Mid 1980’s 121,125 42 1.884 8.231
15 Argentina 1983 84,164 10 1.638 59.384
16 Norway 1988 22,380 10 1.632 13.043
17 Ireland 1986 177,600 2 1.322 7.119
18 Indonesia 1991 41,000 1.281 4.551
19 Taiwan 1997 30,000 13 1.223 4.280
20 Greenland Early 1990’s 2,500 2 0.832 2.750
21 Azores Islands 1989 9,500 6 0.582 3.370
22 Spain Late 1980’s 31,500 21 0.550 1.925
23 France 1983 750 13 0.411 0.512
24 Oman 1996 4,700 6 0.320 0.500
25 South Africa Early 1990’s 510,000 15 0.311 69.186
26 Italy 1988 5,300 3 0.241 0.543
27 Namibia 1998 7,000 3 0.216 0.756
28 Chile Early 1990’s 3,300 0.194 0.679
29 Greece Late 1980’s 3,678 3 0.140 0.261
30 Dominica 1988 5,000 4 0.127 0.970
31 Philippines 1991 12,000 1 0.121 0.927
32 Madagascar 1988 4,000 12 0.120 0.774
33 New Caledonia 1995 1,695 15 0.107 0.375
34 Maldives 1998 30 1 0.100 0.149
35 Mozambique Late 1990’s 500 0.100 0.150
36 Costa Rica 1990 1,227 1 0.100 0.218
37 Puerto Rico 1994 92,500 1 0.096 0.650
38 Grenada 1993 1,800 1.5 0.090 0.270
39 Peru 1985 531 1 0.064 0.081
40 Tonga 1994 2,334 4 0.055 0.422
41 Turks and Caicos Early 1990’s 1,500 2 0.043 0.150
42 St Vincent + Gren. Late 1980’s 600 3 0.034 0.100
43 St Pierre & Miquelon 1993 607 1 0.016 0.094
44 Bermuda 1981 180 3 0.013 0.020
45 Guadeloupe & isl. 1994 400 3 0.013 0.023
46 St Lucia 1997 65 2 0.005 0.008
47 British Virgin Islands Late 1980’s 200 0.004 0.014
48 US Virgin Islands 1991 75 2 0.004 0.008
49 Niue 1994 50 3 0.002 0.002
10

Table 3.3 excludes countries where current activity was regarded by Hoyt (2001) as minimal but which
are just beginning to develop their own whale watching sector or where only dolphin-watching was
offered. Note that where detailed data were available on expenditure (n=6), the boat-based element of
these expenditure estimates were significant (percentage of overall expenditure: 98-100%; of direct
expenditure: 84-100%). On average, 90% of all whale-watchers were boat-based in the 6 countries
for which data were available, ranging from 59-100% of all whale watchers. All data are based on the
year 1998. In 1998 South Africa ranked 25 th in terms of direct expenditure on whale watching.
Over half (53%) of direct expenditures and 34% of total expenditures are accounted for by the United
States alone, which has offered whale watching since the 1950’s. The next largest is Canada which
accounts for just 9% of direct and 19% of total global expenditures by whale watchers. These
countries also support the largest number of operators of any whale watching country. In comparison,
South Africa accounted for only 0.1% of direct expenditures but 7% in total expenditures and 6% of all
whale-watchers, placing it in the top 5 countries for these latter two characteristics (Table 3.2). The
high ranking is probably a result of the importance of land-based viewing in South Africa. This
indicates that South Africa may be in a prime position to add significant value to its whale-based
tourism sector through the development of a boat-based element in this sector and an increase in
direct spending on whale watching. It is also important to note that these figures were calculated in
the period prior to the establishment and subsequent growth in South Africa’s boat-based whale
watching sector where only 4 permit holders were recorded by MCM in 1999 (compared to the current
total of 18 permit holders in 2004). Hoyt (2001) however records a total of 15 operators, with 14 of
these described as being active. South Africa’s ranking could thus have risen substantially during the
intervening period.
11

4. THE RESOURCE AND MANAGEMENT OF BOAT-BASED
WHALE WATCHING IN SOUTH AFRICA
4.1 The whale resource
South Africa supports a relatively high cetacean diversity, with over 19 species having been recorded
in southern African waters (Stuart and Stuart 1988). Only 5 cetacean species, including 3 baleen
whale species are, however, sighted regularly enough to support any kind of whale watching tourism
(Apps 1996, Table 4.1). The two main targets for whale-watchers are undoubtedly the Southern Right
and Humpback whales which occur regularly off the coast during winter and spring seasons (Apps
1996). A third species, Bryde’s whale is also regularly encountered and appears to have some
populations resident along the western and southern coast (Apps 1996).
Table 4.1. Common cetacean species sighted regularly in Southern African waters
Common name Species Occurrence
Baleen Whales (Suborder Mysticeti)
Southern Right Whale Eubalaena australis Migrant in winter
Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Migrant in winter
Bryde’s Whale Balaenoptera edenii Resident
Dolphins or Toothed Whales (Suborder Odontoceti)
Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus Resident
Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis Resident
Dusky Dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus Resident
Heaviside’s Dolphin Cephalorynchus heavisidii Resident
Humpback Dolphin Sousa plumbea Resident
The Southern Right Whale populations of South Africa are the most well-known whale watching
attractions in the country. This species supports a thriving whale-viewing industry, including one of
the most valuable land-based viewing tourism, largely around the Western Cape (Findlay 1997).
Populations migrate to the South African coastline each winter in order to mate and calve, with a
significant proportion of females, over 90%, returning to have their first calf (Best 2000). Their
distribution, though discontinuous, is highly predictable (Elwen & Best 2004a). Research into returns
and movement patterns in season suggest however, that they are not site specific, indicating instead
that the individuals along the South African coast appear to contribute to one homogenous population
(Best 2000). Although they are generally common along the south-western coastline between
Lambert’s Bay and Algoa Bay, sightings have been recorded as far east as St Lucia (Apps 1996,
MCM unpubl. data). During the season, about 90% of Southern Right Whales occur within one
nautical mile of the coast. They tend to concentrate in large sheltered bays, with the highest densities
occurring between Arniston and Puntjie (on the Duiwenhoks estuary which includes De Hoop Marine
Reserve). Other major concentrations occur at Mossel Bay, Struis Baai, Pearly Beach, Walker Bay,
Kleinmond and to a lesser extent, False Bay. On the West Coast, concentrations occur at Yzerfontein
and St Helena, but these are at much lower densities than on the southern coast. The whales are
thought to move around to the west coast during periods of prolonged south-easterly winds, possibly
due to poor sea conditions on the south coast and imminent upwelling on the west coast (K. Findlay,
pers. comm.). Southern Rights are interesting from a boat-based whale watching perspective in that
they are boat-attracted, slow moving and exhibit a high level of surface activity including ‘spy –
hopping’ between boat propellers.
Humpback whales occur off the South African coast predominantly in mid-winter months and spring
(Best et al. 1998). They mainly occur on migration between their Antarctic feeding grounds and their
subtropical breeding grounds in warm waters of over 24ºC located in Mozambique and Madagascar
on the east coast and northern Namibia, Angola and possibly Gabon on the west coast (Apps 1996).
Their migration routes come near to the African coast along the west coast and Wild Coast regions,
with relatively little activity in the southerly parts of the country (Best et al. 1998). On the West Coast,
Humpbacks are most common moving northwards in May-June and returning southward in October to
December. However, it appears that some individuals delay southward migration, remaining on the
12

west coast up to February or March (Best et al. 1995). On the east coast, the whales are most
common in May-June and in October-November. Individuals seen along the South African coast are
thus generally moving to and from these areas and are not as easily approached or sighted as
Southern Right Whales. Whales on migration commonly move at about 5km/h, though it is possible
to find more static groups displaying interesting surface activity (K. Findlay, pers. comm.). The whales
tend to come through in loose aggregations, so that sighting rates vary widely and can approach 100
on a single trip. Findlay & Best (1996) estimated the population of this species migrating along the
northern KwaZulu-Natal coast to be at least 1700 individuals in 1991. More recent estimates suggest
that the east coast breeding population has recovered to over 6000 animals, with rates of increase in
the order of 8 – 10%, and the population is now thought to be close to 70% of its carrying capacity (K.
Findlay, pers. comm.). The species has been protected since 1963.
Bryde’s Whale is present in South African water year round, undertaking local migrations between the
western and eastern limits of its South African range which extends from the west coast round as far
as Port Elizabeth (Apps 1996). It occurs in waters less than 200m deep but relatively little is known
about its natural history (Apps 1996). This species probably represents the most underutilised whaleviewing
resource at present and is the focus of attempts by some permit holders to establish yearround
boat-based whale watching operations. The most potential for this is in areas such as False
Bay (including Gordon’s Bay), Hawston, Kleinbaai and Plettenberg Bay. While not a great viewing
species, tending to avoid vessels and exhibiting little surface activity, Bryde’s is of particular interest to
dedicated whale-watchers because of the difficulty associated with sighting them.
Other cetaceans that potentially add to trip quality include Sperm Whales Physeter macrocephalus,
which occur in deeper waters off South Africa, and Killer Whales Orcinus orca, which are seen around
much of the coast. The various dolphin species present in the region provide an important part of
many boat-based whale watching operations, though their management is not addressed by the
permit system. Dolphins add to the diversity of cetaceans viewed on trips and also form good
attraction to both ‘generalist’ and ‘specialist’ viewers. For example, Heaviside's dolphins are a good
attraction for specialist viewers on the West Coast. A number of other boat operators throughout the
country offer trips to view and in some cases, though currently illegal, to swim with dolphins. The
control of boats in and around dolphins thus deserves further investigation. Other marine attractions
that are also relevant to the boat-based whale watching industry include seals and seabirds, mainly
located at discrete colonies around the coast (mainly west and south), and the “sardine run”, a
migration of sardines Sardinops ocellatus that occurs annually along the east coast.
4.2 Management of boat-based whale watching
Boat-based whale watching began in South Africa in the early 1990s. The growing number of
operators led to concern that the industry would mushroom and become difficult to control, with
unknown impact on the whale resource. This concern also arose from observations of the sharkdiving
industry, which had become well-established before controls were instituted, making
restrictions on established operators particularly difficult. The rationale for controlling the industry
arose out of concern about potential impacts on whales, which are considered to be energetically
stressed during the breeding and migratory period, and thus potentially sensitive to excessive
disturbance. Following a series of workshops (1994-7), it was decided to divide the coast into areas
that could each withstand a single operator with minimal impact. The rational for single operator
areas was that there would be no confusion as to who was at fault when transgressions were
reported, and that the lack of competition would avoid problems of pushing the animals too hard to
provide a better service than competitors.
Boat-based whale watching became legal in South Africa in 1998, and is managed by the Department
of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Marine and Coastal Management (MCM). MCM has been
designated as the government body which oversees all resources which fall under the Marine Living
Resources Act (MLRA), thus including the whale resource. The industry is regulated by a system of
permits, whereby permit holders are allowed to operate within designated sections of the coast (see
below), usually with one permit available per coastal section. MCM is currently charged with the
administering and processing of permit applications, collection and dissemination of data received
from permit holders and the policing of whale watching activity, except in KwaZulu-Natal, where KZN
13

Wildlife takes responsibility for policing. Boat-based whale watching has up till now been classed as
an ‘experimental fishery’, with permits being renewable annually. This is set to change with the
drafting of a new policy on the management of the industry during 2005.
The permit holders are represented by the independently-organised South African Boat-based Whale
Watching Association (SABBWWA). Active since 1998, the association was officially recognised by
DEAT under an amendment to the Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA) by Government Gazette
1338 of 8 December 2000. In addition to liaison and marketing, the organisation has developed a
Code of Conduct for permitted operators, and a training course for guides.
4.3 Designated boat-based whale watching areas
Permits for viewing whales have been available since 1998, when 20 areas were designated with one
permit per area. These areas were based on discussions by a body of South African marine
scientists, including members of MCM and SABBWWA. The potential for permitting of kayak-based
operators was considered at this stage but subsequently rejected. The Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) officially gazetted the existing 25 potential boat-based whale watching
areas and sub-areas in July 2002. These areas cover a stretch of coastline from the Lambert’s Bay
area in the far west (32°42.0’S, 18°11.20’ E) to the Sodwana Bay area in the extreme north-east
(27°43.056’S, 32°37.592’ E) (Figure 4.1, Table 4.2). See Appendices 3 and 4.
Provincial boundaries
BBWW Areas
Closed area
Permitted area
25
24
23
22
1
21
2
20
3
4
5
6
7
8
10 11 12 13 14
15
16
17
18
19
Figure 4.1. The extent of boat-based whale watching areas gazetted under Notice 1171 of 2002 (DEAT,
2002). The numbers indicate the numbering system used to identify these areas in the text, and
are based on the order of the areas from west to east. Note that Area 9 is not indicated on the
map, as this represents a “roving permit” which alternates use of areas 7 and 8 on a weekly
basis during the whale watching season.
14

The designated areas also include a series of closed areas which correspond to recognised whale
sanctuaries and other inshore areas in which operators may not enter for the purpose of tourist trips.
Linked to these designated areas are a total of 26 permits. Each area officially corresponds to one
permit, with the exception of Plettenberg Bay area in which two permits were allocated. Another
unusual example exists in the case of the Overberg Subareas (Areas 7, 8 & 9), where a third “roving
area” (Area 9) is recognised in addition to 2 normal areas (Area 7 & 8). This third permitted area
requires the operator to alternate between two areas on a weekly basis during the whale season.
These areas will hereafter be referred to by the numbers they are allocated in Figure 4.1, e.g.
Lambert’s Bay Area will be Area 1.
The majority of designated areas occur in the Western Cape (14), with KwaZulu-Natal and the
Eastern Cape each having five areas plus one shared area (Area 20), hereafter discussed as part of
KwaZulu-Natal (Table 4.2). The only designated areas with multiple permits allocated to them occur
in the Western Cape, namely Area 14. It should be noted that another area, Area 6, also in the
Western Cape, has been allocated 2 permits subsequent to the gazette notice as a result of an error
in processing applications.
Table 4.2. Table showing list of designated areas and the Area number to which they will be referred in
the text. The maximum number of permits available in each areas as well as the number of those
permits that have been allocated to permit holders are also shown.
BBWW Area Name Maximum permits Permits allocated
Western Cape
1 Lambert's Bay Area 1
2 St Helena Bay Area 1
3 Saldanha Bay Area 1 1
4 Cape Town Area 1 1
5 Simonstown Area 1 1
6 1 Gordon's Bay Area 2 2
7 Overbergstrand Subarea 1 1 1
8 Overbergstrand Subarea 2 1 1
9 2 Overbergstrand Roving Area 3 1 1
10 Kleinbaai Area 1 1
11 Struisbaai/ Arniston Area 1 1
12 Mosselbay Area 1 1
13 Knysna Area 1 1
14 Plettenberg Bay Area 2 2
Eastern Cape
15 Port Elizabeth Area 1 1
16 Woody Cape to Rocky Point Area 1
17 East London Area 1
18 Transkei Area 1
19 Port St Johns Area 1 1
KwaZulu-Natal
20 South Sand Bluff to Margate Area 1
21 Margate to Scottsburgh Area 1 1
22 Durban Area 1
23 Tugela River to Richards Bay Area 1
24 St Lucia to Cape Vidal Area 1 1
25 Sodwana Bay Area 1
1
this area was issued with 2 permits in 2004 due to an error in processing applications.
2
this area is a “virtual” area and involves using Areas 7 and 8 on alternate weeks during the season.
15

4.4 Permit charges
Permit charges for boat-based whale watching were increased in September 2004 (Table 4.3). An
initial once-off permit application fee of R7000 is charged. Annual permit fees are then based on
passenger capacities registered with the South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA). The
initial categories of boats, carrying up to 10 passengers, are charged set fees. After this, permit fees
are structured based on a base fee plus an additional fee of R1860 per registered passenger. The
maximum possible fee is R29 300 for boats registered to carry 21 or more passengers. The renewal
fee is R70.
Table 4.3. Summary of fees payable for boat-based whale watching permit based on Government Notice
No. 26750 of 31 August 2004.
Registered
Base fee Additional charge per person Total maximum fee
passengers
5 or less n/a n/a R 3 240
6 to 10 n/a n/a R 6 400
11 - 20 R 6 400 R 1 860 R 8 260 – 25 000
21 or more n/a n/a R 29 300
16

5. PERMIT-HOLDER CHARACTERISTICS, SUCCESS AND
ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION
There are currently 18 permit holders in South Africa. Although 26 permits were originally gazetted in
2001, circumstances have allowed this total to reach a potential maximum of 27 permits, due to the
unplanned double permitting of the Gordon’s Bay area (Area 6). Seventeen of the 18 existing permit
holders kindly made themselves available to be interviewed during this study.
5.1 Sensitivity and availability of information
It should be noted that much of the information collected during this study is highly confidential and
could be potentially damaging if released to competitors. In order to maintain confidentiality, the
economic characteristics of permit holders will be presented in summary form and discussed at the
national level unless necessary. Any deviations from this will be explained as such. Though a high
degree of cooperation and willingness to share information did exist, it is likely that some errors
related to individual estimations and possible reluctance to divulge all financial details may have
occurred. The reporting of summary statistics is likely to minimise this and allow real trends to
emerge.
5.2 Distribution and history of permit holders
The majority of boat-based whale watching areas fall within the Western Cape Province, which also
has the highest numbers of permit holders and proportion of permits taken up (Figure 5.1). This
supports perceptions by most permit holders that the Western Cape is the most well know whale
watching area in the country, with specific sites, such as Hermanus, being well known on a global
scale. The majority (80%) of all current permit holders interviewed had possessed their permits for
more than one year, with two-thirds (69%) of these having possessed a permit since at least 2000
(including one that had changed hands during this time). Some 44% of current permit holders were in
possession of permits from 1998, thus being active prior to the official gazetting of boat-based whale
watching areas, and have maintained this status since that time. This suggests that turnover of
permit holders has been low and that the areas currently filled by long-standing permit holders
represent the more successful and sustainable areas available. The newer areas (and some
previously-occupied areas) may represent more marginal areas which require further development
and marketing in order to make them successful as boat-based whale watching sites. Based on
information from respondents, the initial success of an area appears to depend on a combination of
existing site-specific characteristics such as accessibility and infrastructure combined with marketing
and management by the permit holder. Area 22, corresponding to Durban Harbour, thus appears to
be an anomaly and the lack of successful permit holders there is likely to be temporary.
No of permits
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Available permits
Occupied permits
Western Cape Eastern Cape KwaZulu-Natal
Figure 5.1. Distribution of available and currently active permits in the three provinces where Areas have
been designated.
17

It should be noted that data presented here relates only to active boat-based whale watching
operators, defined as permit holders who have been active for at least one season. This excludes the
two newest permit holders in Area 6. One operator had operated for only one season to date but was
included as number of trips and activity was similar to some operators who had been in business for
longer periods. The remainder of operators considered had had their permits for 4 years or more and
thus had had sufficient opportunity to operate and gain experience in the business. In total, this
comprised fifteen permit holders, of which fourteen were available for interview.
5.3 Business characteristics
Boat-based whale watching usually only formed a small proportion of overall income for the entities
that owned the permits. Several types of business arrangements were encountered (Figure 5.2). The
model 1 situation of a stand-alone company was most common, particularly the model 1b situation,
where a single company was involved that did boat-based whale watching in conjunction with other
boat-based tourism activities. However, the simplest model, a stand-alone, specialist BBWW
operator (model 1a), was the rarest, and apparently unsustainable as a business model. The only
such permit holder was in the process of joining forces with a fishing company (see model 2). Indeed,
many interview respondents (including non-permitted operators) felt that this type of stand-alone
model would not be a viable proposition. A better model for specialist operators was model 2,
whereby the operator could operate seasonally by leasing a boat belonging to another concern or
parent company, commonly a commercial fishing company. In one case the operator was a
community forum and the supplier of the boat a private individual. Nevertheless, this model was
never particularly stable, as boat use arrangements changed from year to year. The arrangement
was not always worthwhile to the boat owner. The model 3 situation was similar to Model 1b, but with
the owners’ other business interests, such as accommodation establishments, having a direct impact
on the marine tourism business, increasing its viability. Various other business arrangements were
also found (model 4), for example with operators sharing offices, facilities, staff and marketing. In one
case, four permits were linked to one company. Irrespective of the model, many permit holders also
derived income from other business interests or employment.
Model 1
(self-contained)
(a)
BBWW
operator
BBWW
permit
(b)
Marine tour
operator
BBWW
permit
(c)
General
tour
operator
BBWW
permit
Model 2
(reliant on
another entity
for a boat)
BBWW
Operator
BBWW
permit
boat
Fishing
company
Owner
Model 3
(other business
interests have
direct benefit)
Marine tour
operator
BBWW
permit
clients
Accommodation
establishment
Model 4
(shared costs
e.g. facilities, marketing)
(a)
Marine tour
operator
Shared
costs
Marine tour
operator
BBWW
permit
(b)
Marine tour
operator
BBWW
permit
Marine tour
operator
BBWW
permit
Marine tour
Marine tour
operator
operator
BBWW
BBWW
permit
permit
Figure 5.2 . Business models for boat-based whale watching in South Africa
18

The majority of permitted operators offered marine tours throughout the year, with whale watching
featuring during the season. Between 40 and 100% of annual income from the permitted boat was
generated by boat-based whale watching, with an average of 79%. The remaining income was
attributed to various eco-tours or pleasure trips and, in the case of the one operator who offered this
service, charter fishing.
5.4 Employment
Over 100 people are currently employed by active boat-based whale watching operators, with the
largest four operators accounting for 52% of all employees. However, their level of involvement in the
boat-based whale watching aspect of the business does vary, depending on alternative activities and
services offered by permit holders. The boat-based whale watching component of the permit holders
businesses typically require a small staff complement with one to two individuals fulfilling the
manager, skipper and guide roles at any one time (there may be several such individuals on a
company’s books). In addition some companies employ an additional person for administrative and
marketing aspects. The only specialist boat-based whale watching personnel noted was a specialist
foreign language guide employed specifically during the whale watching season by one permit holder,
simply due the dominant language of the permit holder and most other employees being Afrikaans.
Employee roles within a business were generally flexible and applicable to other services offered, e.g.
skippers, general assistance or maintenance, bookkeeping, office administration and marketing.
These employees thus engaged in other activities and continued to contribute to generating income
throughout the year. The larger companies tend to have more specialised roles for more staff, but the
staff are involved in more aspects of the business. Two permit holders, both self-described as
community development projects, operated the boat-based business only during the season and
hence employees were required to have subsidiary income. In addition to regular staff counted
above, many operators regularly employed casuals to assist in menial tasks such as launching and
cleaning boats.
5.5 Equipment and infrastructure
The majority of active boat-based whale watching businesses were based on one boat and one
support vehicle, usually used for towing and launching the boat, though over half of the active permit
holders interviewed reported access to one or more boats which were used for other activities. It
should be noted that in at least two instances evidence from other permit holders or non-permitted
operators indicated that more than one boat may be used for boat-based whale watching, but as this
survey was conducted out of season, these claims can not be substantiated. The replacement value
of permitted boats ranged from R115 000 to R5 million. The average replacement value for boats
was R1.0 million.
Up to three vehicles were owned by the business, with an average replacement value of R166 000.
Offices used were based at personal residences and/or small facilities in or near the launching area,
with the latter most often serving as a central meeting site before and after the launch, particularly
where operators were dependent on clients walking in to book trips on the day with few pre-bookings.
Some permit holders had access to superior office facilities, complete with necessary staff, though
these were not entirely dedicated to boat-based whale watching alone and staff income was
generated by other activities. Average expenditure on office rental was R90 000 per year.
Four permit holders reported possession of specialised cameras, including hydrophones in some
cases, for use largely in boat-based whale watching. The value of this hardware ranged from R4000
for simple camera and GPS up to R60 000 to R80 000 for various cameras and equipment including
hydrophones (to broadcast underwater sounds to on-board tourists). This equipment was usually
closely linked to whale watching - over 80% of annual use on average.
The importance of appropriate and safe launching sites emerged as an important factor for many
operators. Permit holders and dedicated non-permitted operators in larger harbours tended to utilise
19

larger boats and supply usually matched or even exceeded demand in some cases e.g. Areas 3, 12
and 22. In areas dependent on surf-launching, regulations limiting boat size combined with the
current MCM permit system based on boat size and not overall passenger capacity, have placed a
ceiling on some operators. The existence of recognised tourism centres, such as harbours or
recognised launch sites, were also important for providing a central point which tourists could visit and
be presented with information on potential tours, both permitted and non-permitted. This was
especially important for smaller, and often non-permitted, operators who were dependent on “walk on”
clientele.
5.6 Boat characteristics, current and optimal capacity
The characteristics of the permitted boat used by permit holders are integral to understanding these
operators as they determine the ability of the permit holder to deliver the required product to the
paying customer. Factors such as capacity and operating costs are important in determining the
costs and benefits of running such an enterprise and greatly affect overall business success.
The majority of boats were some form of hard-hulled catamaran, although a variety of other boat
types were currently in use for boat-based whale watching (Figure 5.3). Clearly a variety of general
boat types are suitable for whale watching. However, three operators (at Kleinbaai, Gansbaai and St
Lucia) had custom- built boats specifically for marine animal viewing.
Chucky
Other mono-hull
Rigid inflatable
Displacement
cruiser
Motor sailor
Catamaran
Figure 5.3. Pie graph showing the proportion of different boat types currently permitted for boat-based
whale watching (as described by operators that have been active for at least one season).
Average boat size was about 10m, with a total engine capacity of 267 horsepower and a capacity of
20 passengers and 3 crew members (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1. Table characteristics of permitted boats used for boat-based whale watching.
Mean Max Min
Current age 7.5 30 1
Remaining lifespan 10.8 30 3
Crew 2.5 5 1
Passenger capacity 20.1 61 8
Length (m) 10.0 20.3 5.7
No of engines 1.8 2 1
Combined output (hp) 266.9 450.0 140.0
20

Two very large boats excluded, a typical boat-based whale watching boat is about 5 to 10m, with a
maximum capacity of 10 to 20 passengers (Figure 5.4). Nevertheless, boat capacity ranged widely,
and was influenced by the type of launching or mooring facilities available. A total of nine active
permit holders interviewed had access to suitable mooring facilities which they did utilise, with eight of
these occurring in the Western Cape and the ninth in Port Elizabeth. Mooring faculties offered a wide
range of opportunities in terms of boat size, whereas launching from a beach or slipway limited the
size of the boats (with the legal maximum for a beach launch being 12 passengers). The two
permitted boats with the largest capacity (50 or more passengers) were based near large harbours
with sheltered mooring areas (Figure 5.4).
25
20
moorings
beach or slipway launch
Boat length
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Passenger capacity
Figure 5.4. Length and passenger capacity of permitted boats, separated according to type of launching
facilities.
The oldest boat in use was 30yrs old, with an average age of 7.5 years and estimated remaining
lifespan of around 11 years (Table 5.1). It should be noted that permit holders varied in their
approach to boat maintenance and use, with extremes illustrated by one operator indicating he would
use his boat “until the end” while another suggested he aimed to trade his current boat in every three
years to maximise safety and efficiency.
Over 70% of active permit holders interviewed felt that their current passenger capacity was not
optimal (Figure 5.5). This probably reflects the developing status of the industry. Most permit holders
felt that a larger passenger capacity would be preferable, except the owner of the largest boat, who
would prefer to decrease capacity in order to get a smaller and faster boat. If all permit holders
achieved their ideal, average passenger capacity per permit would increase to 30 passengers. It
should however be noted that increased passenger capacity does not necessarily mean increased
boat size. Operators that did not have access to mooring facilities indicated that regulations and
safety concerns over local launch and sea conditions placed a limit on the size and passenger
capacity of a single boat. In these cases it was indicated that it would be preferable to increase the
number of boats to increase passenger capacity. It was also noted that smaller boats were preferred
as they improved the level of interaction with the clients and added to their experience of seeing the
whales. In areas with suitable mooring and harbours, a number of operators indicated that concrete
plans were in place to achieve optimal boat sizes in the near future. Permit holders in the remaining
areas who required additional boats in order to boost capacity were, however, restricted by existing
permit conditions which allow only one boat per permit. This places a severe constraint on some
permit holders and will need to be addressed by management in order to achieve the desired growth
in the industry.
21

70
60
50
Optimal
40
30
20
10
moorings
beach and slipway launch
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Current
Figure 5.5. Current versus optimal passenger capacity for active permit holders with different types of
launching facilities. The dotted line indicates the point where current capacity is equal to
optimal capacity. Points above the line indicate an increase in capacity would be optimal.
5.7 Use of permitted boats
Apart from boats that were leased just for the whale watching season, most boats were used by the
permit holders for other purposes in addition to boat-based whale watching. Only one boat was used
exclusively for boat-based whale watching. On average, 60% of all annual sea days by permitted
boats were dedicated to boat-based whale watching tours. The rest were either eco-tours and other
trips or fishing (commercial or charters). The most common alternative use was for various eco-tours
and pleasure trips related to the viewing of marine organisms and scenery, accounting for an average
of 40% of sea days by those operators who offered such trips. One boat was used for charter fishing
in the off season (18% of sea days).
5.8 Trip characteristics
Most whale watching trips were about 2 hours long, occasionally longer where conditions were less
ideal. With a few exceptions, whale watching trips are generally longer than other marine tours, which
tend to last about 1 hour. This is usually due to the increased travelling time incurred to reach the
whales. In other words, whale watching tends to increase the time of marine tours. Thus it was not
surprising that several operators sought to minimise their time at sea by purchasing faster boats or
relocating to nearer launch sites as appropriate. One operator who used to offer a 3hr dedicated
whale watching trip ceased operations, citing the lack of financial viability.
5.9 Seasonality, number of trips and passengers
An important factor is the variation in timing of the presence of whales, suitable weather conditions
and the periods of peak demand for viewing by tourists. In the Western Cape, whale watching
focuses on the Southern Right Whale, which occurs mainly in July to December. Tourist demand,
depending on the level of marketing by individual operators, tends to be greatest during August to
22

November. This is probably due to a combination of the main season for overseas tourists, the
September holiday period and the improvement in weather and sea conditions. As demand for boatbased
whale watching continues to grow, it is likely that the full season will eventually become fully
utilised subject to limitations by weather conditions. Further east, particularly along the Garden
Route, year-round viewing is more viable because of the presence of both Humpback and Bryde’s
whales. Yet demand for whale watching is also limited in season (mainly August to December). In
KZN, tourist demand was strongly linked to school holiday periods and is highest in August to
November, but is extended by the increasingly well-known Sardine Run during June to August. The
consistent underutilisation of the full whale-viewing period highlights the importance of marketing and
increased awareness among tourists and other stakeholders in the tourism industry. Such utilisation
would optimise the use of the whale resources and maximise the utility associated with obtaining a
permit.
Each permitted operator is required to record all of their boat-based whale watching activities in a
logbook, including details of trips and passengers. Several sources, including some operators,
maintained that the logbooks varied considerably in accuracy, depending on the operators involved.
We thus augmented these data with relevant questions in the interview survey of licence holders.
The average operating season for boat-based whale watching by permit holders ranged from 2.5 to 7
months of the year, with an average boat-based whale watching season of 5.3 months spread
between the months of July and November for most operators (Figure 5.6, Figure 5.7). The shortest
season was recorded by an operator in the Cape Metro whose operation was only viable for a short
peak period. The longest season described fell within the Garden Route region. Although the main
whale watching season was described as seven months, it was noted that whales could be observed
on their marine tours during most of the year. A mean of 126.3 days per year were considered
suitable for boat-based whale watching in terms of seas and weather conditions and the availability of
whales. The majority of permit holders identified sea conditions (64%) as the main limiting factor for
the maximum number of trips possible during a day in season. For the rest, trip numbers were limited
by tourist demand.
16
No of permitted operators
12
8
4
KZN
E Cape
W Cape
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 5.6. No of permit holders active in boat-based whale watching during different months of the year
according to province, based on interview data.
23

80
No of trips
70
60
50
40
30
KZN
Overberg
Garden Route
Cape Metro
20
10
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 5.7. Seasonality in the number of trips by representative operators in four parts of the country, based on
logbook data. Only trips where whales were sighted are included to remover over reporting bias by some
operators.
Estimates of the numbers of trips and passengers varied depending on whether logbook or interview
data were used. Operators conducted up to 4 or 5 trips per day during the whale watching season.
The average occupancy rate per trip was between 54% (logbook data) and 63% (interview data).
Logbook and respondent estimates of occupancy rates were largely in agreement, with the exception
of two major discrepancies, in which logbook estimates were very much lower (Figure 5.8).
Occupancy rates per trip were highest in the Garden Route and Maputaland, and lowest in the Cape
Metro and the Sunshine Coast, with low occupancy rates also being associated with large boats.
1.2
Occupancy per trip: Interview
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Occupancy per trip: Logbook data
Figure 5.8. Comparison of estimates of mean occupancy per trip from logbook and interview data.
Up to 244 trips per year were recorded in logbooks for permitted boats in 2004. The total number of
passengers recorded on permitted boats for the 2004 season ranged from none to 6600 per permit
24

holder, with a total of just over 32 000 passengers. However, a direct comparison between the
logbook data and estimates based on interview data regarding permitted boat activities suggested
that there were some major discrepancies between the two (Figure 5.9).
700
No trips: based on interview data
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
No. trips: Logbook records
Figure 5.9. Comparison of initial estimates of number of whale watching trips in 2004 from logbook and
interview data.
The discrepancies suggest that there are some cases of under-reporting in the logbooks, and some
cases where apparent over reporting occurs. The latter is thought to be due to the inclusion of all
marine tours undertaken by the permitted boat, as evident from the number of months and days on
which data are recorded (Table 5.2). While providing excellent, year-round data on the resource, for
this analysis it was important to separate the actual whale watching activity, especially since it was
apparent that not all operators had recorded data in this way. Thus logbook data were reanalysed to
isolate the trips on which whale sightings occurred. This would include some whale watching trips in
season on which whales were not sighted, as well as non whale watching trips out of season on
which whales were sighted, but these are assumed to balance one another out.
From this analysis it was apparent that four operators reported all activities of the licensed boats, with
whale sightings occurring on 23 - 82% of trips, and the remainder reported just their whale watching
activities, with whale sightings occurring on 92 – 100% (average 98%) of trips.
Based on the revised data set, up to 385 whale watching trips were made per operator, varying
greatly from one operator to the next (Table 5.2). Four permit holders did not record any trips, though
two of these did conduct a few. Estimates of the total number of passengers based primarily on
logbook data, but supplemented by interview data in cases where interviewees stated that they had
not completed logbooks properly, suggested that the permitted boats carried an overall total of just
over 26 000 passengers (Table 5.2).
25

Table 5.2. Estimated total number of passengers taken on permitted boat-based whale watching trips in 2004,
based primarily on logbook data Whale watching trips are defined as trips on which whales were sighted.
Region
BBWW
Area
Boat
size
Months when
whale
watching trips
recorded
Days
with
whale
sightings
Trips with
whale
sightings (% of
recorded trips)
Estimated total
passengers on
whale watching
trips
West Coast 3 12 No data No data No data 56
Cape Metro 4 61 Feb, Jul - Oct 86 102 (92%) 1591
5 8 No data No data No data 61
Agulhas 7 20 Jun - Oct 101 252 (100%) 4598
8 30 Jul - Oct 72 169 (99%) 1289
9 18 Jun - Nov 93 124 (100%) 1290
10 22 Jan - Dec 208 358 (95%) 5990
11 8 No data No data No data 167
Garden Route 12 50 Jun - Oct 47 59 (100%) 783
13 12 Jan - May 11 11 (23%) 70
14a 12 Jan - Dec 188 385 (79%) 3813
14b 16 Jan - Sep 124 250 (42%) 3104
Sunshine 15 12 Jul - Dec 31 28 (82%) 136
Hibiscus 21 10 No data No data No data 1 076
Maputaland 24 11 May - Dec 142 306 (99%) 3097
Total 302 # 1942 26 045
*excludes non-whale watching trips during the off-season for the operators that recorded all trips by the permitted
boats
# excludes new permits for areas 6 and 19 (30 passengers total)
5.10 Prices and turnover
Prices for boat-based whale watching trips varied from R150 up to R650, with an average of
approximately R400 (Figure 5.10). It should be noted that the lowest prices (

Based on rack rates and the estimated numbers of passengers taken on whale watching trips (Table
5.2), annual turnover for 2004 attributed to permitted boat-based whale watching was estimated to be
in the order of R12.8 million. This ranged from under R10 000 to about R3.9 million for individual
operators, with five operators earning under R65 000 and the remainder generating a turnover of over
R200 000. Note that these are rough estimates as they do not take discounts into account, and
assume that all passengers have been fully recorded.
Number of active operators
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

5.11 Operating costs and profitability
Of particular relevance to this study is the additional net income generated by the additional
investment in boat-based whale watching. Very few operators have started from scratch with a view
to opening a business whose primary attraction is whale watching since (or due to) the availability of
permits. These would include business models 1a and 2. In model 1a, the investment in a boat is
key, whereas in model 2, a boat is leased from a company that does not make use of it in the whale
season. Note that these models are only found in the Western Cape, where the main fishing (e.g.
crayfish) and whale watching seasons do not overlap. Apart from models 1a and 2, most of the
existing business models are similar to numerous existing marine tourism models, and have
expanded on this to include boat-based whale watching. In other words, the equipment and staff are
largely in place for general marine tourism. In these models, the main additional investment is the
permit, plus the training of staff, but some larger operators may have increased the numbers of boats
and vehicles to accommodate the addition of boat-based whale watching. Thus the level of
investment made would have varied considerably from one operator to the next, ranging from training
staff to custom-building boats.
Attributing the business costs to the boat-based whale watching component of the business was fairly
complicated, because of the variety of business models involved, some of which were quite complex.
Respondents were asked to attribute the amounts that could be attributed to the boat-based whale
watching side of the business. This was done on the basis of the extent to which the various
business elements were involved.
Based on estimates of costs attributed to the boat-based whale watching aspect of permit holders’
businesses, boat-based whale watching was estimated to be a profitable activity for 66% of permit
holders. The non-profitable businesses included two that had not been active or only minimally active
in 2004, either because of insufficient demand or logistical problems. Of the fully operational permit
holders for which full cost estimates were supplied (n = 12), about half of the overall turnover was
profit (Figure 5.13).
Overheads
23%
Net income
50%
Salaries
19%
Operating costs
8%
Figure 5.13. Aggregate distribution of the sales rand for fully-operational boat-based whale watching enterprises.
This excludes permit fees.
In reality, estimating the profitability of boat-based whale watching is not simple. For marine tourism
businesses that offer other cruises with multiple attractions, it would be more informative to analyse
the increase in turnover due to the boat-based whale watching element made possible by the
acquisition of a permit. This is the increase in turnover due to increased demand and the price
premium charged for whale watching. Ultimately, this will be revealed by the demand for boat-based
whale watching permits. All but one of the operators interviewed felt that boat-based whale watching
made a positive contribution to their businesses.
28

5.12 What determines success
Based on the estimates made in this study, there was a wide range in the degree of success of
different operators. Indeed, success varied within most of the different regions, suggesting that
several factors must have been at play.
The frequency and types of whales sighted varied between the different areas, with the Cape Metro
and Agulhas Coast having the highest frequency, the Garden Route having relatively low frequency
but high diversity (except for Knysna), the Sunshine coast having high frequency and diversity, and
KZN having moderate frequency and low diversity (Figure 5.14). Turnover was not strongly related to
the frequency of whale sightings (Figure 5.15), nor directly to diversity, however, although these are
likely to have a positive influence, all other things being equal.
8.00
6.00
Other whales
Brydes
Humpback
Southern Right
Whales/trip
4.00
2.00
0.00
no
data
no
data
no
data
3 4 5 6 7 9 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 24
Areas
no
data
no
data
Figure 5.14. Average number of whales sighted per whale watching trip, based on logbook data.
Turnover (R millions)
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10
Whales per trip
.
Figure 5.15. Relationship between turnover and average number of whale sightings per whale watching trip.
Apparently much more important than the resource itself was how it was marketed by the operator.
There was a significantly positive relationship between a permit holders’ expenditure on marketing of
boat-based whale watching and the turnover generated by this activity (Figure 5.16). This does not
include additional regional or national-level marketing by other bodies such as municipalities,
SATOUR or SABBWA. Note that there is actually a lag of up to three years between marketing and
turnover, and in some cases recent investment in marketing had not yet paid off.
29

Turnover (R millions)
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
R 2 = 0.75
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
Amount spent on marketing (R)
Figure 5.16. Relationship between investment in boat-based whale watching-related marketing and turnover
Demand for boat-based whale watching in any one area, and overall, is thus probably heavily
dependent on marketing, especially considering the large number of alternative destinations in South
Africa and particularly at a global scale. Demand was described as being in excess of business
capacity by five operators, along the Agulhas Coast, the Garden Route and in KwaZulu-Natal. Other
operators in nearby areas described low or medium demand. High demand was not necessarily
associated with large urban centres where a huge potential market exists. There was wide variability
of success among permit holders in the Western Cape, currently the recognised “hotspot” for whale
watching in South Africa. This indicates that fine scale demand at specific towns or centres is highly
variable though demand is generally considered higher than in the Eastern Cape or KwaZulu-Natal.
Of course the level of expenditure on marketing, and probably also the general level of service
provided, is also a function of the degree to which a business is already established or is supported
by associated businesses.
In terms of the business models, the most successful were general and marine tour operators,
especially those that benefited from close relationships with complementary businesses such as
accommodation establishments. There was mixed success among marine tour operations that were
closely interlinked (model 4), but this is possibly to some extent an artefact of the difficulty in ascribing
shared costs to the different businesses. All but one of the operators that concentrated solely on
boat-based whale watching had low profits or made a loss. Operations relying on other parties for
boats seemed fraught with problems such as difficulties in achieving regular access to suitable boats.
An interview with one of the boat owners involved revealed that the operation concerned was not
yielding enough income to make the use of his boat worthwhile. Two such permit holders in the
Western Cape have ceased operations, although they have indicated they do have plans to improve
the level of activity through the acquisition of new boats and infrastructure. Thus, while the business
model appears to be important, it is important to realise that good business sense is probably even
more important.
Boat size appeared to have some influence. High profits were generally recorded for operations with
medium-sized boats (16 – 30 passengers), and low to medium for large boats. Smaller boats were
associated with a wide range of profit levels.
Another factor that may influence the success of existing operators is the level of competition, both in
terms of other areas (e.g. when dedicated whale watchers choose their destination), and locally, from
‘rogue’ (non-permitted) operators. There is no obvious impact on turnover or profits in areas where
numbers of rogue operators are high. However, this trend would be masked to some extent by the
fact that rogue operators are more likely to occur in areas where a combination of factors would make
boat-based whale watching successful. Nevertheless, rogue operators are virtually non-existent
along the Agulhas Coast, where conditions are particularly attractive, and were reported to have a low
30

impact along the Garden Route, another area where whale watching is in high demand. Moderate
impacts were perceived by operators on the West Coast, and high impacts in KwaZulu-Natal. Rogue
operators were not a problem where they simply ‘mopped up’ excess demand, but were more of a
problem where they undercut prices or where their inferior levels of service threatened to damage the
image of the industry. The latter was a major concern for many permit holders.
What is also telling to some degree is where permits have not been taken up at all. The large gap in
permits along the Eastern Cape coast is largely attributed to general sea conditions, combined with
mediocre whale numbers and a relatively small potential market, while the West Coast appears to be
less viable because of a lack of market. Note also that most visitors to the West Coast would pass
through Cape Town where conditions are much better for whale watching.
In summary, there is no single factor that determines the success of permitted operators, though
marketing appears to be the single most important influence. Innovative ways of tapping into an
existing tourism market also appears to be a key factor. Aside from overall management and inputs
by MCM and SABBWA (assumed to be uniform from an operators’ perspective, and discussed later),
factors that probably contributed to the differences in success of operations included:
(1) Capability of permit-holders
o marketing
o access to capital/equipment
o business model and acumen
o quality and reliability of service
(2) Location:
o the quality of whale-viewing;
o accessibility to tourist markets
o sea and launching conditions
(3) Competition:
o other permit holders and/or locations
o non-permitted activity.
Overall, the perception from interviews in this study was that the boat-based whale watching industry
in South Africa is at an early stage of development and will continue to increase in its viability.
5.13 Contribution to the economy
Boat-based whale watching generates turnover in the industry itself, and also in related tourism
industries through other expenditure by whale watching tourists. Turnover from sales of whale
watching trips on permitted boats is estimated to have been about R12.8 million in 2004 (see above).
The total expenditure generated by these tourists is estimated to have been in the order of R44.9
million. This estimate is based on the global ratio of total estimated expenditure to expenditure on
tours (Hoyt 2001) and is believed to be in the right order of magnitude 1 . If non-permitted activity is
included, the figure could be somewhat higher.
Tourism expenditure generates income and employment both directly and indirectly. Direct income is
the ‘value added to national income’ resulting from the total expenditure generated through the
purchase of tourism services. This value added is that part of the expenditure that becomes income
generated within the tourist sector. Tourist visiting areas to see whales also spend money on
accommodations, restaurants, transportation services, crafts, recreation and cultural services, and
other products. In each of these industries, a proportion of expenditure, e.g. 50%, contributes to
income. Indications are that about 50% of expenditure on boat-based whale watching tours
contribute directly to national income. This measure is called the direct impact on income and GDP.
The second source of income is the indirect income that comes about from the demand generated in
the rest of the economy by the tourism industry. In order to provide boat-based whale watching trips,
businesses must purchase goods and services used as inputs to production, such as food, petroleum
products, thatch for roofing, telecommunications services, etc. This is also true of the other industries
1 Note that a direct estimate of whale watching tourist expenditure could not be made since this study
was commissioned during the low season.
31

that benefit from whale watching clients, such as accommodation establishments. Industries
supplying these intermediate goods and services must, in turn, employ workers and purchase inputs
to produce their goods and services. In addition, when people are employed and earn wages, those
wages are used to purchase consumption goods, which must be produced, requiring additional
employment and generating more income. This indirect effect is sometimes referred to as the
“backward linkage” or “upstream linkage” in the supply chain. Thus, even though tourism enterprises
may operate in remote areas, their growth has impacts through the entire economy.
The total economy-wide impact of boat-based whale watching tourism would be the sum of the direct
and indirect impacts. The ratio of the total to direct impact (on sectoral output, incomes, employment
or any other variable relevant for policy) is called a “multiplier”, and measures how a change (increase
or decrease) in one sector’s level of activity will affect the entire economy.
Estimation of tourism multipliers typically utilises tools such as Social Accounting Matrices. SAMs
expand the national accounts in the format of a table that shows the linkages among all components
of an economy: production and generation of income, distribution of income, expenditures, savings
and investment, and foreign trade. Because SAMs provide detailed information about different types
of households—how they receive and spend their income—they can also be used to analyse the
distributional impacts of policy, that is, the effects on employment, incomes and poverty of different
industries and household groups. Although some localised studies have been made, the detailed
analysis of the national impact of tourism expenditure has not been attempted in South Africa.
Nevertheless, the need has been recognised and the construction of South African satellite accounts
for tourism is imminent.
Recent work in Namibia suggests that the direct value added by nature-based tourism expenditure is
in the order of 46% of expenditure, and that total value added is approximately 86% of total
expenditure, based on a multiplier of 1.86 (Turpie et al. 2004). If there were no leakages from the
Namibian economy, all expenditure should eventually end up as income to Namibians, so that total
value added would approximate expenditure. However, since certain goods and services are
imported, and some are paid for in tourists’ countries of origin, there are leakages from the economy.
Assuming similar tourism linkages and multipliers as in the Namibian case, the expenditure attributed
to boat-based whale watching could be estimated to contribute some R36.8 million to GDP. This is
slightly less than 0.1% of the total GDP contribution of agriculture, forestry and fisheries (estimated to
be R50 460 million in 2004). Nevertheless it is a significant contribution, and the fact that it brings
turnover to centres outside of the main urban centres is also valuable.
There is a major caveat associated with the above estimates, however. Strictly speaking, the direct
economic impact of boat-based whale watching is the expenditure that would not have occurred had
these operators not had whale watching permits (i.e. in the absence of the industry). In this regard it
is important to distinguish between the displacement effect and the inducement effect of the industry.
In some cases, clients may have been holidaying in an area in any case, and chosen to go on a
whale watching trip instead of some other tour. Thus the whale watching operator would have simply
attracted that expenditure from another business, making little difference to the net effect on the
overall economy. Where whale watching opportunities induce international visitors to stay for another
day in the country, or better still, where they attract visitors to this country instead of another country,
the impact is much more significant. Thus the foreign component of the tourist market is particularly
important from an economic perspective. In the case of boat-based whale watching this is very high
in all areas for which data are available, and foreigners make up 86% of whale watching passengers
overall (Figure 5.17). Estimates such as the above make the assumption that whale watching was a
primary reason for the tourists coming to the country. Findlay’s (1997) survey of land-based whale
watchers suggested that a good proportion of whale-watchers travelled to Hermanus specifically to
see whales. However, it is impossible to assess the extent to which this is the case for boat-based
whale watching without carrying out a proper survey of the clients involved.
32

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
84% 86%
Agulhas
Coast
Cape Metro
91%
Garden
Route
79%
Sunshine
Coast
87%
Maputaland
Figure 5.17. Percentage of boat-based whale watching passengers that are foreign, based on logbook data for
2004.
The important point to note is that for the industry to have a really significant impact, boat-based
whale watching has to become a sufficiently significant component in the variety of attractions offered
by the country to swing tourists’ decisions about where to go on vacation. Thus boat-based whale
watching in South Africa needs to be highly competitive on a global scale.
In addition to the broader economic impacts, boat-based whale watching may have positive impacts
at a local scale. Employment generated is discussed below. In addition, three of the current permit
holders in the Agulhas region were explicitly involved in some form of community development or
upliftment, with varying success. One operator was involved in community development projects
which involved the education and use of local community members in producing small curios and
articles which were bought up by the operator for use in his operation. The level of investment in
these activities and its overall effect and potential success could not be estimated during the period of
study but would represent an example of “knock-on” effects associated with boat-based whale
watching in an otherwise underrated tourism venue. Another permit holder was utilising boat-based
whale watching as a source of income for further investment in various community-linked projects and
schemes. The success of these was also difficult to determine but again supports the importance of
boat-based whale watching as a source of development in the region.
33

6. BBWW ACTIVITY AND DEMAND AROUND THE COAST
6.1 Introduction
This section provides a qualitative description of the current variation in the supply of and demand for
boat-based whale watching around the coast, and includes non-permitted as well as permitted
activity. In order to facilitate their description and discussion in the context of relevant coastal
development and characteristics, the 26 boat-based whale watching areas are placed within the
context of the thirteen coastal development regions used by DEAT (1999) (Figure 6.1). The use of
regions will also aid in preserving the confidentiality of respondent information collected during this
study. These regions were proposed by DEAT’s (1999) White Paper on Sustainable Coastal
Development in order to allow more focused assessments and intervention related to each region’s
specific needs and resources. They have resulted from the realisation that South Africa’s coastline is
highly diverse in terms of its ecology, as well as its socio-economic and legislative environment. Only
one of these regions, Namaqualand in the Northern Cape Province, has not been gazetted as a
potential whale watching area and has no permits currently allocated to it. Currently no boat-based
whale watching is known to occur there in any form and this was substantiated in interviews with
stakeholders in the adjacent area.
Figure 6.1. Map showing the 13 coastal development regions proposed by DEAT (1999) for use in the
formulation of sustainable coastal development policy.
34

6.2 Western Cape
The Western Cape Province includes four coastal development regions and contains 56% of gazetted
boat-based whale watching areas and sub-areas in the country (Figure 6.2). The province also
boasts the highest level of subscription to the boat-based whale watching permit system with 73% of
active permits in the country occurring here, equating to 57% of those available in the province. The
main biological attraction is the Southern Right Whale and various dolphin species which occur in the
area, including the endemic Heaviside’s Dolphin found only on the West Coast (Stuart & Stuart,
1988). This province, along with parts of the Eastern Cape, is also well known for significant
aggregations of many marine organisms including the Cape Fur Seal (Arctocephalis pusillus), African
Penguin (Spheniscus demersus), and other seabirds. The region is also well known for the presence
of Great White Sharks which offer the opportunity for cage-diving in many areas where whales are
viewed. This range of attractions, along with a generally well-marketed and developed tourism
industry, has helped to make some regions in the province the most popular and well-subscribed
boat-based whale watching areas in South Africa.
#S
Towns
Provincial boundaries
BBWW Areas
Closed area
Permitted area
1
#S Lambert's Bay
2
St Helena Bay
#S #S Veldrift
Saldanha Bay
#S
3
#S Yzerfontein
4 Cape Town
#S
#S
#S
Gordon's Bay
Simonstown
Hawston
#S #S Hermanus
6 #S Kleinbaai
5
7
10
8
#S Arniston
#S
Struisbaai
11
Mossel Bay #S
12
Plettenberg Bay
#S #S
Knysna
13
14
Figure 6.2. Map of Western Cape Province showing towns and Areas mentioned in text. Area 9 is a
“roving” permit based on alternating use of areas 7 and 8 and is thus not shown on the map.
35

6.2.1 West Coast (Areas 1-3; Permits: 1 of 3)
The West Coast region is well known for primary production linked to fisheries, though this has
suffered in recent times and has led to investigations of alternate industries including tourism (DEAT,
1999). The region is characterised by a low income, with the majority of wealth centred around
developed areas linked to active harbours and ports such as Saldanha and Langebaan (DEAT 1999).
Tourism is based mainly on the well-known flower season during August and activities along the coast
such as fishing and boating.
Permitted activity
The West Coast is the only region in the Western Cape in which not all potential permits have been
taken up. There has never been a permit holder in Area 1, although at least one application has been
made in the past. Areas 2 and 3 were previously occupied by two permit holders, but these permits
were revoked in 1999 and 2003, in part due to their failure to supply logbook data to MCM.
Promotional material for both of the past permit holders is still highly visible and tour offices contacted
referred researchers to these operators. One of the previous permit holders did admit being active in
boat-based tourism but claimed whales were no longer his main focus, attributing their importance to
him as “less than 1%”. Meanwhile, the permit for Area 3 has recently been re-issued (at the end of
2004), this time to the Veldrift Community Forum, and is unusual in that it forms part of a poverty relief
program, initiated and partly funded via MCM. The permit holder is now considering initiating an
application for the permit linked to Area 2, subject to the performance and perceived success of the
operation.
Non-permitted activity
In addition to the current permit holder, two to three non-permitted operators appear to be active and
advertising boat-based whale watching as an element of their trips in Areas 1 and 3. At the time of
their interviews, one of the active operators had been in operation for at least 10 years while the
second had only begun operating in October 2004, and may represent a temporary operator. A third
operator, well known in the region for the past 8 years as the preferred whale watching service
provider to a number of tourist operators and accommodation establishments, claims to have ceased
operations in 2003 in order to focus on other business interests. In addition to these some fishing
charters offer occasional pleasure trips to view whales and are apparently active on an opportunistic
basis during the whale watching season in Areas 2 and 3. Due to the apparent difficulties of
operating in the region, new operators such as these reportedly tend to find whale watching unviable.
All but one of the non-permitted operators interviewed indicated that they considered boat-based
whale watching as an incidental contribution to their overall income. Nevertheless, all operators
admitted or were seen to market the presence of whales on their tours to varying degrees. It is likely
that whales serve some use in attracting potential clients but these trips do not guarantee or appear to
see whales as a specific aim of their trip. Claims by some operators that they were currently inactive
were difficult to assess as interviews were conducted out of season, yet whales and whale watching
were clearly visible in marketing material and poster boards still in use, particularly in Area 2.
The majority of active whale watching in this region is undertaken by non-permitted operators and is
facilitated by a lack of policing by any official bodies in large parts of the area. Exceptions to these
were Langebaan (Area 2) and Yzerfontein (Area 3), where MCM fisheries inspectors were claimed to
occasionally play a deterring role, but the extent of this appears minimal. In Area 1, the most active
policing elements were claimed to be the non-permitted operators themselves, particularly those who
had been active for some time. Similarly, reports suggest that the ex-permit holder for Area 2 was the
most visual policing element but subsequent follow ups appeared minimal. This was supported in
statements by other stakeholders in the local tourism industry, including unpermitted operators.
These operators also demonstrated superior knowledge of legislation and restrictions around the
viewing of whales from boats compared to newer operators. The extent of their own compliance with
these rules was however unclear. The extent of policing and actual knowledge of restrictions thus
appeared linked to the level and duration of activity and dependence on boat-based whale watching.
The two currently active operators expressed no interest in applying for permits. Reasons included
the threat of bureaucracy and unnecessary controls, including potentially restrictive BEE
requirements. One non-permitted operator, under the impression that he could approach whales to
within 100m, felt that it was not worth getting a permit.
36

Equipment and infrastructure
The full-time non-permitted operators and the permit holder used boats varying from the traditional
fishing boats known as West Coast “chucky’s” to specialised hard-hulled sight-seeing pleasure boats.
Passenger capacity varied from 6 to 12. With the exception of operators at Yzerfontein, all boats
were permanently moored at harbour facilities. Boats used by more peripheral and opportunistic
operators were described as “basic” working fishing vessels and larger sailing boats and motor boats.
Thus a variety of boats were involved with marine tours and whale watching but the more dedicated
permitted and non-permitted operators generally utilised smaller, faster boats.
Trip characteristics
All non-permitted operators offered a generalised pleasure trip, active throughout the year, based on
one or more local attractions including island-based seal and seabird colonies, dolphins, harbours,
local history and culture and generalised sight-seeing. In the case of operators and ex-permit-holders
around Veldrift and St Helena Bay (Area 2), trips on the Berg River and estuary were also offered.
Whale watching was focussed almost entirely on Southern Right Whales, and dolphins were cited as
an important attraction in this region. Trips varied from 1hr boat trips limited to a harbour trip in (Area
1 & 2) to a maximum of 4.5hrs where the longer trip time was associated with a trip to Dassen Island
(Area 3), and in St Helena Bay where a longer time was required to find whales offshore (Area 2).
Both these latter operators used larger boats (5.5-8m) with onboard cabins and toilet facilities. Only
one operator admitted to actively searching for whales while others claimed to pass them in season
while travelling along a predetermined route they used throughout the year. Operators conducted
only one to two trips per day because of the long trip times in this region. Ticket prices ranged from
R50 for 1hr trips to R500 for longer trips.
Seasonality
The main season for whale-viewing was described as June to December in Area 1, and late July to
mid November, rarely December, in the more southern areas (Areas 2 & 3). Overall demand for
marine tours however was highest in December and March/April in all areas, coinciding with South
African school holidays. A peak in August, linked to the well known flower season, was noted by
operators in Area 1. Operators in Area 3 described their high season as the summer months, again
linked to local South African visitor patterns. These patterns support statements by operators that
whale watching alone was not the most important attraction for their tours, contributing relatively little
to overall boat-based income.
The two non-permitted operators who offered the most whale-focused tours, currently or in the past,
tended to have the most foreign clientele, up to 95%. The current permit holder described a lower
proportion of foreign clients (around 50%). The relative importance of foreigners and locals also
varied with time of year; with locals (maximum 75-90%) being dominant during school holiday periods
around December and March-April while foreigners were present during October-November and
January-February. The overall number of tourists was also generally low during these latter months,
with the best month for overall tourist numbers being December or the summer season.
Perceived trends and opportunities
All operators, including the current permit holder, agreed that any boat tour business based solely on
whale watching was unlikely to succeed due to the low numbers of tourists present during the best
parts of the whale watching season which occurred predominantly in winter. Tourist demand was
identified as the main constraint on number of trips offered.
The lack of active permit holders and turnover in permit ownership supports the consensus view by all
operators interviewed that boat-based whale watching was relatively difficult to sustain in the West
Coast region, particularly in the northern extremities of the region, due to the low numbers of tourists
in general. This is exacerbated by the fact that whales are largely visible in winter, which presents
operators with unfavourable conditions in which to operate. A further problem has been a lack of
marketing and general lack of awareness on the availability and quality of whale watching in the
region by the public. As a result, none of the operators interviewed were solely dependent on their
boat-based whale watching business for income, with most describing the operation as one of many
other business activities. Whale watching was in most cases described as an incidental part of an
existing generalised pleasure trip. The amount of low-level non-permitted activity does however
indicate that some potential for growth of the industry exists here but will rely heavily on appropriate
policing and marketing of the area.
37

6.2.2 Cape Metro (Areas 4-6; Permits: 4 of 3)
This region includes Cape Town and is well known for its many scenic attractions which support a
thriving tourism economy, attracting millions of foreign and local tourists throughout the year (DEAT
1999). Its importance as a major travel hub, destination and urban centre has also benefited regions
immediately adjacent to it, supplying both local as well as a significant visiting national and foreign
contingent which use the city as a starting point for travel in the remainder of the country (DEAT
1999).
Permitted activity
All areas have permit holders, although the level of activity varies. Due to an administrative error, the
Gordon’s Bay area (Area 6) currently hosts two permit holders, each having received their permit in
the space of one week in 2004, although Area 6 is only gazetted for one permit. Both operators are
currently active as boat-based businesses in the area and offer a variety of tours focusing on fishing
charters and shark cage-diving respectively. Neither of these permit-holders has had the opportunity
to offer a single boat-based whale watching tour to date and both anticipate their first season of
operation to occur in 2005. The permit-holders in Area 4 and 5, operating from two large harbours in
the region, have been present since 1998 but have encountered some problems which have limited
their activity and success. Both of these operators are linked to large parent companies with access
to significant infrastructure and resources. One is currently inactive.
Non-permitted activity
Around four potential non-permitted operators were claimed to be operating from Cape Town Harbour
in Area 4 but operated in an entirely opportunistic fashion during the whale watching season, with
whales being viewed incidentally during tours sold primarily as scenic or sunset cruises. No active
advertising of whale watching was made but it was claimed that verbal advertisements were made to
passing visitors during the season. The majority of the activity was linked to Cape Town Harbour
particularly when whales were nearby.
One active non-permitted operator was identified in Area 5, offering “whale-viewing” in season, as
part of an added attraction on set trips to Seal Island and Cape Point which were offered throughout
the year. The permit holder for that area estimated that up to half of potential customers may be lost
to this operator during their operating season. This “whale-viewing” was sold on the claim that the
necessary minimum distance was observed when approaching whales but these claims were, as
usual, difficult to verify.
No non-permitted operators were identified in Area 6 - the only “operator” identified was found to offer
a land-based whale watching tour along the edge of False Bay with charges set at around R450 per
person, closely matching those charged by the majority of boat-based whale watching operators in
the region and elsewhere.
Equipment and infrastructure
The oldest permit holders in the region were linked to larger companies which offered access to
various infrastructure and support. The permit holder in Area 5 was linked to a large commercial
fishing concern, for which the boat-based whale watching business was essentially a separate entity.
This larger umbrella company did however provide significant resources in terms of boats, vehicles
and offices with little or no direct costs being experienced by the specific boat-based whale watching
component. The two newest permit holders were much smaller boat-based businesses involved in
various charters and appear to follow the typical pattern for early phase boat-based whale watching
operators, with or without permits, throughout South Africa. The typical pattern for such operators
includes one or two staff members fulfilling a number of roles and is usually based on the use of a
single boat, vehicles and limited office facilities.
The availability of good harbour facilities has removed constraints on larger boat sizes and greater
passenger capacity that hinder successful operators in many other regions discussed in this report.
The highest current passenger capacity for any operator was recorded in this region, but both active
operators had at various stages operated boats with passenger capacities exceeding 50. This
capacity was currently only available to one permit holder with the remainder, including newly
permitted operators, offering a capacity typical of most operators of 8 to 12 passengers. Boat sizes of
38

around 30 to 35 passengers were perceived to be optimal by both active permit holders, and were
linked to their desire to cater to tour bus clientele.
Trip characteristics
Trips focused on whales, but various other attractions were also offered, including penguin and seal
viewing around Seal Island and the Robben Island World Heritage Site. Seal Island was identified as
a local hotspot for whale activity, with other wildlife sighted being described as an incidental bonus.
During the very early and late parts of the season, as whale numbers declined, trips in Area 5 were
made in the direction of Cape Point which added a further scenic attraction to the tour. Two standard
routes were used in Area 4, one extending up the west coast towards Robben Island and another
moving south towards Hout Bay. The specific route chosen was dependent on relative amount of
whale activity.. It was hoped that the purchase of a faster boat would allow a combination of these
two routes to be offered in future. Trip times in the region were on average 2.6 hours, though the
active permit holder in Area 4 reported trip times of up to 4hrs due to longer travelling times linked to a
slower boat and the minimum travelling distance before whales were encountered. There were,
however, plans to purchase a faster boat which would significantly decrease trip times. Ticket prices
by permitted and non-permitted operators ranged from R150 to R350 per person.
Seasonality and demand
All permit holders in the region, with the exception of the operator in Area 5, are active throughout the
year in the boat-based tourism industry, catering to various tastes including general scenic tours,
diving, fishing and sunset cruises. The boat-based whale watching aspect of their business generally
fills what is perceived to be the relatively quieter winter season, thus ensuring a steady income
throughout the year and was reported to be a major draw card for permit holders, including the
newest permit holders in Area 6. Foreign visitors reportedly made up 70 – 90% of clients. Trip
occupancy was also reported has high, regardless of boat size.
Good quality whale viewing is possible from June to mid November, but currently-active permit
holders concentrate on a shorter period, focusing on times of highest demand. Periods of peak
demand during this season were identified between mid-July and mid-November in Areas 4 and 5. At
least one operator reported experiencing a dip in demand during the middle of the season, attributing
this to the Hermanus Whale Festival.
The possibility of seeing whales probably increases demand for many tours in the region during the
otherwise poor winter season. However, the fact that whale season occurs during winter also
constitutes a constraint, in that sea and weather conditions can be problematic. Indeed, most permit
holders gave sea conditions as the main limiting factor in terms of the number of trips that could be
offered.
Though there is high demand for boat-based whale watching in this region, this was not apparent to
existing operators. The two longer-term permit holders felt that tourist numbers were only just
sufficient to support their businesses. In Area 6, where the two newest permit holders will operate,
the operators felt that existing demand was initially expected to be sufficient to recoup expenses at
least. This was expected to improve as marketing and boat activity increased.
The importance of being on a scheduled tour-bus stop was stressed by most operators and various
methods were being explored by the operators to encourage this, including increased marketing,
improved infrastructure and special rates. Tour buses offered a regular guaranteed client pool in
terms of their arriving in large groups at regular intervals, thus allowing operators to plan and estimate
the costs and income from trips sometime in advance. This however did place minimum requirements
on passenger capacity and boat size in order to satisfy this demand in times of high bus activity. As
noted above however, the level of infrastructure in terms of harbour facilities presents no constraint on
this and both active permit holders indicated their plans to meet these requirements and capitalise on
this supply of tourists.
Perceived trends and opportunities
The region is seen to have a high potential for industry growth by all operators, though at least one
operator noted that this did not necessarily mean that all sites within the region would be successful.
The area offers many opportunities in terms of the general volume of visitors each year but suffers
due to a lack of sufficient marketing and awareness of the potential for whale watching at specific
39

sites for it to compete with whale-based tourism in the neighbouring Agulhas Coast Region,
particularly in Hermanus. All operators interviewed identified Hermanus as a potential constraint and
competitor, in some cases at least as detrimental to their income as operators in or neighbouring their
immediate area of operation. The impact from neighbouring permit holders was perceived by one
operator to be less as permit holders generally respected the boundaries they were allocated, thus
removing any direct competition. The impact of permit holders in other areas of the country was
difficult to isolate but would impact the general movements and lengths of stay of visitors inclined
towards boat-based whale watching. This supports the general feeling that one permit per area is
currently a maximum and may even already be negatively impacting neighbouring permit holders at
certain times of year. The situation in Area 6, where two permits have been allocated may present
problems, particularly with both operators occurring in a relatively “unknown” whale watching area and
about to develop this aspect of their existing business for the first time. The extent of this will however
only become evident after their first season or two of operation, though both permits come up for
renewal and reappraisal in 2005. It was, however, stated by some permit holders that as general
demand and awareness grew in the area and the specific location of areas offering whale watching
were better known, more permits could be viable. This situation would thus require monitoring over
time for the potential of further permit allocation. It should be stressed that this would be in the mid to
long term as only one permit holder can currently be described as successful in the region.
6.2.3 Agulhas Coast (Area 7-11; Permits: 5 of 5)
The Agulhas Coast includes the current hotspot for whale watching, centred in and around the town of
Hermanus and the Walker Bay area (Findlay 1997). Walker Bay was found to be among the top 3
sites in the south Western Cape for densities of Southern Right Whales, the other two areas being De
Hoop, a closed area, and St Sebastian Bay (Elwen & Best 2004b). The area has gained popularity as
a world-class land-based whale watching destination, and its growth as a tourism node has also been
facilitated by its proximity to and easy access from Cape Town (DEAT 1999). This popularity, along
with perceived potential, has resulted in MCM allowing three permits in what are essentially two
designated boat-based whale watching areas in Walker Bay. Areas 7 and 8 jointly support a third
permit holder who ‘roves’ between these areas in alternate weeks, which we have termed Area 9. .
Permitted activity
All five available permits are currently in use. One permitted operator (Area 7) was unavailable for
interview. Information for this area is thus based on information made available by neighbouring
permit holders and MCM. The three permit holders currently active in Walker Bay (Areas 7, 8 & 9) are
located immediately adjacent to Hermanus and benefit from the existing popularity of this area. The
current permit holder in Kleinbaai (Area 10) has been similarly successful by actively attracting foreign
clients through an aggressive marketing strategy geared towards online and pre-booking, as opposed
to the typical “walk-in” clientele which dominate the other areas in the region. In this case, whale
watching formed part of a package tour. This serves as an example of how a carefully planned
marketing strategy could benefit an area that is not well known for its whale watching and turn into a
successful enterprise.
Non-permitted activity
Non-permitted activity is almost non-existent in the area. Its is likely, however, that incidental viewing
of whales may occur on fishing charters operating in Area 11, but the generally low tourist numbers
and lack of activity out of the whale watching season makes this difficult to assess. In some areas,
whale watching clientele were mainly brought in on tours, thus there was little opportunity for nonpermitted
operators to take advantage of walk-in tourists or to attract clientele through competitive
pricing.
The lack of illegal activity was attributed to a high level of policing by local residents and successful
enforcement by MCM in this region. Local residents view the whales as “their own” and fear the
potential loss of whale due to disturbance or harassment. MCM has also successfully prosecuted and
fined an unpermitted operator for operating without a permit, as well as one current permit holder for
transgressions of their permit conditions. In Area 11, the permit holder claims to have acted in the
policing role and to have halted the activities of at least one operator by causing the removal of
40

advertising material which offered whale watching. This type of policing is, however, probably
dependent on the level of activity of the permit holder.
Equipment and infrastructure
Boats ranged from the typical “chucky” style boat to custom-built whale watching boats. Maximum
passenger capacity ranged from 8 to 22, and was relatively high compared to other regions. One
operator had experienced similar problems to a permit holder in the Cape Metro region, with a
sporadic operating season linked to uncertainties and problems with boat availability. This was due to
the fact that the permit holder themselves did not actually own a boat and was also bound by other
business commitments. As a result a number of boats had been opportunistically used over time and
plans were currently in place to secure access of a new boat for the 2005 operating season. Though
some operators were undoubtedly linked to other businesses in the area, the infrastructure attributed
directly to the boat-based whale watching business was typical of many permit holders around the
country. Most operators had access to one general use vehicle and office facilities, although this
varied from a simple “home office” to dedicated rented facilities.
Trip characteristics
All trips were focused primarily on whales, with a very limited role for general scenic attractions. This
highlights the region’s dependence and focus on whales as a tourist attraction. Operators were
differentiated in their general approach. Some operators offered a combined cultural experience
aimed at letting visitors understand local culture and history while others focused entirely on the
ecological and scientific aspect of whales as the singular attraction. This specialisation within the
boat-based whale watching industry has probably been heightened due to the number of successful
permit holders in a relatively small area, thus encouraging operators to identify themselves as unique
in the eyes of potential clients. Trips were in the region of 2 to 3 hours. Prices were among the
highest in the country, ranging from R250 to R650.
Seasonality and demand
The availability of whale watching follows the typical Western Cape trend of winter months from June
to November, with occasional sightings as late as December in the areas to east of the region. The
average season utilised by most operators is around 6 months, with one operator who has enjoyed
sporadic success, indicating a shorter season of around 3.5 months. This was appears to be a result
of low demand and other problems with boat availability and the offering of trips.
Tourism in the area is highly seasonal and linked to a summer holiday season for general coastal
recreation and shark-viewing and a winter season based on whale viewing. Demand for tours
appears to exceed supply in the Walker Bay area (Areas 7, 8 & 9). Demand in Area 10 was
described as high due to marketing. In Area 11 low tourist numbers were described as the main
factor limiting the number of trips per day. This area, as with many other lesser known boat-based
whale watching areas in South Africa would undoubtedly benefit from a focused marketing campaign.
Perceived trends and opportunities
The Agulhas area currently hosts some of the most well-known whale-viewing sites in South Africa,
focussing around the cliffs of Hermanus in Walker Bay, which is complemented by marine-based
tourism linked to Great White shark cage-diving enterprises. The focus on whales as an attraction
has resulted in the area being relatively well policed by local community members who depend on the
resource for land-based whale watching visitors. Residents tend to support the development of whale
watching industries but tend to be negative towards boat-based tours, because of the fear that boats
could drive whales away, with tourists following closely behind (Findlay 1997). Indeed, one operator
attributed the initial slow growth of their business to stakeholders in the local tourism industry warning
potential clients against using boats due to the potential for harassment of whales. The current
success of operations in the region is expected to grow as the awareness of existing land-based
whale tourists expands to include the boat-based whale watching tours on offer. The areas furthest
from Hermanus might be expected to suffer from competition with the Walker Bay market, but
success in Area 10 shows that this can be overcome. Indeed, the permit holder in Area 11 felt that
more permits would be feasible in that area, despite the relatively low level of tourism in this area.
This is attributed to the size of the area and the distance between the two main launch points at
Struisbaai and Arniston.
41

6.2.4 Garden Route (Area 12-14; Permits: 4 of 4)
The Garden Route is one of the most popular tourist regions in the Western Cape, though not as well
known for whale watching as the Hermanus area. The region is characterised by spectacular scenery
and numerous sheltered bays which have helped in supporting a thriving tourism industry, which
forms the most important industry in the region (DEAT 1999). The area is highly dependent on its
natural resources in the form of various viewing attractions and boat-based whale watching fits well
into the general type of tourism.
Permitted activity
In keeping with the high level of subscription to permits in the Western Cape, all available permits in
the Garden Route region are currently in use and include some of the most active and successful
boat-based whale watching operators in the country. It is also currently the base for what seems to
be the first boat-based whale watching “franchise” in the country, run under the brand Ocean Safaris,
which markets operations in Knysna (Area 13), Plettenberg Bay (Area 14), Port Elizabeth (Area 15)
and Shelly Beach (Area 21). It should be noted that these permits are owned by different individuals.
Non-permitted activity
Non-permitted activity is currently minimal to non-existent in Areas 12 and 13, with one or two
pleasure trip operators present in both. These latter operators appear to run standard trips all year
round and do not actively market whales as an attraction at this stage. The viewing of whales does,
in the majority of these cases at least, appears to be entirely incidental. One non-permitted operator
in Area 12 did however indicate that they would begin advertising “whale-viewing” (defined as whale
watching while observing the 300m limit) in the 2005 season. Area 14 stands out as having an active
and openly-marketed non-permitted boat-based whale watching operator, which offers “dolphin and
whale watching”. This is surprising in the light of the fact that two permit holders are already currently
active and competing for customers in the area. About 8% of the total available customer pool was
claimed to be attracted by this non-permitted operator. This operator makes use of a boat belonging
to an existing fishing charter company, but operates independently of that company.
Policing was reportedly minimal to non-existent in this region. Low levels of illegal activity can
probably be attributed to a lack of excess demand for specifically boat-based whale watching tours in
Areas 12 and 13. The case of a new potential non-permitted operator in Area 13 does indicate that
as awareness and demand for whale watching increase within these areas, non-permitted activity will
begin to increase and prove more of a problem in the future. This is especially likely owing to the
general trend of increasing awareness of the region as a tourist destination. The situation in Area 14
appears to represent a case of an additional operator cashing in on the demand created by the two
legal operators.
Equipment and infrastructure
Area 12, in the area surrounding Mossel Bay, has the second highest passenger capacity of any
permit holder encountered in this study, with a maximum capacity of 50. This 16m motorised sailboat
has been in use since 1978 and whale watching represents a relatively new activity in the history of its
use. The remainder of boats used by operators are much smaller, with capacity ranging from 12 to
16m, all in the form of smaller hard hulled boats approximately 7-9m in length, and are typical of boatbased
whale watching boats elsewhere in the country. Boats in Areas 12 and 13 benefit from
harbours, thus removing constraints on maximum size. Whale watching in Area 13 requires access
via the treacherous Knysna Heads, and beach launching is required in Area 14. These conditions
place a limit on boat size and constrain the number of trips per day. Thus the operators have
developed a system of “change-overs” whereby passengers are ferried to the whale watching boat,
effectively increasing trip numbers and overall occupancy. In the case of Knysna, this system was
estimated to increase maximum trip numbers from 3-4 up to 9 or 10 per day, the highest recorded in
the country.
Trip characteristics
All operators offered whale watching in conjunction with other eco-tour activities based on viewing
local marine life and scenery. Each area offers a distinctly different set of attractions and type of trip.
Trips in Area 12 are based on the attraction offered by the Mossel Bay harbour and Seal Island,
offering the opportunity to view seals and local scenery. Some shark-cage diving also occurs in the
areas and so the potential for Great White Shark viewing adds a further attraction. Trips are also
42

generally variable in their length, time taken varying according to where whales are sighted. The trip
is partly marketed on the basis of the boat used - it is claimed to be the first yacht in Mossel Bay. The
well known Knysna Lagoon and opportunity to travel through the Knysna Heads into the open ocean,
forms a major attraction on the trips offered in Area 13. This is marketed as a relatively dangerous
boat passage, as few boat-based tours are allowed through, and adds an adventure element to the
trip. The remainder of the trip is spent searching for whales in the area extending west to Buffels Bay,
searching for Southern Right Whales. As noted earlier, the potential for viewing whales all year round
is being actively explored, particularly the presence of Humpbacks outside of the typical winter whale
watching season.
Seasonality
The eastern part of the Garden Route region, particularly in Area 13 and 14, is characterised by a
long whale watching season, comprising a typical Western Cape winter season for viewing Southern
Right Whales, extending from June-to November, as well as a more typically East Coast pattern of
Humpback Whale viewing from September to December and even January. Operators, however,
report a typical July to November whale watching season, due to a lack of awareness and marketing
for the remaining season. Operators are currently exploring the potential for extending this period of
demand, including year-round whale watching linked to other non-migratory, but relatively less
common whale species which occur. The non-permitted operator in Area 14 reported a whaleviewing
season from mid August to November, with demand declining in February, peaking again in
April.
Perceived trends and opportunities
Demand is described as being in excess of supply in Area 14. The supply constraint is described as
being a result of low whale densities coupled with the legal limitations on the possible time spent with
each pod or individual whale.
Boat-based whale watching is well established in Area 14, and this awareness and demand is likely to
steadily spread to the remainder of designated whale watching areas along the Garden Route. The
general increase in tourism activity along the Garden Route is expected to be echoed in the local
boat-based whale watching industry. Operators did note potential problems with their reliance on
foreign visitors as a result of unpredictable patterns in numbers and characteristics due to factors
beyond their control such as exchange rates and security issues. It was noted that the area has
potential for year round whale watching. Southern Right Whales would dominate the current typical
whale season from June to November, while Humpback viewing could extend this season as early as
May. The remainder of the year could be spent searching for the currently less well-known Bryde’s
Whale, which appears to be resident along the Western Cape coast and western parts of the Eastern
Cape coast. Whale viewing is complemented by viewing of resident dolphin species, already one of
the major draw cards for summer visitors. There has been much innovation in this region, such as
with the use of change-overs and the advertising of multiple operations under one brand name, and
this has probably contributed to the success of these operations. One major constraint noted by both
permit holders in Area 14 is the low density of whales, which sometimes limits operations.
43

6.3 Eastern Cape
The Eastern Cape is the most undersubscribed whale watching region in the country. Only five of the
available boat-based whale watching permits occur in its boundaries, of which one is currently active
and a second has recently been issued. Apart from these, one permit corresponds to an area shared
with southern KwaZulu-Natal and is classified under that province’s whale watching in this report.
#S
Towns
Provincial boundaries
BBWW Areas
Closed area
Permitted area
Port Edward #S
#S
#S
20
Port St Johns #S
19
Coffee Bay #S
18
Morgan's Bay #S
East London #S
17
#S
#S
Port Elizabeth
#S
Port Alfred
Kenton #S
#S
16
15
Figure 6.3. Map of Western Cape Province showing towns and Areas mentioned in text.
6.3.1 Sunshine Coast (Areas 15-16; Permits: 1 of 2)
Much of the area between Plettenberg Bay and Port Elizabeth is off-limits for boat-based whale
watching. Boat-based whale watching along the Sunshine Coast is thus possible only from Algoa Bay
eastwards, with permits for Algoa Bay (Area 15) and Woody Cape (Area 16). In Algoa Bay, Port
Elizabeth has become a popular tourism destination in recent decades, particularly for domestic
tourism, and more recently for international tourists. Tourism has picked up through development and
marketing of the city’s beachfront areas, as well as due to the increasing attraction of the surrounding
areas for malaria-free game-viewing and hunting. Further east, the region is characterised by small
resort areas on the numerous estuaries occurring at regular intervals along the coast. Some of these
resort areas, such as Kenton-on-Sea and especially Port Alfred, have grown into sizeable towns.
Tourism is still very much dominated by domestic tourism in these areas, and is highly seasonal.
Permitted activity
One active permit holder currently operates at Port Elizabeth, and forms part of the Ocean Safaris
group of permit holders, which is centred in the Garden Route. Though the permit has been held for
the past three years, measurable successes have only been achieved in the last 18 months.
44

Non-permitted activity
One dedicated non-permitted operator was identified in Area 15, offering a wide range of boat-based
activities including charter fishing, diving and various island trips in conjunction with whale watching.
This operator has been offering pleasure boat trips, including a significant whale watching element,
since 1997. This operator was described as accounting for 50% of total boat-based whale watching
income in the area. The non-permitted operator in Area 15 indicated that they had made numerous
applications to MCM for a permit, as far back as the initial inception of the permit system, with limited
response at this stage. Other non-permitted operators were reported to have been present in the past
but these were largely opportunistic and failed to sustain themselves for more than one season.
Area 16 was identified as having at least two opportunistic non-permitted operators, one at Kenton
and another at Port Alfred though their level of activity was low to minimal. Five charters were
identified as operating out of Port Alfred, focusing primarily on fishing charters, with pleasure trips
increasing in importance as more foreign tourists passed through. It was indicated that tourist
enquiries over whale watching were increasing but this was currently a minimal part of any tours
being offered. At least one operator was claimed to derive their clients from a local guesthouse. The
remainder of operators advertised via word of mouth and this accounted for the low level of activity at
the current time. The operator at Kenton was similarly described to have a low level of activity due to
a lack of active marketing.
All operators however indicated they kept a “safe distance” from the whales they observed. One
commented that many foreign guests were very environmentally aware and would object to any
harassment of whales. Operators also appear to monitor each other. Policing by MCM inspectors was
reported at Area 15, where the non-permitted operator claimed to have been the focus of
investigations, though no charges were made following the submission of a detailed statement on the
history and extent of his activities. It was indicated that approaches made to whales nearer shore
were better monitored, due to the presence of shore-based observers such as tourists. Further away
from shore, policing was described as minimal.
Description and use of infrastructure
The capacity of operators at Port Elizabeth ranged from 12 to 21 passengers. Operators in Area 16
tended to have a single ski-boat of around 8-10m. While Port Elizabeth and Port Alfred operators can
make use of a habour, the lack of mooring facilities at Kenton necessitated beach launching. The
permit holder in Area 15, as noted above, had access to infrastructure and other resources via the
Ocean Safaris entity though only one boat and a vehicle were currently used. The majority of
operators were based out of home offices.
Trip characteristics
Trips usually varied from 2 to 3 hrs, occasionally 4 hours, although trips in Area 16 were generally
shorter (1-2hrs). Operators in Area 15 both offered a pre-trip orientation and fully-guided trip starting
at Port Elizabeth and passing St Croix to see penguins and seabirds. With increased public
awareness of the Sardine Run, this phenomenon was also becoming an important attraction on boat
tours in the area. Trips were charged at R450 per trip by both operators, though discounts were
offered to South Africans subject to minimum numbers on a trip by the non-permitted operator. The
permitted operator also offered discounted “dolphin” trips at a reduced rate which viewed whales from
greater distances. All trips included the viewing of dolphins and other marine attractions. One
operator included a post trip lunch and debriefing session. Trips in Area 16 were less structured, with
a simple safety briefing and guided tours based on what was sighted.
Seasonality and demand
Whales were reported to be present year round in Area 15, with migratory whale species present in
June/July to November/December, while non-migratory species such as Minke and Bryde’s whales
were regularly encountered on other trips during the remainder of the year. Overall, the area was
described as having a lower density of whales than the Garden Route. Operators differed in their
perception of the tourist season. The long-time non-permitted operator indicated that tourist demand
was divided, with internationals accounting for up to 90% of clients between October and April and
domestic tourists being more prevalent in holiday periods. The permit holder indicated a typical whale
watching season of July to November.
45

In Area 16, whales were reportedly encountered regularly from October and as late as March, though
densities and numbers were described as relatively less than in Area 15. Actual demand by tourists
wishing to undertake pleasure trips, but not necessarily whale watching, was focused during October,
December and March corresponding to school holidays. This supports statements that boat-based
tourism in the area is not yet specialised and is based on generalised pleasure boat trips aimed at
domestic tourists.
Perceived trends and opportunities
Both operators in Area 15 indicated that boat-based whale watching was currently at a slow growth
phase due to a levelling off of tourist numbers and the devaluation of the rand, though overall demand
was expected to continue growing. This was also linked to increased investment in marketing and
use of more popular launching areas which would attract “walk on” clientele. While larger boat
capacity is facilitated by the existence of mooring facilities at the harbour, beach launching was being
investigated as a potential means to access more popular beach areas and thus raise the profile of
boat-based whale watching. The presence of a large concentration of tourists at beaches was
envisaged to offer an opportunity to capitalise on a significant “walk on” tourism segment in the
region. This specific operator did however indicate that the existence of mooring facilities did give
them a good capacity fro further growth in boat size and passenger capacity should it become viable.
The non-permitted operator felt that there was scope for a second permit holder, though the current
permit holder indicated this was unjustified based on the current level of demand. Both operators
agreed that tourist numbers were not sufficient to allow them to be supported by whale watching
alone. . Indeed, other non-permitted operators had been unable to sustain their operations outside of
peak tourist seasons. Though numbers in Area 16 are currently too low to support a viable operation,
it was suggested that increasing tourist numbers may improve the potential in this area. One operator
indicated that they would seriously consider applying just for the sake of having the permit and thus
being in a position to capitalise on the opportunity when the market was ready.
6.3.2 Border Kei Region (Area 17; Permits: 0 of 1)
Area 17 is centred on the East London area. The Border-Kei region (Area 17) is similar in many
characteristics to the Woody Cape area, but with a slightly less sheltered coast as it grades into the
harsher environments found along the Wild Coast. In addition to the town of East London, the Border
Kei region is characterised by estuary-mouth resorts which are largely frequented by domestic tourists
on a highly seasonal basis.
Status of permits
No application has been made for the available permit in this region.
Non-permitted activity
Very little boat-based whale watching occurs in the Border-Kei – Wild Coast region, with no visible
signs of marketing of this activity. Researchers posing as tourists wanting to go whale watching
flummoxed the tourism agents, and were advised to try fishing charter boats. Indeed, there is fairly
little in the way of marine tours at all. In East London, two charter boats are available for cruises and
fishing, but do not advertise whale watching as part of the attraction. There is more of an expectation
of dolphins which sometimes enter the estuary, but whales can be sighted and do sometimes
approach the harbour wall. Further afield, almost no marine tours are on offer, apart from a handful of
fishing boats which can be chartered.
Tour operators were not very well acquainted with the regulations governing boat-based whale
watching, one claiming to be ignorant as to the minimum distance of approach, and only having vague
knowledge of the existence of permits. It was reported that the advantage of a large boat is the better
height for viewing. Nevertheless, one of the operators was not afraid of ‘sneaking up’ on whales, and
claimed there was no enforcement at all. The main operator did not believe a whale watching permit
would be viable or add value to the business.
46

Equipment, trip characteristics and seasonality of existing marine tours
The boats currently involved in marine tourism are large charter boats. The largest, a 45 foot boat
carries 20 – 30 passengers, but concentrates its operations on cruises up the Buffalo River, catering
mainly to domestic and foreign business tourism. Tourism is highly seasonal, peaking in the summer
holiday period. Some 5-7 trips were undertaken during high season, but there is very little activity
during the off season, when the owner concentrates on his main (other) business interests. Trips out
to sea (usually for fishing) were typically about 1.5 hours going from the harbour around to just before
Nahoon. Whales had not been encountered very often in the period since the current owner had
begun operations (since August 2004).
Perceived trends, opportunities and constraints
Tourism in the East London area is thought to be picking up, particularly in the resort areas up and
down the coast. At present, the area could do with more attractions, as there is little to offer in the
way of activities during the peak season. Nevertheless, the perception in this area was that whales
were not sufficiently regular to guarantee sightings and therefore to include in the marketing of marine
tours. Tour operators felt that while whales did move past the area in fair numbers, they did not hang
around for very long due to the lack of shelter. The area has little or no bays to speak of.
Furthermore, sea conditions in this region were thought to be too wild for boat-based whale watching.
This presented challenges for going out to sea, and would be particularly tough for boats smaller than
the relatively large boats that are operational at present.
Another constraint is that the main tourism season does not coincide with the whale season, apart
from the September holidays, which are too short to generate enough business. The other factor is
that while fishing occurs throughout the year, it is best along this part of the coast in June to
September, and fishing tends to be more lucrative than taking tours. Recreational fishing, on the
other hand is dominated by rock and surf angling, rather than deep sea fishing. Outside of East
London, marine tourism is further hampered by a lack of access and launching sites. Roads to
resorts such as Morgan’s Bay are in an extremely poor state.
6.3.3 Wild Coast Region (Areas 18-19; Permits: 1 of 2)
The two permit areas 18 –19 are along the Wild Coast in the Eastern Cape. Area 18 corresponds to
the southern part of the Wild Coast, and Area 19 stretches from Coffee Bay to Port St Johns. Area 20
stretches from Port St Johns to Port Edward in the extreme southern KZN, but is discussed under
KZN since the most likely base for this operation is in that province. The Wild Coast has very little
access to the coast and consequently relatively few, small tourism nodes, of which the busiest are
Port St Johns and the much smaller Coffee Bay. For the rest, tourism developments are
characterised by single or small clusters of hotels at intervals along the coast. Due to the nature of
road access in the region, travel along the coast is virtually only possible on foot or via laborious
inland routes. This is important in the context of this study, because unlike in other parts of the
coasts, tourists other than hikers tend to visit single destinations, rather than roving along the coast.
Permitted activity
Only one of the permits in this area had been taken up at the time of this study and had been issued
to an operator in Port St Johns for Area 19. While the operator is all set to begin legal whale watching
activities, the permit was riddled with errors and only valid for the last 2 months of 2004 (permits are
only issued for a calendar year), leaving the holder somewhat confused and perplexed. The permit
stated that “whales should be approached within a minimum distance of 300m”; it also stated “The
exemption is only valid from the Eastern side of False Bay … and not past Cape Hangklip..”, and was
not accompanied by a logbook. Given the timing of his application, the operator would have expected
his permit to have been issued for the next season (i.e. 2005).
To our knowledge, no applications have been made for Area 18.
Non-permitted activity
Apart from possible very limited activity by the Port St Johns operator, we could not find any evidence
of non-permitted boat-based whale watching along the Wild Coast proper.
47

Tourism operators along the Wild Coast seemed to be well acquainted with the regulations governing
boat-based whale watching. Nearly all tourism along this coast is associated with the hotels, and it is
likely that, as with the Port St Johns permit, any interest would come from one of these. The issue of
permit availability was raised and discussed at a previous meeting of the very active Wild Coast
Hotels Association, but there was little interest, for reasons discussed below.
Equipment, seasonality and trip characteristics of existing marine tours
The one recently-permitted operator runs his operation as part of a much larger tourism
accommodation business located on the banks of the Mzimvubu estuary. This operator has been
heavily involved in tourism along the Wild Coast since 1972, and is committed to conservation and
black empowerment. The boat tour operation consists of a 6-person dinghy, but the level of business
from these marine tours is not particularly significant in the overall business. Tours include whale
watching when the opportunity arises, with whales coming close inshore from about May-June until
December. The whale watching season coincides with a much bigger tourism phenomenon in the
area, being the annual Sardine Run. The latter attracts significant numbers of tourists to the area,
many of whom are on tours, including dive tours. Whales are considered a secondary, or incidental,
attraction during the Sardine Run. Angling is one of the most popular tourism pursuits on the wild
coast, but most of this is rock and surf angling, with very few deep sea fishing charters on offer.
Perceived trends, opportunities and constraints
Tourism to the Wild Coast is increasing, and numbers of Humpback Whales are perceived to have
increased dramatically over the past few years. However, it is thought that boat-based whale
watching will never be very viable, mainly due to the unpredictable, and frequently rough, sea
conditions. All interviewees claimed that the sea was far too wild and changeable for boat-based
tourism in general. Moreover, there are very few suitable or available launching sites along the coast.
Nevertheless, the existing operator believed that marketing would be able to yield the critical mass of
tourists needed to make a boat-based whale watching operation viable. This possibility is probably
limited to the relatively busy Port St Johns area. There are increasing numbers of foreign clientele
visiting the area, particularly to the middle and northern sections, most of whom are after a general
nature-based adventure experience. Many of the hotels are specifically targeting this market.
However, one of the operators pointed this out as a constraint to boat-based tourism, mentioning that
it was too risky to take foreign tourists out in unpredictably wild seas, since the risk of litigation in the
event of an accident would be too high.
48

6.4 KwaZulu-Natal
KwaZulu-Natal currently has two of its five available permits in use. The main whale species sighted
here are migrating Humpback Whales. This migration is partly associated with the well known
Sardine Run, whjch is accompanied by spectacular congregations of dolphins, sharks, game fish and
seabirds. This phenomenon is well known along the Hibiscus and Durban Metro coasts and has
received increasing publicity and marketing to advertise it as the “greatest shoal on earth”. The whale
migration extends further north along the entire KwaZulu-Natal coast.
#S
Towns
Provincial boundaries
BBWW Areas
Closed area
Permitted area
Sodwana Bay #S
25
St Lucia #S
24
Richard's Bay #S
23
Ballito#S
Umhlanga#S
22
Durban #S
Shelly Beach
Margate #S
#S
Port Edward #S
20
21
Figure 6.4. Map of KwaZulu-Natal showing towns and Areas mentioned in the text.
6.4.1 Hibiscus Coast (Area 20-21; Permits: 1 of 2)
The Hibiscus Coast region is characterised by its favourable climate and scenic beauty, and has a
well developed infrastructure with numerous small coastal towns, catering to highly seasonal leisurebased
tourism (DEAT 1999). As with areas in the Western Cape, it benefits greatly from its good
transport networks and proximity to a major urban centre, the Durban Metro. As with much of the
KZN coastline, harbour and mooring facilities are highly localised and uncommon resulting in the
majority of boat users relying on surf-launching in order to access the ocean and its resources. The
style of launching places restrictions on the maximum size and passenger capacity of boats used both
in terms of practicality and safety and has interesting consequences in terms of optimal passenger
capacity and boat numbers for boat-based whale watching operators in the region.
49

Permitted activity
There is a permit holder for Area 21. In this operation, boat-based whale watching is currently
considered a secondary activity, with whale watching trips estimated to contribute about 30% of
annual income to the overall boat-based business. It should be noted that although these trips were
referred to as “whale watching” and the majority occurred during whale watching season (June-
September/October), dolphins were more commonly seen and were claimed to be a greater attraction
to clients largely due their higher visibility from the beach. This is supported by an analysis of 2001
logbook data by Zandburg (2003). Boat-based whale watching itself was seen largely as a secondary
supporting income to trips based more on adventure activities and dolphin-viewing.
An application was apparently made for Area 20 in 2004 by a previously disadvantaged owner of a
local fishing and pleasure charter who had been active in the area for the past 21 years. The
application was supported by the existing permit holder in Area 21. No response was ever received
on this application and its current status is unknown. This potential applicant viewed whale watching,
and pleasure boat trips as a having a good chance of success due to the recent upgrading of facilities
around the launch site at Ramsgate but was unwilling to participate in illegal activities. There is thus
also concern about an apparent lack of transparency in the allocation of permits.
Non-permitted activity
Nine seasonally-active non-permitted operators were identified in Area 21. These operators are
typically fishing charters with varying degrees of dependence on sightseeing trips, ranging from
opportunistic trips scheduled around quiet periods in fishing activity to more actively marketed
pleasure trips. At least four of these marketed pleasure trips, with at least two actively advertising,
through brochures or signage, the potential for whale-sightings. The importance of pleasure trips to
overall annual income appears minimal, with whale watching representing a largely incidental activity
during the season. The main demand appears to be for dolphin-viewing and scenic trips and not
specifically for whale-viewing, although the potential for seeing whales is likely to add some attraction.
Only one operator expressed any interest in potentially applying for a permit and could be described
as the most active pleasure trip operator.
In the northernmost part of Area 20, within KZN, at least two active non-permitted operators were
identified. This does not include the above-mentioned permit applicant, who would only be interested
in pursuing this activity if permission were granted. All operators interviewed expressed an interest in
applying for the permit. The active operator currently offered pleasure trips with “incidental” whale
sightings in season, but indicated that a large scope existed for marketing whale watching in the area.
As with other non-permitted operators in the region, fishing charters were the main boat-based
income-generating activity, although pleasure trips were more important during high seasons linked to
South African holiday periods in April, December and July. The non-permitted operator in the area
also indicated their potential interest in applying for a permit should sufficient success be shown by
his business in offering various trips. The whale watching season was described as April to August in
Area 20.
Apart from reporting of non-permitted activity by the permit holder around the Shelly Beach area, no
policing of regulations pertaining to boat-based whale watching was made along this stretch of coast
and has allowed the development of numerous opportunistic and increasingly brazen non-permitted
operators. As with the remainder of non-permitted activity in the country, it is extremely difficult to
separate pleasure trip operators from legitimate (or illegitimate) boat-based whale watching operators
where whale watching represents the main aim and a major part of the marketing for the trip. This is
exacerbated by many operators claiming that dolphins, and not whales, were the main attraction on
tours. As with many such claims, these could not be verified as research was conducted outside of
the main whale watching season. Blatant advertising for whale-viewing, in the form of permanent wall
murals as well as various pamphlets were viewed and support reports by the permit holder that
whales probably play more of a role than most non-permitted operators will admit.
Equipment and infrastructure
The lack of appropriate mooring or harbour facilities in the region forces all operators to employ a
surf-launch in order to access the ocean. This results in the majority of boats being limited to a
maximum capacity of 12 passengers, including crew, severely restricting the ability of permit holders
to cater to demand and thus adding one more factor which aids the proliferation of non-permitted
activity. The lack of facilities at launching areas extends to a lack of appropriate central areas where
50

visitors can be accommodated before and after trips. The current permit holder operator was situated
at one of the larger launch sites and ski-boat clubs in the region, Shelly Beach, and benefited from
better facilities. It was noted, however, that some difficulties were experienced with gaining
permission and access to operate from the launch area due to local regulations on the users of such
areas. This however has since been resolved but advertising and other facilities are still minimal. All
boats in operations in the region are used throughout the year for various uses, primarily fishing
charters, and the dependence of any one operator on boat-based whale watching is small.
Trip characteristics
Pleasure trips were set around R150 per person for most operators, though varied according to
occupancy. These appeared to be shorter 1hr trips along the coastline to view local landmarks,
dolphins and when in season, whales. The majority of non-permitted trips focused on viewing general
scenery and just “being out on the water” and were aimed at family groups. The level of guiding
appeared to be low with most operators lacking much experience with dealing with pleasure tripping
tourists. The permit holder, however, offered longer trips, around 2hrs and offered a more
educational trip. Nevertheles, it was noted that most clients were mostly interested in just getting out
on to the sea and were often more interested in seeing dolphins than whales. This was supported by
all the non-permitted operators interviewed.
Seasonality and demand
Demand for a specialised boat-based whale watching operator appears low in the area, largely due to
the nature of the local tourism market based on high quantity South African visitors with a lower
willingness to spend than in other regions. The peak demands for trips were generally
December/January, March/April, June/July and October - all corresponding with local school holidays
and reinforcing the dependence of the region’s tourism on seasonal domestic visitors. Only the
Jun/July season corresponded with any demand in whale-viewing. The season was described as
June to November in Area 21. Current demand appears more towards general pleasure trips and
dolphin viewing, though it is likely that as awareness grows among visitors whale watching demand is
likely to increase.
Perceived trends and opportunities
This region is a well known family holiday destination in KZN, frequented mostly by South Africans
and has a low level of tourism. The awareness of whale watching is low but growing and is intricately
tied in the short-term with generalised pleasure boat trips. The client base has more domestic tourists
than in other areas. It is unlikely that the region can currently support a conventional boat-based
whale watching operator based on basic viewing trips alone. This is reflected in the permit holder
offering some of the lowest per person prices for whale watching in the country and at the same time
expanding and shifting operations into an adventure tourism market aimed at joyrides in the surf-zone
linked to some whale viewing.
6.4.2 Durban Metro and Dolphin Coast (Area 22; Permits: 0 of 1)
These two regions are discussed together as they fall inside one designated whale watching area,
Area 22, which extends through the Durban Metro region to the Thukela River mouth which is the
northern most boundary of the Dolphin Coast region. After the Cape Metro region, this region
included the largest urban centre in the boat-based whale watching areas, Durban (DEAT 1999). The
city is well known as a tourism destination, nationally and internationally and supports a well
developed harbour and mooring facilities. Tourist sites and harbour facilities become increasingly
sporadic further north in Area 22 but continue to undergo a high growth linked to their high perceived
potential and proximity to Durban. Operators in the area do, however, note that whales occur further
offshore than in other areas. Some ascribe this to boat traffic, but the shape of the continental shelf
north of Durban is probably the main influence. North of Durban, marine-mammal-viewing tourism is
dominated by resident dolphin pods which are commonly sighted.
Permitted activity
There is no permit holder in this area at present. The Natal Sharks Board originally held a permit but
failed to renew it after the official gazetting of areas in 2001, as there were no perceived benefits from
it at that stage. The permit was subsequently taken up by H2O Adventure Tours, but no trips were
recorded and the permit was withdrawn by MCM by 2004 due to lack of activity.
51

Non-permitted activity
Two non-permitted operators are active in the area, based in and around Durban Harbour, in the
southern part of Area 22. Although their marketing of whale watching is subtle, focusing on dolphins,
shark-net viewing and “marine safaris”, both operators admitted that whales were a significant
attraction on their tours when in season. Although whales are found relatively far offshore (ca. 10km),
special effort is made to locate them and monitor their movements when in season, resulting in an
increase in trip duration and ticket price during this period. Interestingly, these operators claimed to
co-ordinate their efforts in finding whales and other potential attractions. As experience with the
whales increased these operators claimed to be viewing them more regularly and their importance as
an attraction in their business was growing. Both operators had supporting income from other
businesses or funding. The importance of whale watching was a recent phenomenon, only having
been offered as an attraction in the last 3 to 5yrs. Dependence on whale watching was steadily
increasing for at least one operator, who expressed an interest in getting a permit at some stage. The
other operator indicated that they specialised in shark-net viewing trips and whales were entirely
incidental to the trip.
At this stage one non-permitted operator has indicated that they have enquired and attempted to get a
permit but claimed to have been faced with various bureaucratic and political difficulties. The benefits
of having the permit, in terms of improved marketing potential as the “sole provider” for boat-based
whale watching holds an important appeal and reflects sentiments held by the majority of permit
holders as to the value of their permits.
A further three potential operators were identified but these were focused almost entirely on dolphins
in more northern areas around Umhlanga and Ballito on the Dolphin Coast. Boat-based whale
watching by these latter operators occurred on an opportunistic basis and whale sightings were
reported to be in the region of one or two per week in season by one operator. It should be noted that
these operators were doing trips regularly during the week. These latter three operators offered
dolphin tours in conjunction with various other boat-based activities. One operator reported that
dolphin viewing made up to 65% of their boat-based income. The period of operation in dolphinviewing
was similar to that for other operators in the region, including those involved whale watching,
having being first offered in the last 6 years. Overall, it appears that whale watching is of minimal
interest along the Dolphin Coast due to their distance offshore.
Policing of permits or regulations is reportedly minimal, with one operator indicating that KZN Wildlife
staff occasionally monitored boat use from the beach. The operators that focused most on whales
were well aware of legislation, which was reflected in their careful marketing strategies. Other
operators appeared to be less knowledgeable of the regulations pertaining to whales but appeared
aware of those dealing specifically with dolphins. The high potential for boat-based whale watching
out of Durban is likely to attract an increase in non-permitted activity in the future and will make the
level of policing more of an issue.
Equipment and infrastructure
The two main operators each had a single boat for marine tours, with a capacity of 12 passengers
plus 1-2 crew Both operators had access to at least one back-up boat for use in emergencies. It was
noted by both operators that this size was currently optimal as, though they could use extra capacity
during the whale watching season, there would be a struggle to fill it at other times of the year. This
thus provided them with a capacity that was sustainable all year round. All boats were moored at the
harbour.
North of Durban, the marine tour operators utilised 8m rubber ducks, carrying a maximum of 11
passengers and one skipper/guide, and reflect the maximum legal limits for surf-launched boats in
KZN. The conditions for launching in this area, namely lack of appropriate harbour facilities and surf
launching are typical for the KZN coast.
Trip characteristics
Trips by the Durban operators were about 2 hours long, although one indicated they planned to
decrease this to 1.5hrs in the next season. Trips included a short harbour trip, followed by an open
sea excursion which consisted of a guided tour to the shark nets, the ex-whaling station and resident
dolphin pods which were seen on a regular basis. During winter the trip shifted towards viewing the
migrating Humpback Whales along with other cetaceans and species which accompanied the Sardine
52

Run on its way past Durban. Trips were charged at R150-R200. Trips on the Dolphin Coast were
generally around 1hr long due to a lack of onboard toilet facilities and consisted of general guided
tours focusing on dolphins, shark nets and general attractions in the area. No refreshments were
served on these trips due to their relatively short duration.
Seasonality and demand
Peak demand for all operators was around December, when Durban operators described 80% of
clients as South African. This was also peak season for tour busses which passed through the city.
As noted in previous regional overviews, tour busses represent an important opportunity for boatbased
whale watching operators to develop a regular high demand at certain times of year thus
guaranteeing trips and income. After this, the next best season was linked to the winter months and
Sardine Run in June to November. This second peak was dominated by foreign tourists due to the
increasing demand associated with viewing the Sardine Run. Other peaks were associated with April
school holidays, attracting mostly locals, in the Dolphin Coast and January to March in Durban Metro,
which was characterised by a majority of foreigners. Demand in Ballito was described as minimal due
to a general lack of tourists and relatively difficult conditions for boat launching.
Perceived trends and opportunities
The potential for boat-based whale watching appears to be highest in the Durban Metro Region,
where good harbour facilities and high tourist numbers exist. This is however constrained by a lack of
local and international visitor awareness of the availability and quality of boat-based whale watching
opportunities in the area. The lack of activity by the most recent permit holder is not considered to be
a reflection of the potential of this area. Marketing appears to be essential to the viability of having a
permit
6.4.3 Zululand (Area 23; Permits: 0 of 1)
This region effectively includes one designated whale watching area (Area 23). The permit was
withdrawn from the most recent holder by MCM in 2003 due to a lack of activity. This permit holder
also held the permit for Area 25 in the Maputaland region, where he was based, but no trips were
recorded in either area. Prior to this, Aurora Marine CC had occupied the permit and operated for the
2000 and 2001 seasons. Neither of these past permit-holders was available for interviews at the time
of writing and information presented here was based on information from the neighbouring permitholder
and MCM logbook data. The lack of success by these permit holders was attributed to
difficulties in operating from what is effectively an industrial harbour. Information on the level of
policing and awareness of regulations were unavailable but are likely to resemble that found in the
remainder of the KZN coast where no permit holders are present.
No existing boat-based whale watching operator could be found in the area although it is possible that
opportunistic viewing in season may exist on an unofficial level. This conclusion is supported by a
lack of information or knowledge of any whale watching operations in the areas by two of the larger
tourist information services contacted. The trend of opportunistic viewing throughout the country
coupled with a lack of policing is evident from much of the information presented elsewhere, and it is
unlikely that this region would differ significantly from this. Demand was described as low by
operators in neighbouring areas and attributed to the lack of tourist marketing about the presence of
whales in the area and the general public perception of Richards Bay as an industrial harbour. This
factor would probably be the main constraint on any non-permitted activity.
6.4.4 Maputaland (Area 24-25; Permits: 1 of 2)
The Maputaland region includes the St Lucia area and the coast of the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park
and associated marine protected area. It includes the popular diving centres of Cape Vidal and
Sodwana Bay.
53

Permitted activity
There is currently only one permit holder, based in St Lucia in Area 24. This operation is extremely
well marketed and dominates boat-based whale watching in the region. The operator estimated that
80% of his annual income from his permitted boat was attributable to boat-based whale watching.
The remainder was from deep-sea fishing charters, marine mammal trips and occasional training of
skippers. The permit holder focuses primarily on a range of wildlife tour-based activities in the region,
owning a number of boats and vehicles. The main proportion of annual income (70%) was shared
equally between hippo and crocodile tours on St Lucia Lake, which occur all year round, and boatbased
whale watching. The importance of boat-based whale watching is substantial considering that
it is able to equal the income from trips on a tour that is throughout the year, in half the time. Boatbased
whale watching had only been offered in the last 6 years, though the overall business had been
in operation for around 14 years. This aspect of the business has improved markedly due to its
association with existing hippo and crocodile tours, which are well known in the area, and has
facilitated their capturing of the tour bus market through offering a regularly scheduled boat trip
(hippos and crocodiles) throughout the year. The potential for whale watching thus adds value to an
existing marketed tour. A further advantage has been the use of large boats on the lake tour, which
can accommodate a full busload of passengers per trip, allowing further opportunities to market the
whale watching aspect of the company and maximise number of trips during brief tour bus visits.
The permit for Area 25 (Sodwana Bay) was allowed to lapse due to inactivity, and the operator is
believed to have left the country. There is currently no permitted boat-based whale watching in the
area. As in the remainder of KZN, Humpback Whales are the main attraction with other dolphin
species and whale sharks frequently encountered.
Non-permitted activity
A number of potential or non-permitted operators were identified in the region. At least four to five
operators were claimed to have existed in Area 24 prior to the establishment of the permit system.
However, it turned out that most non-permitted operators interviewed had only been offering boatbased
whale watching for 5-6 years, which suggests they began this at about the same time as the
new regulations came into being. Some claimed that their levels of activity had decreased to about 1-
2 trips per season, while two were still relatively active. These operators consisted of fishing charters
which offered pleasure trips and opportunistically included boat-based whale watching during periods
of high demand. Their minimal or complete lack of marketing indicated that they probably benefit
from efforts by the permit holder to attract clients to the area. Non-permitted operators received
limited bookings through some tourist offices but priority was usually given to the permit holder.
Furthermore, their level of activity in comparison to the permit holder is minimal with a maximum of
10% of annual boat-based income being attributed to boat-based whale viewing by one active
operator. This indicates that non-permitted activity was fairly minor in this area. Their impact on the
permit holder is probably limited, especially since the permit holder appears to be more constrained
by boat capacity than lack of demand. It is possible that the lower prices charged by non-permitted
operators may limit potential price increases by the permit holder. All non-permitted tours were sold
largely as pleasure trips and not as specific boat-based whale watching tours, although two operators
indicated they were interested in obtaining or had previously applied for permits.
Further north in Maputaland, at least two, and up to four, potential operators were identified, although
in this case subsidiary income was based primarily on diving and associated tourism activities. Most
operators claimed whale watching was limited to opportunistic sightings of whales during a
generalised “open ocean excursion” trip but at least two operators indicated that they did view whales
as a major attraction on their trips. One admitted efforts were made to approach whales during tours,
for photographic research, and claimed up to 80% of their non-diving pleasure trips were of the “open
ocean excursion” variety. These trips were sold mostly to professional filmmakers and photographers
who sought out whales for various reasons. The second operator claimed these excursions only
made up 10% of his non-diving trips, and focussed on general holidaymakers. Microlites were often
hired by the more active operator in order to locate whales and dolphins during these trips but costs
were occasionally shared by both based on benefits they gained. Whale watching or “open ocean
excursions” contributed around 20% of their monthly boat-based income during the whale watching
season. These operators claimed this could be increased if they were allowed more advertising
focusing on whale watching, but currently any form of pleasure boat trip, including whale watching,
was not considered the main source of income.
54

Operators in Area 25 also offered dedicated dolphin-viewing and snorkelling trips, similar to activities
in the Dolphin Coast, which offered the opportunity to view whales but was largely incidental to the
main aim of the trip. These trips were well subscribed and represented the remainder of non-diving
trips made by these operators. The two main operators thus classed 20% and 90% respectively of
their non-diving trips as dolphin-viewing. The remaining operators appeared to focus primarily on
dolphin-viewing trips, probably following the pattern of the more dolphin-focused of the two active
operators, and expressed no interest in obtaining a permit. The level of non-permitted whale
watching activity was thus higher than further south where a permit holder was present.
Policing was largely limited to that by the permit holder in Area 24 and long-standing non-permitted
operators in Area 25. The presence of KZN Wildlife and the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park (GSLWP)
Authority played a small role by limiting the amount of direct marketing that operators could do in Area
25, but did not extend to actual policing of operators whilst on the water. The majority of policing in
this area was claimed to be by marine tour operators and long-standing members of the dive
community who were highly protective of their local environment.
The low level of activity and limited income from boat-based whale watching by non-permitted
operators in Area 24 suggests that self-policing by the permit holder has been relatively successful.
Non-permitted operators stated that they were regularly reported by the permit holder to various
authorities, including MCM, which had forced many of them to limit their activity. MCM sources also
indicated that incognito policing of the area by inspectors had taken place in the past.
Equipment and infrastructure
The region lacks harbour or mooring facilities for sea-faring craft and so all launching is done via the
beach and requires boats to be kept on land when not in use. As a result all operators had at least
one large off-road vehicle for use in transporting boats to and from launching areas. This style of
launching also places a legal cap on boat capacity.
In Area 24, the permit holder’s boat carried up to 11 passengers, including a skipper/guide. Nonpermitted
operators had ski-boats with a passenger capacity of 5 to 11, including crew. The owner of
the smallest 5 man boat expressed interest in buying a larger boat with a 7 man capacity. The permit
holder operated 2 full time booking offices, which were used for other tour bookings in addition to
whale watching. The other operators lacked offices, usually working out of their homes. Bookings
were occasionally taken through local booking offices at accommodation and related tourist
establishments which were not directly linked to the fishing charter business.
Operators in Area 25 each had two standard 7m rubber ducks which carried a maximum of 11
passengers and one skipper/guide. Self-imposed maxima were often used by these operators to
ensure safety in difficult launch conditions or maintain comfort during longer trips, bringing maximum
capacity down to 7 or 8 paying passengers. These operators utilised a beach site as a centre for
operations during the day, consisting of gazebos and signage. Office facilities and bookings were
usually done through their own home booking offices. As noted above, the most active operators
occasionally utilised microlites to locate whales and dolphins in season, but this was usually part of a
professional film/photographic charter and not for general holidaymakers.
Out of whale watching season, boats were used largely for fishing charters, while the permit holder
offered a combination of fishing charters during local holiday periods in Easter and Christmas. At
Sodwana, out of season activity focused on diving, combined with some year-round dolphin-watching.
In both areas, these subsidiary activities, fishing and diving, never actually ceased – whale watching
or pleasure trips were merely an additional activity which varied in importance based on demand.
Trip characteristics
The permit holder offered trips of at least 2 hours, while non-permitted operators in Area 24 offered
trips of about 1hr. These trips offered a similar set of attractions, taking in the Jolly Rubino shipwreck,
coastal dunes and various marine wildlife including dolphins and whales. The permit holder was
distinguished by offering a trip aimed at finding whales with less emphasis on general attractions. A
money-back guarantee was offered for passengers who did not see whales on a whale trip, which led
to extremely long distances being covered in the early part and end of the whale watching season
when density of whales was lower. Whale watching trips on the permitted boat cost R450, compared
with R200-R400 per person charged by non-permitted operators. Non-permitted operators claimed to
55

ase their costs on those for an average fishing trip, adjusting prices based on the number of
passengers per trip, apparently regardless of season. Prices for a similar tour, run through out the
year, focused on marine mammal viewing by the permitted boat was around half that charged for the
whale watching fee and varied based on occupancy.
Two main types of trip were offered although the importance of each type varied between operators in
Area 25. The “open ocean excursion” style trip lasted around 4hrs, about the same time taken by the
boat-based whale watching permit holder. These trips were the closest in similarity to permitted
whale watching and include general marine ecology and local attractions such as the numerous reefs
and trips to coelacanth habitat. Dolphin-viewing tours were of much shorter duration (1-1.5hrs) and
were focused on finding dolphins, reefs and snorkelling. These shorter trips were around R140-R160
per person but prices appeared negotiable depending on the number of passengers on a boat. Prices
for the open ocean excursion were less clear and were R250-350, based on a price of R700 to R2500
per boat. Final charges per person were adjusted according to occupancy of the particular trip in
question.
Seasonality and demand
In Area 24, the permit holder reported an established whale watching season from 1 June to 30
November each year, with a peak in sightings between August and October. This period also
coincided with a peak in tourist activity and trips per day linked to an influx of tour busses. Nonpermitted
operators described a similar seasonality in whale abundance. The level of activity by the
permit holder during the season was limited by weather and seasonal conditions, resulting in trips
occurring on only around 50% of available sea days in season. During the winter, the period of
daylight was shorter, particularly during the peak August to October period, limiting the number of
trips which were safely possible. Demand was sufficiently high, with the exception of the very early
and late periods in the season, and had increased over time, reflected in increased trips per day.
Occupancy had remained static through this period and was a result of local regulation pertaining to
safe boat sizes. The restrictions on boat size in general and permit conditions, stipulating the use of
only one boat, are claimed to have placed a restriction on business growth and ability to
accommodate excess demand. Non-permitted operators did appear limited by number of tourists
throughout the year, due to their activities being suppressed by the permit holder. The majority of
permit holder clients were foreign (85%), following the trends found in other dedicated boat-based
whale watching operators in the country.
Demand for whale viewing in Area 25 for the two most active operators was largely from late June to
November, occasionally December, though was apparently superseded by demand for shorter
dolphin-viewing trips over South African school holidays in October and December. Most pleasure
trips during the year were linked to South African school holidays when non-divers were present in the
area, the majority of these being South African. This dependence on South African tourists and
holiday seasons is reflected by the proportion of visitors from South Africa being estimated at 70 to
90%.
Perceived trends and opportunities
It appears that whale watching is well established in the region, particularly around St Lucia, due to
marketing by the permit holder and its popularity as a tour bus stopover. This has resulted in an
increasing number of trips and pressure on the permit holder to expand his operation to
accommodate this. Unfortunately, safety restrictions place limits on the size of boats and passenger
capacity allowed, unlike the situation in the Western Cape and other areas with reasonable harbour
and mooring facilities exist. A potential solution suggested by the operator would be an additional
permitted boat, but this is not permissible under the existing permit system. The increasing demand
may provide more opportunities to non-permitted operators. Non-permitted operators expressed
interest in getting permits, suggesting they supported the idea of more than one permit, as it would
allow them the chance to offer trips and market openly to tourists.
Further north in Area 25, at least one and possibly two operators expressed an interest in applying for
permits. They also indicate that more than one permit, and possibly even three, would be possible in
the area. It was felt that a sole permit was not the best approach to take.
56

6.5 Summary of legal and illegal activity
There is a considerable amount of non-permitted activity around the country. This is ascribed to
difficulties in enforcing regulations pertaining to the approach of whales and the advertising of boatbased
whale watching. Advertising by non-permitted operators is fairly widespread. In some cases
this is highly visible and permanent, and often in direct competition with existing permit holders.
Whale watching operators can be broken down into 4 main types as follows:
• Permit holders: are legitimately permitted operators advertising and offering boat-based whale
watching trips aimed at viewing whales, though other species and attractions may feature. Though
generally found in the prime boat-based whale watching areas, more recent or less successful
permitted operators probably indicate areas where individuals see future opportunities for growth
and view the purchase of a permit as a pre-emptive attempt to gain a foothold in the industry in
their particular area (e.g. Areas 3, 5, 6, 11).
• Dedicated non-permitted operators: are non-permitted operators offering trips in which whales are
advertised as an attraction and which represent one of the main explicit aims of their tours.
Marketing may be carefully worded to avoid legal difficulties but confusion with legitimate permit
holders is easy and probably intentional. These operators are most likely to present the pool of
future or alternative permit holders. The majority of such operators are found in areas where there
is little existing activity by the current permit holder or where none currently exist e.g. Areas 1, 3, 5,
22 and 25. The existence of such operators and their continued success may be good indicators
of the viability of boat-based whale watching in a particular permit area.
• Incidental non-permitted operators: are non-permitted operators offering pleasure trips, marketed
on the basis that they may see a number of attractions, which include whales in season. These
operators largely view whales incidentally but in some cases may make special efforts to improve
their chances of seeing whales during their trips. They are differentiated from the previous
category by the lack of an explicit whale-focus on their trips. In addition to areas where dedicated
non-permitted operators are found, the majority of these operators appear to be located in centres
for generalised coastal tourism which present them with a substantial pool of “walk on” clientele.
Where no dedicated non-permitted operators exist, the presence of incidental operators only is
likely to indicate a highly seasonal or specialised tourism market, and often one where the whale
resource is relatively underutilised e.g. Areas 2 and 3. Conversely, larger areas which support
other boat-based tourism operators will also lend themselves to supporting incidental boat-based
whale watching e.g. Area 4.
• Opportunistic non-permitted operators: are non-permitted operators with access to boats but do
not primarily offer pleasure trips. They are usually dependent on diving, fishing charters and other
activities. During peak seasons or when activity in their preferred business is low they will take
clients out on pleasure trips, in some cases explicitly to view whales. They are, however,
categorised by the opportunistic and sporadic nature of their activity and the minimal marketing
done for that aspect of their business. This category is difficult to identify out of whale watching
season and theuir numbers may have been underestimated. Such operators are limited to areas
known as generalised coastal tourism destinations or large harbours with significant boat traffic.
The presence of such operators in the absence of other more active whale watching tourism may
indicate areas with low potential for boat-based whale watching at present.
KwaZulu-Natal is estimated to have the highest degree of non-permitted activity (Table 6.1). It also
has the highest number of potential permit holders for areas currently non-permitted.
57

Table 6.1. Estimates of the amount of non-permitted activity in different BBWW Areas.
BBWW Area Permit holders Non-permitted operators
Dedicated Incidental Opportunistic
Western Cape
1 1
2 1-2 1-2
3 1 1 1-2 1-2
4 1 4
5 1 1
6 2
7 1
8 1
9 1
10 1
11 1
12 1 1 1
13 1 1
14 2 1
Eastern Cape
15 1 1
16 2
17 2
18
19 1
KwaZulu-Natal
20 1 1
21 1 1 2 4-5
22 1 3-4
23
24 1 2 2
25 2 2
58

7. FUTURE POTENTIAL OF THE INDUSTRY
There is no rigorous way of quantifying future potential of an industry. Assumptions have to be made
on the basis of the factors perceived to be important to the success of businesses in the industry.
The magnitude and future changes of these factors themselves often have to be estimated based on
expert opinion. This is certainly the case with boat-based whale watching. Future potential can be
assessed by examining the natural resources that contribute to the attractiveness of the service
offered, current occupancy levels and surplus capacity (taking cognisance of the influence of different
business characteristics and unrelated reasons for failure), the pre-existing tourist market and
accessibility and the constraints such as sea and launching conditions. We take these factors into
consideration in estimating the potential number of permits required in each area in order to maximise
industry potential. Note, however, that although capacity for expansion can be roughly estimated for
the different areas, this capacity will be strongly influenced upward by marketing, and will be restricted
by sustainability issues.
7.1 Past growth of the industry
Logbook data suggest that there has been considerable growth in the boat-based whale watching
industry over the past six years (Figure 7.1). Following initial growth of nearly 400% from 1999 to
2000, the numbers of passengers grew by 101%, 30% and 35% per year before levelling off with zero
growth from 2003 to 2004. The boat-based whale watching industry caters primarily to foreign
tourists, with a total of 86% of all clients being foreign. Thus growth in this industry will also have
been strongly influenced by international trends and exchange rates. Growth continued in 2001
despite the global dip in tourism following the September 11 attacks, and in 2002, possibly due to the
subsequent weakening of the rand. There was little change between numbers in 2003 and 2004,
however, reflecting the Rand’s regaining strength. Indeed some operators reported increasing price
resistance by customers, suggesting that prices had reached their ceiling in terms of tourists’
willingness to pay.
Number of passengers
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
All operators
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Figure 7.1. Estimated total number of passengers on permitted boats from 1999 to 2004 (including all reported
trips)
These trends echo those for the tourism industry in general throughout the southern Africa region,
except that growth rates within this particular industry have been much steeper than overall growth
rates. This can largely be attributed to the newness of the industry. Very few permit holders were
operational in 1999 (data from 4 operators), but between 13 and 15 operators were reporting for the
period 2000 – 2004. Growth has not been even, however, with considerable variation between areas
(Figure 7.2). The steadiest growth has been experienced in the Agulhas region, even into 2004.
59

Number of passengers
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
West Coast
Cape Metro
Agulhas
Garden Route
Sunshine coast (PE)
Hibiscus (Shelly)
Zululand (RB)
Maputaland (St Lucia)
Figure 7.2. Changes in numbers of passengers recorded from 1999 to 2004 for different regions
7.2 Current capacity and demand
The currently permitted boats have an estimated total capacity for about 90 000 tourists per year,
based on interview data on season length, sea conditions and trips per day, and our assumption that
one could achieve about two-thirds of the maximum trips per seagoing day on average, given
changes in weather or lack of whale presence (Table 7.1). About 32 000 passengers were recorded
during the last season in total (including on non-whale watching trips in some cases), amounting to at
least 34% of existing capacity. Occupancy levels vary considerably from region to region, being
highest on the Agulhas, Garden Route and Maputaland coasts (Table 7.1). If all available permits
were occupied, and boat capacity approximated the estimated optima, then it is estimated that the
industry capacity could be increased by 66% (Table 7.1). This does not include potential additional
capacity in the form of additional permits, addressed below.
Table 7.1. Summary of the existing capacity of permitted boats for boat-based whale watching tourism, the
reported number of passengers and estimated overall ‘occupancy’ rates, plus the potential capacity under
the available number of permits.
Existing
berths 1
Potential
berths 2
Main
season
length
% fairweather
days
Est.
existing
Capacity 3
Est
passengers
% occ Est max
capacity
West Coast 12 60 150 53% 1 267 56 4% 5 491
Cape Metro 69 100 150 74% 13 058 1 824 14% 17 414
Agulhas 98 122 180 62% 24 761 13 606 55% 24 761
Garden Route 90 140 180 76% 36 102 12 174 34% 36 102
Sunshine 12 32 150 72% 2 566 178 7% 4 277
Border-Kei 30 150 65% 3 861
Wild Coast 36 150 65% 4 633
Hibiscus 10 12 180 95% 5 643 1 076 19% 5 643
Durban 30 180 95% 16 929
Zululand 30 180 95% 16 929
Maputaland 11 24 180 95% 6 207 3 116 50% 12 979
Total 324 616 89 604 32 030 149 019
1 Excluding new permit holders that have not operated yet
2 For areas with no operators, boat capacity was assumed to be 30 where harbour facilities existed, else 12.
3 Boat capacity x 0.66*max trips/day x fair-weather days of individual operators
60

Overall demand is heavily influenced by marketing and ultimately limited by overall capacity (number
of permits and boat size). There is currently considerable room for improvement within the existing
permit holders. Some permit holders need to increase overall occupancy through marketing and
improvement of service. Others are operating close to capacity in terms of the number of trips and
occupancy per trip, but could benefit from increased passenger capacity. Areas which do not have
permit holders include some which have good to excellent potential. There is potential for more than
doubling turnover within the existing provision for permits without any activity in the areas rated as
poor.
The differences in success of various operators around the country do not necessarily reflect the
existing or future potential of the industry. In many cases the potential simply has not been realised
due to operator limitations. In some cases this has been due to the boat-based whale watching not
being a priority, and in other cases because of circumstances such as lack of wherewithal to initiate a
successful business (see previous chapter). The potential for industry growth exists irrespective of
the failures that the industry has seen up till now.
In addition to the permit holders, there is a considerable amount of non-permitted activity around the
country (see previous chapter), which also gives an indication of demand for boat-based whale
watching. Non-permitted activity appears to be facilitated by the demand created by the existence of
permit holders in an area, especially where the demand created cannot be catered to by the operators
because of limited boat capacity. This situation is typical of popular coastal tourist areas, particularly
KwaZulu-Natal and areas such as Plettenberg Bay and Cape Town. This pattern is likely to increase
as many new areas become increasingly well-subscribed as coastal tourist destinations.
Overall, the extent of activity indicates that boat-based whale watching is an increasingly viable
economic venture in many coastal regions in South Africa, adding significant value to the marine
tourism industry.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the potential for boat-based whale watching varies around the country,
and different strategies may need to be applied in different areas in order to realise the full potential of
the industry in South Africa. Apart from the capability of operators themselves, the potential for boatbased
whale watching depends primarily on the resource and the market. The resource is a given
(provided it is sufficiently protected), but the market is created. As is clearly the case in this industry,
marketing is the secret to unleashing potential, and clever use of complementary activities and
markets can enhance this effect. Given that areas will ultimately compete against one another it is
useful to examine which areas have the advantage in terms of the resource base.
7.3 Marketability of the resource base
Based on discussions with permitted and non-permitted operators and whale expert Dr Ken Findlay,
the most important characteristics of the resource base from a boat-based whale watching
perspective are:
(1) degree of close-range surface activity, particularly by whales, but also by other cetaceans;
(2) variety of all marine species, particularly cetaceans; and
(3) rarity or degree of endemism of cetaceans.
Additional advantages would include general scenery and attractiveness of the marine area and the
base town.
The degree of close-range surface activity is related to species as well as numbers: higher numbers
increase the chances of such sightings, and suitable surface activity is most likely with Southern
Rights, followed by Humpbacks and Brydes Whales. Close-range surface activity (without whales
being on the move) is probably most important for most visitors. Nevertheless, a good number of
whale watching enthusiasts are primarily motivated by sighting new species, and would be attracted
by variety and particularly the presence of rarer species such as Bryde’s Whales. Moreover, whale
watchers are very often interested in cetaceans in general, and many of the latter group would be
equally attracted by views of rare dolphins such as the endemic Heaviside’s Dolphin. Similarly, more
general ecotourists are likely to gain greater value from trips that offer a wider variety of cetacean
species in general, and also from other attractions such as seals and penguins. Thus, from an
61

economic perspective, the whale resource should be regarded as part of a package of attractions that
can be sold to tourists, and the quality of the overall package is what counts. The seasonal
availability of all the different attractions is also important in determining the potential viability of the
operations, in that it determines the degree to which income can be generated year-round.
The whale resource alone is considered to be of high quality throughout most of the country, with the
exception of Area 1 on the West Coast, Areas 12 & 13 on the Garden Route, and Areas 16-17 in the
Eastern Cape (Figure 7.3, Appendix 5). This reflects that fact that South Africa has very good whale
watching potential along almost the entire coastline and whale numbers are increasing rapidly, at
least for Southern Right and Humpback Whales.
Figure 7.3. Scores of different whale watching areas in terms of number and diversity of probable sightings,
summarised in an ‘overall whale watching quality index’. This does not take into account value added by
other marine attractions.
7.4 Estimated potential of different areas
A crude index was devised to assess the potential viability of the different areas for boat-based whale
watching, based on a weighted average of scores (1 – 5) of sea conditions, surface activity by whales,
other marine attractions and ready existence of a tourism market (Table 7.2) 2 . The rationale for the
weightings used is based on the following logic.
2 Note that this index is based on expert opinion within the project team and based on operator interviews; it
could be productive to engage a more formal process of devising scores and weightings, which would include
interviewing whale-watchers themselves.
62

The most important enabling criterion for boat-based whale watching is sea conditions. Sea and
launching conditions determine the number of seagoing days, boat size, and thus overall capacity of
an operation. Apart from areas north of Durban where sea conditions are relatively calm, whale
watching is mostly reliant on sheltered bays. Outside of these bays, rough seas make operations
risky and it is difficult to reliably predict suitable conditions. Operators need to be able to guarantee a
reasonable probability of going to sea on a particular day. This is supported by the fact that the areas
with the worst sea conditions have not had any permit applications.
Table 7.2. Estimated rating of different areas in terms of boat-based whale watching business potential, in absence
of marketing.
Area
Sea
conditions
1
Whale
activity
2
Other
marine
attractions
Existing
demand
Weight
ed
mean Rating 3
Weights 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1
1 Lambert's Bay Area 2 3.1 3.5 1 2.3 poor
2 St Helena Bay Area 3 4.3 3.2 1 3.1 fair
3 Saldanha Bay Area 3 3.7 4 2 3.1 fair
4 Cape Town Area 4 3.4 3.8 4 3.9 good
5 Simonstown Area 5 3.6 3.4 3 4.4 good
6 Gordon's Bay Area 4 3.6 3 2 3.6 good
7 Overbergstrand Sub area 1 3 4.2 2.8 5 3.4 fair
8 Overbergstrand Sub area 2 3 4.2 3.2 4 3.4 fair
9 Overbergstrand Roving A3 3 4.2 3 5 3.4 fair
10 Kleinbaai Area 3 4.2 3.4 4 3.4 fair
11 Struisbaai/ Arniston Area 3 4.3 2.5 2 3.1 fair
12 Mossel Bay Area 3 3.7 2.5 4 3.2 fair
13 Knysna Area 2 3.4 3.5 3 2.5 fair
14 Plettenberg Bay Area 5 4.75 4.5 5 4.9 excellent
15 Port Elizabeth Area 3 4.45 4.5 3 3.4 fair
16 Woody Cape Area 2 3.45 3.1 2 2.4 poor
17 East London Area 1 3.45 2.9 2 1.8 poor
18 South Transkei Area 1 3 3.7 1 1.7 poor
19 Port St Johns Area 1 3 4.1 2 1.8 poor
20 South Sand Bluff to Margate 2 3 3.6 3 2.5 poor
21 Margate to Scottsburgh 3 3 3.8 3 3.1 fair
22 Durban Area 4 3 3.4 3 3.6 good
23 Thukela R. to Richards Bay 4 2.9 2.7 2 3.5 fair
24 St Lucia to Cape Vidal 5 2.8 3.3 5 4.4 good
25 Sodwana Bay Area 5 2.8 3.3 4 4.3 good
1 Includes launching conditions - mooring and port facilities assumed to improve viability
2 Surface activity was a weighted mean of the scores for probable encounter rates of the three main species
(0.6*SRW+0.3*HBW+-0.1*BW, from Table 1 in Appendix 5).
3 Based on:

The availability of a ready market is considered to be an important influence, as it can help to kick
start the business before the effects of marketing are felt. Current demand was scored on the basis
of understanding gleaned from operators and tourism agencies. This is briefly described below.
Using these weightings, we rated the boat-based whale watching business potential as being good to
excellent in 6 out of 25 areas, and fair in 13 areas (Table 7.2, Figure 7.4). Six areas, one on the West
Coast and the rest in the Eastern Cape, were rated as poor but none were very poor. This rating
does not consider the potential influence of marketing activity. It should be noted that at least one
area that is rated as fair supports a lucrative business. The characteristics and future potential of
each of the areas is discussed below. Note that future potential is contingent on improved
management (see management recommendations).
Potential for BBWW
Closed areas
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
25
24
23
22
1
2
3
4
18
19
20
21
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13 14
15
16
17
Figure 7.4. Potential for boat-based whale watching based on data in Table 8.2
The West Coast is considered to have significant potential for boat-based whale watching tourism as
this currently forms an important part of the existing attractions in the area. The area has already
been successfully marketed for flower viewing in spring, and whale watching could be better marketed
as part of broader West Coast eco-tours. The demand for marine tours is centred in Langebaan and
Saldanha Bay. Further south, tourism is limited to school holidays and long weekends and is typically
domestic in origin. Area 1 is considered marginal, but areas 2 and 3 are described as being able to
support boat-based whale watching, with demand being highest in areas closest to the Cape Metro
area. In all areas, it was felt that any operator would require subsidiary income or attractions to
support themselves through the remainder of the year outside of whale season and long weekends
and school holiday periods. Difficult and unpredictable weather conditions are viewed as an important
factor limiting success due to the relatively short stays by visitors which rarely allowed for back-up
trips to be organised in the face of cancellations due to weather.
64

The Cape Metro area is a major tourism node with a large number of tourists passing through and
either staying or moving on to other destinations in the region. Coastal tourism and scenery, including
natural attractions, are considered an important part of tourism in the area. Marine tours form a
relatively small part of the overall tourism activity in the area, but with adequate advertising, the
potential is believed to exist. The area provides excellent viewing of whales including year-round
viewing of Bryde’s Whales in False Bay and year-round viewing of Heaviside’s Dolphins on the
Atlantic coast. These attractions would be enhanced by the presence of other major marine
attractions such as dolphins, seals and penguins, seabird colonies at Cape Point, plus generally good
seabird viewing. Sea conditions are favourable, particularly in False Bay. The main base for marine
tours is the Waterfront which specialises in historical/cultural tours to Robben Island and harbour trips.
Hout Bay is the second main base, from which a number of tours leave, although none specifically
focuses on whales. The False Bay coast has the lowest demand for boat tours and boat-based whale
watching at present. The opinion is generally that current demand for whale watching is adequately
catered for by existing operators, but that the potential for growth in demand is large. The Cape
Metro’s probably has sufficient potential to support two additional permits, e.g. at Hout Bay and Kalk
Bay. The high tourist traffic at the V&A waterfront suggests that additional permits could be feasible
in future. The permit at Simonstown is currently sufficient to match demand there, and success of the
two operators at Gordons’ Bay still needs to be monitored. As with the remainder of the Cape Metro
area, it is believed that sufficient marketing would be expected to increase demand and thus the
viability of operators there.
The Agulhas coast is highly dependent on coastal tourism and attractions. It provides top quality
whale-viewing, though does not feature quite as strongly as the Cape Metro in terms of overall marine
diversity. Sharks are an added attraction in some areas. The area already benefits from the
marketing of Hermanus as the best land-based whale watching area in the world. Demand for tours,
and specifically boat-based whale watching is highest in the Walker Bay area and centred largely on
Hermanus as base for trips to neighbouring areas in Hawston, Kleinbaai and Gansbaai. This demand
is driven by these areas being the recognised centres for shark and whale tours in the region.
Though this demand is described as high, the number of operators currently in operation is
considered sufficient to capture this, particularly due to the seasonal nature of demand for these
tours. It was felt that current excess demand in-season may be a temporary result of some operators
running at their maximum efficiency. Concerns were raised about the existence of too many boats
should other operators be allowed into the area. Although Struisbaai could potentially benefit from an
additional permit there, especially since some of its inhabitants have recently lost their line fishing
rights, the limited tourist numbers in this area do not constitute a ready market. Conditions may
improve as the more visitors are attracted to the area by the recently-proclaimed Agulhas National
Park.
The Garden Route is currently a heavily marketed tourism region and most operations do very well.
The area provides top quality whale viewing in conjunction with a high variety of marine attractions
and superb scenery. Marine tours were described as being an important and growing attraction in the
region. Marine tours play less of a role in the overall tourism market in Knysna than in other areas
where sea access is easier such as Plettenberg Bay and Mossel Bay. Knysna is characterised by
tours focused on travelling within the lagoon and are prevented from easy access to the sea by the
well known Knysna Heads. Plettenberg Bay has the highest demand, and was described as having a
high diversity of marine attractions. This section, which is one of the longest boat-based whale
watching areas, is shared by two permitted operators, although all three operators do reasonably well.
Demand for boat-based whale watching was described as high and sufficient to support the two
permitted operators. Any excess was more than captured by the third unpermitted operator. Mossel
Bay is described as experiencing a steady increase in demand but was still well catered for by the
existing operator. Tourism agents consider the potential for more operators to be good, partly due to
a perceived need for more “soft adventure” activity such as whale watching to cater for more mature
clients, who form a large part of the current market. The remainder of the market for marine tours
were well served by typical adventure activities such as shark cage diving which has also been
undergoing an increase in demand. However, operators stress that the density of whales is not high
enough to support more vessels, and this is backed up by the fact that whale densities in this area are
already thought to have been reduced by these activities. Thus despite the locally high demand and
high quality of the resource, increase in the number of permits in this area would have to be carefully
considered and is probably not advisable at present.
65

The Sunshine Coast offers good whale and cetacean-viewing opportunities, as well as seal and
seabird colonies. However, it does not have the scenic beauty and good sea conditions of other
areas to the west. Existing demand for marine tours and specifically boat-based whale watching
along the Sunshine Coast is centred in Port Elizabeth. The tourism market in this area has been
traditionally largely domestic, but recent developments in the wildlife industry have encouraged
growth in the international tourism market. Coastal tourism is aimed at beach relaxation and to a
much lesser degree, shore-based whale watching. Marine tours that are offered are aimed at scenic
marine attractions including the islands and birdlife found in Algoa Bay. Port Elizabeth currently
exhibits the highest demand for boat-based whale watching but the success of this is limited by the
relatively short stays of visitors to the area combined with poor weather conditions that limit the
number of trips operators are able to run. There has been little or no increase in the demand in
recent years and this is considered unlikely to change in the near future due to the emphasis on
marketing other attractions in the area. Thus market potential is there, and both areas are viable and
could to better than at present. It is considered that Port Elizabeth could support two permitted
operators. However, there is concern that the density of whales may not be high enough to make two
operations viable.
The Border-Kei area, around East London, has a fair number of Humpback Whales, but other
species are relatively rare, and there are not many other marine attractions. The coastline lacks
sheltered bays and sea conditions are relatively rough. This is an important aspect of success
particularly in the face of the fact that most foreign visitors, the mainstay of most whale watching
tours, tend to be elderly and have shown a demand for less adventurous river tours. East London
however does have adequate launching facilities and may hold some promise for boat-based whale
watching. The importance of domestic tourists in the region was highlighted as a potential constraint
on demand for tours. Boat-based whale watching may not be particularly viable here, and permit
applications from this area should be carefully considered. Shore-based whale watching was
identified as an important coastal attraction.
The Wild Coast also lacks sheltered bays, and as the name suggests, suffers from particularly rough
seas and changeable conditions which make operations fairly risky. The paucity of good launching
sites exacerbates these problems. Marine tourism is at its most viable during the Sardine Run, which
forms the ‘anchor attraction’, but the season is very short, and thus whale watching would probably
only be viable if done as an add-on to a broad-based tourism business. Growth in marine tours linked
to the Sardine Run, particularly due to its increasing fame overseas, was considered good but is
centred on areas with developed infrastructure and accommodation facilities such as Port St Johns.
The majority of the market remains domestic, in the form of self-drive tourists, hikers and campers,
who are less likely to be interested in organised tours. The availability of freely accessible shorebased
whale watching may also be a factor constraining demand for boat-based tours. The growth
potential for the Wild Coast area is probably minimal and limited to areas with sufficient accessibility
to the tourism market, such as Port St Johns. Areas north of Port St Johns are considered to have
extremely low potential due to the lack of any tourism nodes and limited infrastructure.
The Hibiscus Coast, as with much of KZN, is built on coastal tourism. Marine tours are popular and
demand has generally been increasing over time, especially with the recent popularity of the Sardine
Run. This demand is primarily from foreigners (ca. 80%) and aimed at open sea trips to view the
shoals and related fauna. Domestic tourists are largely linked to inshore scenic trips which are more
family-oriented. The majority of operators currently offer the latter scenic tour with associated whale
watching when available. The main seasons for these latter are however around school holidays and
long weekends. There is however little demand for a dedicated whale watching tour as yet but would
be expected to increase over time as operators sought to diversify from the generalised scenic tours
on offer. Tourism in this area is dominated by domestic tourists, and the area does not have as many
complementary attractions for international tourists as areas further north. Neverthelss, this area
does support illegal operators and the possibility of an additional permit could be further investigated.
Tourism in Durban Metro and areas immediately adjacent, including the Dolphin Coast, are
dominated by coastal tourism. Durban also acts as the gateway to the region, with a large proportion
of tourists having to at least pass through the city en route to other destinations. Marine tours in the
area are currently not in high demand, with few operators in existence. The main attraction is beachbased
“relaxation” and related activities such as swimming and surfing. The main marine tours are
66

focused on harbour trips and until recently dolphin-viewing and swimming excursions. The demand
for such tours is described as static with the latter believed to have decreased substantially. This is
believed to be linked to the banning of tours which allowed swimming with dolphins. No increase in
the demand for marine tours, specifically for whale watching is expected by tourism agents. This was
attributed largely to a lack of any marketing by tourism authorities, with much of the current focus
being on beaches. Current demand could thus be expected to support a permit holder but a large
potential for growth does exists and could probably easily support more permits in the future. Indeed,
there is potential at Umhlanga as well as Durban harbour.
The Zululand region north of Durban is based primarily on inland attractions such as wildlife viewing
and cultural tours. The main centre for coastal and marine-based tourism is Richards
Bay/Umhlathuze. Tourism is currently dominated by business tourists (ca. 60%) with the remainder
being domestic visitors from Gauteng and other parts of KZN who are present during long weekends
and school holidays. Nevertheless, there are a number of international arrivals at the airport en route
to other destinations, and cruise ships dock in the harbour. There is currently only one person
offering any form of marine tour in the harbour. Tourism agents claim that numerous requests are
received for whale tours and these are all referred to St Lucia. It was believed that the existence of
an operator in Richards Bay could capitalise on this and prove successful, as previous permit holders
have demonstrated. On the whole, the majority of tourism in the area is linked to business and the
scope for development of boat-based whale watching would probably be limited to a single operator.
The Maputaland area is dominated by the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park and is currently
experiencing a growth in demand for tours, primarily aimed at eco-tourism. The northern section
around Sodwana is primarily known for its diving but the growth in numbers have seen a
diversification into related tourism to cater for family groups which includes marine tours to view
dolphins and other fauna. There is currently sufficient demand for at least two boat-based whale
watching operators. It was however highlighted that any such operator would however depend on a
variety of attractions and peak demand would be limited to school holidays and long weekends when
family groups were more prevalent. Given sufficient marketing it was believed that growth in this
sector was potentially high but was dependent on support from local management structures. St
Lucia currently exhibits a high demand for whale watching, which can be considered one of the major
attractions to the town. Demand is currently in excess of what the single operator can cater to and
has supported the development of unpermitted operators. At the current stage St Lucia can be
expected to support at least one more full-time operator.
Thus in total we estimate that there is immediate potential to expand the boat-based whale watching
industry by about six permits, bringing the total to 32 (Table 7.3), an increase of 23%. If existing,
untapped or growing markets are taken into account, permits numbers could be expanded by as
much as 40% in the near future (Table 7.3). Further growth is likely to be possible in other areas in
future, especially if bodies such as SATOUR increase marketing of marine tourism and boat-based
whale watching, but it is advisable to be conservative in the rate of increasing permit numbers and to
first concentrate on maximising the value added by existing operations.
Table 7.3. Summary of estimated potential number of permits, subject to consideration in terms of potential
impacts on marine resources and industry standards.
Region
Existing number of
permits
Potential additional
permits
Potential with additional
marketing*
West Coast 3 -
Cape Metro 3 (+1) 2 3
Agulhas 5 - 1
Garden Route 4 - -
Sunshine 2 1 1
Border-Kei 1 - -
Wild Coast 2 - -
Hibiscus 2 - 1
Durban 1 - 2
Zululand 1 - -
Maputaland 2 3 3
Total 26 6 11
*this is based on areas with large or growing tourist concentrations which could be better exploited in the near
future. Note that possibilities are technically limitless, apart from sustainability constraints.
67

The increased number of permits discussed above should be seen as synonymous with an expansion
in the number of boats (i.e. each permit is for one boat). There is no economic reason for this to
mean that the additional permits should not go to existing permit holders. Indeed, in New Zealand,
permit holders are limited to area but not number of boats (Baxter 1994), with the effect that they
ostensibly have the incentive to protect their own resource base. In contrast, multiple users working
in the same area would be expected to compete, which would create greater pressure on the
resource, than if the same number of boats was operated by a single owner. Furthermore, the
investment required for expansion could be substantially less than if new permits were issued to new
operators. It is also important to note that current demand is at least partly a function of successful
marketing efforts by existing permit holders. Thus care must be taken not to penalise successful
operators by setting up competitors in their areas. Allowing existing permit holders to have additional
permitted boats rewards these operators instead.
In general, in areas with high potential that have vacant permits, existing permits should be allocated
before additional permits are advertised. In areas where potential is poor, any applications for permits
should be very carefully assessed to ensure that the operation would be viable.
7.5 The importance of standards and marketing
This study has found that marketing is a powerful tool that can generate substantial turnover in areas
that had previously been largely untouristed. Thus the inherent attractiveness of an area for whale
watching need not be the only factor determining the potential economic value of a boat-based whale
watching area. With imagination, new markets can be created. For example, the West Coast
resource, currently very under-utilised partly due to the paucity of tourists in the area, could become
viable if marketed with complementary attractions as a unique experience. Different areas provide
different attractions to subtlety different markets a fact which can be taken advantage of in marketing.
The creation of a market is obviously of paramount importance: whale-watchers are created by
marketing. Marketing is not only important for attracting customers to individual businesses, but at a
broader level is critical for the industry as a whole. Thus marketing efforts by NGOs such as
SABBWWA should yield financial returns to the operators and marketing by government should yield
economic returns in the form of increased economic value generated by the industry. SABBWWA
has played a pivotal role in marketing South Africa’s whale watching resources in general, something
which has probably been vital to many of the smaller less marketed operators. Marketing by
government has not been sufficient, however.
The future potential of the industry cannot be reached without maintaining standards at globally
competitive levels and marketing the resource and service. The quality of the package offered is
important to ensuring the sustainability of the industry. If standards are not maintained, whale
watching will not gain or maintain a prominent role in attracting visitors to South Africa, and its
economic value will decline. Thus the pursuit of increased turnover should consider the long-term
trade-offs involved, for example, in boat size and visitor experience, and the returns to investment in
providing a high quality versus low quality experience.
7.6 Sustainability limits
It is important to note that, while we have considered the quality of the whale resource as a factor that
would contribute to the marketability of boat-based whale watching, and hence its economic value,
this report explicitly does not address the potential limitations on numbers of permits that may need to
be imposed in order to protect the resource. Thus, the future potential of an area will ultimately be
limited by the need to protect the resource itself.
Another issue that needs to be considered is whether boat-based whale watching should be carried
out in Marine Protected Areas. Some argue that these should be sanctuaries for whales, while others
suggest that permits should be concentrated in these areas where they can be better controlled. The
length of coast included in protected areas has increased considerably since the permit areas were
devised. Permit areas currently encroach on major marine protected areas in the Greater St Lucia
68

Wetland Park, Pondoland, the Greater Addo National Park (Algoa Bay) and the Table Mountain
National Park. The numbers of permits suggested in Table 7.3 do not take this into account, and
should possibly do so.
69

8. CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Introduction
South Africa is one of the finest whale watching destinations in the world, and boat-based whale
watching clearly has enormous potential. The industry has already seen excellent growth in spite of
initial problems in its management 3 . In order to capitalise on the full economic potential of the
resource, management of the industry will need to address these problems and facilitate the
sustainable development of boat-based whale watching, subject to its main mandate of protecting the
resource. The opportunity for doing so is now, with the drafting of a new policy for boat-based whale
watching, and the imminent conversion of the industry from an ‘experimental fishery’ to an activity with
longer-term rights.
As it stands, South Africa has among the strictest regulations for whale watching, although these are
not well enforced. Within the current framework the country has the opportunity to market itself as
offering a high quality, intimate whale watching experience which is not marred by congestion (due to
oversized or too many boats) or a sense of harassing the animals (due to excessive competition).
These are the kind of characteristics that could swing whale watchers to choosing this country above
others, supported by the fact that the country already offers among the best quality whale watching in
the world. Encouraging an elite industry means few permit-holders who each have virtual monopolies
of the areas that they serve. On the one hand, the lack of competition will help to maximise the
extraction of foreign consumers’ willingness to pay, leaving little foreign consumers’ surplus, which is
a sound strategy for a foreigner-dominated market. On the other hand, extra effort will be required to
ensure that standards are maintained, in the absence of close competition.
8.2 Numbers of permits
This study suggests that the number of permits (= boats) could be increased by at least 20% based
on existing demand relative to supply, and possibly up to 40% in the near future, based on the quality
of resources and existing, untapped markets. These estimates do not take potential impacts on
whales into account. These are cautious estimates, nevertheless, since demand is influenced to a
great degree by marketing of the resource and the country in general, and future marketing efforts are
an unknown. Strong marketing, combined with existing growth in tourism, will undoubtedly lead to
considerable growth in demand. From a marketing perspective it would make sense to market
different regions of the country differently, perhaps in conjunction with existing marketing drives. For
example, the West Coast for its endemism and traditional charm, the Cape Town to Port Elizabeth
coast for its extraordinary mix of marine diversity and high level of close-range cetacean activity, and
the KwaZulu-Natal coast for its migrations – of both whales and fish. It is thus also envisaged that it
would be an advantage to cluster permits in the most productive areas, and to create, to some extent,
a critical mass of operators in different areas that would serve to increase the attractiveness of the
areas to whale watching tourists. This could apply either to whales or to marine tours in general, and
should be the subject of further investigation.
There is some evidence that boat-based whale watching may have a harmful impact on the whale
resource, and any increase in the numbers of permits should be vetted by appropriate cetacean
specialists or subject to impact assessment studies before being offered. In general it would appear
that having defined territories for each permit holder is crucial, as opposed to sharing areas. Thus the
addition of permits may either involve the splitting of existing areas or the allocation of additional boat
permits to existing operators. The latter is likely to provide better incentive for operators to look after
the whale resources in their area, since excessive disturbance may result in lower encounter rates. A
precautionary strategy would probably be to start by concentrating on maximising the value of existing
permits, through improved management (especially policing) and allocation of the more viable existing
permits that have not been taken up or are no longer being used. Thereafter, the possibilities for
expansion are limited only by the resilience of the resource itself.
3 See comments submitted by SABBWWA – Appendix 6.
70

8.3 The permit system, conditions and incentives
In order to capitalise fully on South Africa’s exceptional marine ecotourism resources, there needs to
be a major reconsideration of the way in which the permit system operates. The years that boatbased
whale watching has been managed as an “experimental fishery” have yielded some important
lessons. The most important of these are that the rights provided by the permits have to be long-term
rights, preferably permanent, with conditions attached. This is the only way in which to secure
investment in high quality equipment needed to add value to the whale watching experience, such as
custom made vessels of the right capacity, as well as the investment required for marketing, both by
operators and, through subscriptions, by SABBWWA. This is in addition to the important marketing
injection that needs to be made by SATOUR (not MCM) and other regional bodies, as a worthy
investment that will secure economic returns for the country.
Issuing of long term rights will obviate the problems associated with the short-duration permits which
are currently held by operators. Short-duration permits hamper the potential development of boatbased
whale watching businesses, mainly due to impacts on marketing. A minimum time of two to
three years is required for visible returns on any marketing strategy aimed at attracting foreign or
regional clients, the main support base of boat-based whale watching at this stage. This includes
planning and production of marketing approaches; visiting various trade shows and fora to present
materials; allowing time for materials to be made available at points of sale, e.g. tourist offices and
operators overseas; and time for potential visitors to become aware of materials and finally book
holidays.
Issuing of long-term rights will also solve the past problems of delays in permit issue. It is vital that
permits are issued timeously. The late arrival of permits hampers marketing efforts and leads to loss
of revenue by delaying the start of operations. This is a critical issue which has a direct bearing on
the current and future potential economic value of the industry. Errors on permits and failure to
provide log books also impact on the efficient operation of the industry.
There is some controversy over whether permit holders should be allowed to operate more than one
boat. Operators in areas where beach launching is necessary are limited to a boat capacity of 12,
unless they use a system of ferrying passengers to a larger whale watching boat and transfer the
passengers at sea. Some operators, especially in those areas where customers had to be turned
away at times due to lack of capacity, felt that it would be better to allow operators in beach-launching
areas to have more than one licensed boat. There was no evidence that small boat size made
operations unviable, however, and there are serious concerns around the way in which the use of two
boats would affect the whales. The use of changeovers that is seen on the Garden Route represents
a resourceful way of maximising total passenger capacity per day in an area where launch conditions
restrict the maximum capacity of boats used. This model could have benefits for other areas, such as
KwaZulu-Natal.
It is envisaged that the permit system can simultaneously be used as an incentive system to maintain
high turnover and standards of service. While standards of service are vital to the industry’s gaining a
significant slice of the global market, there are reports of some operators providing a less than
satisfactory experience. Reports of bad service, especially by permitted operators, that make it into
travel guides can have enormous repercussions for the industry as a whole, and swing visitors from
one destination to another. We propose that the permit holders pay an annual fee to hold the permit,
and are subjected to annual inspections of service quality and activity levels. As long as set
requirements are met, the permit continues to be valid. Failure in any of these regards would result in
a warning period followed by termination of the right. Such a system would keep operators ‘on their
toes’, and would obviate the need for permit renewal (which would be time consuming, costly and
lead to delays). Importantly, it would also provide potential new operators to take up permits as soon
as former permit holders withdraw from their activities, unlike the present situation, where the area
remains unused until the permit duration has lapsed. SABBWWA needs to ensure that training
courses are of a high standard, and it would be in the interest of the industry to provide assistance to
operators in receiving training. This is essential to maintaining service standards.
71

8.4 Compliance, awareness and monitoring
Just as fees paid to SABBWWA should pay dividends in terms of marketing, permit fees paid to MCM
should be commensurate with the management service provided by MCM (including by KZN Wildlife
on behalf of MCM). MCM’s main responsibility is the protection of the resource, in other words, the
policing of activities by permit holders and illegal operators, and the monitoring of activities and the
resource through collection of logbook and other research data. If MCM is to make a meaningful
contribution in this regard, the fees will have to be sufficiently high. Fees need to be based on
budgetary requirements needed to make a difference to compliance levels. The fees should be
annual in order to ensure a steady income to a consistent level of service.
The activity of non-permitted operators is a major concern, though its relative importance varies
around the coast. In areas where illegal activity occurs, permit holders felt that non permitted
operators offered low price trips and thus forcing permit holders to compete unnecessarily (n=4),
attracted customers who would normally have been available to the permit holder or taking excess
and thus potentially restricting growth in future (n=6), gave legitimate boat-based whale watching a
bad name by offering sub-standard tours with little thought to safety or appropriate guidance (n=6),
and harassed whales (n=2). Two permit holders even reported sabotage and obstruction by
individuals believed to be linked to non-permitted operators.
The lack of control of illegal operators acts as a disincentive to pay permit fees and operate legally.
Indeed, under this situation, ownership of a permit is also perceived by some as providing an easier
target for regulation than illegal operators – a further disincentive to applying for permits. Illegal
activity lowers the value added by having permits, and may ultimately threaten the whale resource
upon which the industry depends. Permit operators will have little incentive to comply with regulations
and codes of conduct if faced with unplaced competition by unscrupulous operators. Ultimately, all
operators could cease to bother with permits, and lost revenues for managing the industry could lead
to further decline in compliance. Both industry standards and the resource could be threatened,
which would damage the overall competitiveness of the industry on a global scale.
The main form of policing at present appears to be by legal stakeholders in the marine tourism
industry, whether land-based or boat-based. Some boat-based permit holders appear to have had a
significant role in minimising the effects of non-permitted activity due to their desire to protect the
resource upon which they depend. This has resulted in decreases or complete cessation of the
activity of non-permitted operators. The level of this policing is, however, dependent on the resources
available to the permit holder.
In addition to more visible policing, prosecution of offenders will need to be taken more seriously if
these problems are to be averted. This will also mean overcoming the current difficulty of proving
guilt. Many non-permitted operators claim that whales approach them during trips or that they have
developed techniques to predict whale movements with reasonable accuracy and simply wait in their
path. Some advertise “whale-viewing” rather than “whale watching” in order to get around the law.
The legality of such advertising and whether the minimum distance is observed are unclear, and
should be addressed.
Achieving compliance should be encouraged through the development of more enforceable laws over
advertising and marketing of boat-based whale watching. Linked to this should be efforts to raise
awareness of the permit system and location and limits of permitted boat-based whale watching
operations to relevant tourism offices. Despite efforts by SABBWA and MCM, who advertise permit
holders and warn against using illegal operators, the public is generally ill-informed about the
existence of permits, which means that they do not always discern between legal and illegal
operators. This includes some tourism agents. Public awareness is also crucial to the value added
by having a permit. Existing efforts in the form of regular interaction with SA Tourism and the use of
various media to promote and identify permit holders and advertise regulations pertaining to boatbased
whale watching should have continued support in order to increase their impact. The
increased awareness is also likely to increase the potential value of having a permit to existing permit
holders while attracting new potential permit holders in other areas.
72

Monitoring will also be vital for ensuring that the value of the industry is maximised in the longer term,
and should address both demand versus supply, as well as impacts on the resource. Logbook data
needs to be filled analysed and reported regularly. Not all permit holders fill in log books properly, and
MCM has been slow to provide analysis and feedback on log book data. These problems perpetuate
one another, and reduce the benefits that could be derived from good monitoring of the industry, such
as early warnings of resource impacts and indications of capacity for expansion. There is currently no
monitoring of non-permitted operators, which is also crucial to the analysis of the industry and its
ecological and economic impacts.
8.5 Co-management
MCM’s ability to manage the industry could be greatly enhanced under a co-management
arrangement. The operators have the potential to be the ‘eyes and ears’ of the industry, reporting
illegal activity by non-permitted operators, and infringements by other operators. MCM would have to
respond accordingly and would have to follow up on the prosecution of offenders. It is inadvisable to
put enforcement entirely in the hands of the industry, as some desire. While an ecotourism industry
theoretically has an incentive to protect the resource upon which it depends, this may not extend to
self-policing, as the huge separation between operators makes the situation vulnerable to free-riding
and even co-operative non-compliance by neighbouring operators.
Co-management is also essential in the allocation of permits. The system of allocation needs to be
made transparent, and needs to include criteria that indicate the likelihood of success and equity
considerations. Some permits have been issued to operators who have not taken them up or who
have not been able to make a success of it. Several permitted operators have greatly reduced or
ceased their activities. In some cases this has been due to operational problems, while in others,
permit holders have moved on to other activities. This affects the overall output of the industry, both
directly and indirectly through affecting overall impressions of service standards and reliability of the
industry generally. It also prevents others from entering the industry legally. The selection criteria
and process need to be jointly devised by MCM and the industry, and possibly other independent
parties. It is also advisable to include field-based assessments in addition to the paperwork
requirements.
To facilitate co-management, better communication channels need to be devised, preferably through
a single liaison person at MCM and in SABBWWA. This is a concern that was raised by most permit
holders. In turn, SABBWWA also needs to ensure that it respresents the interests of all its members
as far as possible.
8.6 Distributional issues
Maximising the economic potential of the industry will involve more than just maximising turnover
within sustainability limits, as discussed above. While industry turnover is arguably the most
important aspect, in that it directly and indirectly generates income and jobs. This effect is only
maximised, however, when leakages from the industry are minimised. South Africa does relatively
well in this regard, in that most whale watching occurs on locally-owned boats, many of which are
locally-made, rather than, for example, large imported or foreign-owned ‘gin palaces’ and cruise
liners. Direct attraction of tourists by operators or through local travel agencies result in fewer
leakages than arrangements whereby foreign-based tour companies bring clients to operators. In the
latter cases much of the expenditure generated by whale watchers accrues to foreign countries. A
similar principle applies to the related industries that benefit from whale watching tourism.
Another important goal is to maximise the overall welfare gains by ensuring an equitable distribution
of benefits. Boat-based whale watching already attracts business to outlying areas that often have
the poorest communities. While maximising turnover should be a primary goal as the most efficient
way of generating income and jobs directly and through linkage and multiplier effects, efforts need to
be made to ensure that much of these benefits accrue to communities that need development. This
may be through black empowerment initiatives, job creation or some form of community upliftment.
73

8.7 Specific recommendations
Based on the above, the following recommendations are made to MCM:
Co-management
1. MCM and SABBWWA should enter into a co-management arrangement whereby SABWWA
participates in devising and carrying out permit allocation procedures, participating in law
enforcement, and in annual performance assessments of permit holders.
Representation and communication
2. MCM should nominate a dedicated liaison person who also has contact with all the relevant
departments in MCM (i.e. Resource Protection and Permitting). This person could handle all
ecotourism-related liaison.
3. MCM’s liaison officer should attend industry meetings.
Number of permits
4. Subject to impact assessment, more permits could be issued in the Cape Metro, Sunshine
Coast and Maputaland and possibly also in the Agulhas Coast, Hibiscus Coast, and Durban
area in the near future. The situation could be reviewed on a regular basis (e.g. every 4 – 8
years).
5. Should the number of permits be increased, this should be done such that no two operators
can simultaneously use the same territory, and avoiding competition between operators. It is
preferable for existing operators to take up additional permits, rather than splitting existing
areas.
Allocation of permits
6. A systematic set of criteria and weightings needs to be decided on for the issuing of permits to
new applicants. Criteria should include measures of the capability and likely success of the
operator, black empowerment, and some indication of the quality of the service to be provided.
Boat size should also be a consideration, taking area-specific facilities and conditions into
account.
7. Permits need to be checked by the liaison person for accuracy before being issued, and
should be accompanied by logbooks and other relevant information
Permit duration and conditions
8. Permits should be allocated to a specific boat, but the operator should be allowed to apply to
replace the boat.
9. Permits should confer long-term rights, subject to annual payments and performance
assessments which check levels of activity, compliance, logbook reporting and standards of
service.
10. Performance criteria should be decided in conjunction with the industry and SATOUR.
11. In the event of performance standards not being met, a warning should be issued, followed by
withdrawal of the right if necessary. The right should then be readvertised.
Permit fees and their use for enforcement and research
12. Fees should be set on the basis of budget requirements for rendering an effective service
13. There should be both visible and incognito policing by MCM
14. Complaints should be followed up and offenders prosecuted
74

15. Data collected by operators and submitted to MCM should be properly analysed and collated
into a report, with annual updates released annually in a newsletter sent out to SABBWWA
members.
16. MCM should support research on the status of the whales and impacts of boat-based whale
watching.
Marketing and publicity
17. Marketing needs to be increased, and needs investment by government bodies such as
SATOUR.
75

9. REFERENCES
Apps, P. 1996. Smither’s Mammals of Southern Africa: A field guide. Southern Book Publishers (Ltd),
Cape Town.
Baxter, A.S. 1994. The management of whale and dolphin watching, Kaikora, New Zealand. In:
Postle, D. & Simmons, M. “Encounters with whales ’93: a conference to further explore the
management issues relating to human/whale interactions”, Lady Elliot Island, Australia, 6-10
September 1993. Pp 108-120.
Berrow, S.D. 2003. An assessment of the framework, legislation and monitoring required to develop
genuinely sustainable whalewatching. In Marine Ecotourism: Issues and Experiences. Eds.
Garrod, B and Wilson, J Channel View Publications pp. 66-78.
Best, P.B. 2000. Coastal distribution, movements and site fidelity of right whales Eubalaena australis
off South Africa, 1969-1998. South African Journal of Marine Science 22: 43-55.
Best, P.B., Findlay, K.P., Sekiguchi, K., Peddemors, V.M., Rakotonirina, B., Rossouw, A. and Gove,
D. 1998. Winter distribution and possible migration routes of humpback whales Megaptera
novaeangliae in the southwest Indian Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 162: 287-299.
Best, P.B, Sekiguchi, K. and Findlay, K.P. 1995. A suspended migration of humpback whales
Megaptera novaeangliae on the west-coast of South Africa. Marine ecology-Progress Series
118 (1-3): 1-12.
Carlson, C. 2001. A review of Whale Watch Guidelines and Regulations around the World: Version
2004. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, MA, USA, pp 133.
Conservation and Management of Whales and Dolphins in Queensland 1997-2001. The State of
Queensland, Department of Environment 1997.
DEAT. 2000. White Paper for Sustainable Coastal Development in South Africa. Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.
Elwen, S.H. and Best, P.B. 2004a. Environmental factors influencing the distribution of southern right
whales (Eubaleana australis) of the south coast of South Africa I: Broad scale patterns.
Marine Mammal Science 20(3): 567-582.
Elwen S.H. and Best, P.B. 2004b. Environmental factors influencing the distribution of southern right
whales (Eubaleana australis) of the south coast of South Africa II: Within bay distribution.
Marine Mammal Science 20(3): 583-601.
Findlay KP. 1997. Attitudes and expenditures of whale watchers in Hermanus, South Africa. South
African Journal of Wildlife Research 27(2): 56-62.
Findlay, K.P. and Best, P.B. 1996. Estimates of the numbers of humpback whales observed migrating
past cape Vidal, South Africa, 1988-1991. Marine Mammal Science 12(3): 354-370.
Garrod, B. and Fennell, D.A. 2004. An Analysis of Whalewatching Codes of Conduct. Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 2 pp 334-352.
Greenpeace. 2001. Principles and Policy Guidelines on Whale Watching pp. 11.
Heckel, G., Espejel, I. and Fisher, D.W. 2003. Issue definition and planning for Whale watching
management strategies in Ensenada, Mexico. Coastal Management Vol 31 pp 277-296.
Hoyt, E. 2001. Whale Watching 2001: Worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and expanding
socio-economic benefits. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, MA, USA, pp
158.
Hoyt, E. and Hvenegaard, G.T. 2002. A Review of Whale Watching and Whaling with applications
for the Caribbean. Coastal Management Vol 30 pp. 381-399.
IFAW Report. 2004. From Whalers to Whale Watchers: The growth of whale watching tourism in
Australia. A report for IFAW – the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Orams, M.B. 2002. Humpback Whales in Tonga: An Economic Resource for Tourism. Coastal
Management Vol 30 pp. 361-380.
Osborne, R.W., Koski, K.L and Tallmon, R.E. 2001. Voluntary Marine Protected Areas and Adaptive
Management in the San Juan Islands. Puget Sound Research. Friday Harbour, Washington,
The Whale Museum
Stuart, C. and Stuart, T. 1988. Field Guide to the Mammals of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers,
Cape Town.
Turpie, J.K., Lange, G.M., Martin, R., Davies, R. and Barnes, J. 2004. Strengthening Namibia’s
system of protected areas: an economic analysis and feasibility study for financing. Report to
UNDP and GEF on behalf of Government of Namibia.
76

Woods-Ballard, A.J., Parsons, E.C.M., Hughes, A.J., Velander, K.A., Ladle, R.J. and Warburton, C.A.
2003. The Sustainability of Whale watching in Scotland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism Vol.
11 No. 1. pp 40-55.
Zandberg C. 2003. Ecotourism: Boat-based whale watching. Experiential learning projects/ Minithesis.
Cape Technikon, Cape Town.
77

10. APPENDIX 1. TOURISM INFORMATION OFFICES CONTACTED
Tourist Information offices contacted
Office
West Coast Tourism
Lamberts Bay Tourism
Velddrif Tourist Information
Vredenberg Tourist Information
Cape Town Tourism (Central & Atlantic Seaboard)
False Bay Coast Tourism
Overberg Tourism
Hermanus Tourism
Garden Route (& Little Karoo) Tourism
Garden Route Tourism Marketing
Mossel Bay Tourist Information
Knysna Tourist Information
Plettenberg Bay Tourist Information
Eastern Cape Tourism Board
Port Elizabeth Tourism
East London Tourism
KZN Tourism Board
Tourism KZN (Ushaka Marine Park)
Hibiscus Coast regional Office
Margate Information Office
Hibberdene Information Office
Port Edward Information Office
Port Shepstone Information Office
Durban Africa
Dolphin Coast Publicity Association
uMhlathuze Tourism Association (Richards Bay)
Elephant Coast Tourism Association
Sodwana Bay Tourism Association
Region
West Coast
West Coast
West Coast
West Coast
Cape Metro
Cape Metro
Agulhas Coast
Agulhas Coast
Garden Route
Garden Route
Garden Route
Garden Route
Garden Route
E Cape
Sunshine Coast
Border-Kei
KZN
KZN
Hibiscus Coast
Hibiscus Coast
Hibiscus Coast
Hibiscus Coast
Hibiscus Coast
Durban Metro
Dolphin Coast
Zululand
Maputaland
Maputaland
Key Informants
Office Region Name
Vredenberg Tourist Information West Coast Edith Bowers
Lamberts Bay Tourism West Coast Melanie Stander
Velddrif Tourist Information West Coast Bea Struwig
False Bay Coast Tourism Cape Metro Fuad Peters
Hermanus Tourism Agulhas Coast Storm Kreusch
Overberg Tourism Agulhas Coast Ellmarene Bernhardt
Garden Route Tourism Marketing Garden Route Marieke Raubenheimer
Eastern Cape Tourism Board
E Cape (Sunshine Coast, Border- Brian Jackson
Kei, Wild Coast)
Hibiscus Coast regional Office Hibiscus Coast Ina Jericke
KZN Tourism Board KZN (Durban Metro, Dolphin Caryn Collier
Coast, Maputaland)
KZN Tourism Board KZN (Durban Metro, Dolphin Nazrene Schaik
Coast)
Dolphin Coast Publicity Association Dolphin Coast Cheryl Peters
uMhlathuze Tourism Association Zululand, Maputaland
Bernadine Wright
(Richards Bay)
Sodwana Bay Tourism Association Maputaland Wayne Schick
78

11. APPENDIX 2. SUMMARY OF COMMERCIAL WHALE
WATCHING AROUND THE WORLD
The following is based primarily on Hoyt (2001).
11.1 North America
11.1.1 United States of America
Being the country in which whale watching originated in 1955 (San Diego, California) the United
States continues to dominate the world’s whale watching with respect to total numbers of whale
watchers (4.3 million) and in the total estimated expenditure on whale watching (US$357 million). A
total of 268 whale watching operators (boat and land) are active in the United States, which
encompasses 90 communities. This effort is spread through seven regions namely; New England
(36), Eastern US and Gulf (25), California (65), Oregon (10), Washington (26), Alaska (66) and Hawaii
(40).
The United States does not have formal legislation governing the management of whale watching but
rather employs the use of guidelines to be followed. There are nine points discussed under the
general guidelines pertaining to all areas of the United States, while each whale watching active
region have developed their own detailed guidelines, specific to their areas. Development of the
specific guidelines is usually in association with the national marine fisheries department of that
region. The general guidelines include remaining 100 yards (~91m) away from marine mammals and
provides recommendations on the angle of approach, speed, noise, length of encounter and number
of boats that should be present when visiting a group of whales. One distinctive recommendation that
forms part of the guidelines in at least two areas within the United States, is the suggestion to emit
periodic noises by tapping on the side of the boat with a hard object occasionally when the engine is
not running. This is thought to help whales locate the boat and not surface too close.
The literature studied on whale watching in the United States gave no indication of effort limitation of
any kind in the US whale watching industry. No commercial enterprise permits are required, the
numbers of whale watchers does not appear to be restricted in any way, there are no specific
requirements of the boats in use, there appear to be no closed seasons or areas. One area increases
the protection of marine mammals when they are present and that is in the San Juan Islands, Haro
Strait, North West United States, where a mobile species-specific Marine Protected Area applies only
when orcas are present in the region (Osborne et al. 2001). The extent and specifics of the additional
protection offered in this area are evident from the report. The success of the whale watching
industry in the United States appears to rely on the fact that under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) it is a Federal Offence to “harass, hunt, capture of kill” any marine mammal.
Overall the whale watching industry of the United States is approaching maturity with only a small
amount of growth expected in the future. Many tours are focussing on educational or scientific
aspects, helping to develop community programs, including land-based operations. The various
whale related festivals (up to nine occur annually in California alone) help to promote and develop the
whale watching industry further. Alaska is considered to have good potential for growth in the whale
watching industry, although constraints of the short period of whale presence, limited good weather
and expense to travel to Alaska may discourage visitors to this region.
11.1.2 Canada
Whale watching began in Canada in the St Lawrence River, Quebec in 1971 and has grown to
become one of the worlds largest whale watching countries supporting over a million whale watchers
that contribute nearly US$200 million in total expenditure. As many as 237 operators are active in the
whale watching industry in Canada and are distributed in Newfoundland (48), New Brunswick and
79

Nova Scotia (57), Quebec (75), Arctic (10) and British Columbia (47). The proximity of some areas in
Canada to the arctic region supports species like belugas and narwhals that are seldom encountered
elsewhere.
The Fisheries Act under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the management
and protection of marine mammals in Canada. Although permits are not required to operate a whale
watching vessel in Canada, (except in the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park) the government
strongly recommends adherence to the general guidelines that are issued. These guidelines are
similar to those in other countries and include an approach limit of at least 100 m away from whales
as well as restrictions on speed, noise levels, angle of approach and departure from whales. There
are also particular guidelines for specific areas, namely Barkley Sound to Clayoquot Sound,
Johnstone Strait and the Bay of Fundy which include limits on the time spent viewing whales,
numbers of boats permitted to be present, limited repeated visits to a whale group within a day etc.
The Robson Bight Ecological Reserve in British Columbia does not allow recreational activities, such
as whale watching, to take place in the reserve at all. Special guidelines for threatened or
endangered species in Canada relate to a Right Whale and Bottlenose Whale Conservation Zone in
the Bay of Fundy. This high traffic shipping zone overlaps with an area popular for right whales and
bottlenose dolphins to congregate between July and November each year. Mariners are requested to
avoid these areas during these months, but if passage is mandatory, they are requested to reduce
speed, post a lookout and manoeuvre around any marine mammal activity. The St Lawrence Beluga
whales are considered to be endangered and whale watching of this species in the Saguenay region
is strongly discouraged. Beluga viewing in the Hudson Bay near Manitoba is permitted, as this
population is not considered to be endangered.
The Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act requires a person operating a marine tour business or
shuttle service within the boundaries of the Park to have a permit, which, upon application in writing,
can be issued by the Minister. In 2003 a total of 52 permits were issued for commercial cruises in the
Park. Restrictions on minimum distance from whales (100 m), time limits, number of vessels and
speed limits are defined for permit holders. Aside from the above-mentioned restrictions in area and
seasons and the permit requirements, management of the whale watching industry in Canada is
largely reliant on ethics and peer/public pressure.
Although Canada is considered to have a mature whale watching industry, it has continued to grow
substantially in the later 1990’s. The vastness of the country and the frequent near-shore presence of
whales in many locations has allowed development of whale watching industries in many remote
areas. Land based whale watching has not yet developed fully in Canada and additional boat-based
effort should be focussed in the Arctic region of Nunavit. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(DFO) are investigating the development of a national policy for whale watching and the viability of
implementing a licensing program.
11.1.3 Mexico
Whale watching was initiated in Baja California Sur (BCS), Mexico in 1970, with the majority of
tourists initially being American or Canadian. In more recent years, the tourist market has expanded
substantially to include a wide range of Europeans, Japanese and Mexicans travelling from inland.
Over 100 000 whale watchers contribute a total expenditure of US$41 million per annum. An
estimated 39 operators with 114 boats are thought to facilitate the Mexican whale watching industry.
The Mexican guidelines and specifications for managing whale watching in Mexico is referred to as
PROY NOM 131 ECOL 1998 and was approved by the National Consultative Committee for the
Regulating Environmental Protection, in August 1998. These guidelines provide recommendations
similar to those in other whale watching nations except that the minimum distance required to remain
from a whale is 30 m for a period of 30 minutes and a maximum of two boats are permitted at this
distance. Other boats in the area must remain at least 80 m from the whales. The guidelines also
provide scope for a closed season, control zones (in which only designated whale watch operators
can function) and restricted zones (areas where only scientific observation of whales is permitted),
which can be enforced by the Secretary on an annual basis, as required. A whale watch operator
must register his/her boat with SEMARNAP (Secretary of Environment, Natural Resources and
Fisheries) and with the Secretary of Communications and Transport. All crew aboard the vessels
80

used for whale watching must be accredited with SEMARNAP. All permit holders must display a
badge or mark on the registered vessel identifying it as such. Additional specific restrictions for whale
watching are applied to San Ignacio lagoon and Magdalena Bay. The number of permits issued in
these areas are regulated by the National Ecological Institute. Permit holders are also required to
submit a report on the activities developed during the whale watch season to the State offices of
SEMARNAP, Baja California Sur. A study conducted by Heckel et al. (2003) reports that the current
legislation governing whale watching in Mexico is insufficient and that boats are influencing the
migration route of grey whales. Alternative management strategies are suggested, most importantly
to create self-regulation and to enhance the level of service offered onboard.
Although over the past decade the whale watching industry in specific parts of Mexico have shown
exceptional growth (Heckel et al. 2003), overall Mexico is considered to still have outstanding
potential for further growth in this industry. The annual grey whale festival at Laguna San Ignacio
provides an economic boom specifically to this community and similar such initiatives should be
encouraged. Whale watching in this area has provided an alternative income for fisherman and has
helped provide year round employment. Whale watching has helped raise environmental awareness
of local people, organisations and institutions. The whale watching industry in Mexico is expected to
expand rapidly but requires assistance from the government.
11.2 Africa (other than South Africa)
11.2.1 Canary Islands (Spain)
Whale watching only began in the Canary Islands in the late 1980’s and the number of whale
watchers has already reached one million. The total expenditure is however, lower than would be
expected, at only US$62 million (compared to Canada’s US$200 million for a similar number of whale
watchers). Whale watching occurs in three main regions of the Canary Islands namely, Tenerife, La
Gomera and Gran Canaria with a total of 27 permit holders being registered for 1997, although only
24 were evidently operational. Whale watchers in this region are mainly foreigners from United
Kingdom, Germany or other European countries and with 315 of 365 days of the year being suitable
for whale watching, most visitors to the area generally take part in some level of whale watching. The
preferred vessels for whale watching in this area are the larger catamarans that can accommodate
more passengers and reduces the number of boats visiting whale groups.
Whale watching activities in the Canary Islands are regulated by the ‘Decreto 178/2000’ which
generally forbids direct encounters with cetaceans within the water, regulates distances and total boat
numbers as well as boat movements in the vicinity of whales and requires all whale watching vessels
to be licensed with the government for this activity. It has been indicated that the reason for limiting
the number of permits for whale watching was due to the availability of moorings for boats in the
marinas rather than for the well being of the whales or the industry. Nonetheless, the legislation is as
comprehensive as that of other countries and serves to restrict disturbance of whales by boats. The
Canary Islands legislation requires that the minimum distance to be maintained from whales is 60 m.
With the combination of ideal weather conditions and the presence of whales for the majority of the
year, the whales of the Canary Islands are possibly the most intensively watched whales in the world.
Regulating the industry was only initiated in 2000 and enforcement thereof is still poor, with the result
that many illegal (unregistered) operators continue to watch whales, increasing the pressure on this
resource.
11.2.2 Namibia
Although Namibia only initiated whale watching in 1998, it already attracted 7000 whale watchers in
that year alone. The presence of Heaviside’s dolphins (endemic to Namibia and South Africa) and
occasionally Southern Right whales along this coast attracts whale watchers to this region. The
majority of whale watchers are from Germany (70%) with French, Italian, South African and
Namibians making up the remainder. Three operators offer whale watching tours from Walvis Bay,
81

two having motorised boats and one offering the use of kayaks. Due to this industry being in its
infancy in Namibia, no regulations or legislation currently exists with which to regulate the industry.
Although there is potential for growth of this industry in Namibia, a limited infrastructure and tourism
development might stunt expansion.
11.2.3 Mozambique
Whale watching only began in Mozambique in the late 1990’s and in 1998 reported just over 500
whale watchers. The majority of whale watchers in Mozambique come from South Africa, and several
whale watching operators have even moved from South Africa (where a permit is required for such
activity) to Mozambique to conduct whale tours where no permit is required. This prevents returns
from the industry for the country and hinders further development and growth in Mozambique. The
tourism industry in Mozambique collapsed with the onset of civil war in the late 1980’s and was again
decimated by severe storms and flooding in 2000. With considerable assistance from first world
countries and development of the tourism industry, areas of Mozambique, specifically the Bazaruto
archipelago, have great potential for a whale watching industry.
11.2.4 Madagascar
Madagascar has been involved with whale watching since 1988 and within a decade, numbers of
whale watchers had grown to 4000, although in 1994, numbers reached up to 7500. The reason for
the decline in whale watchers between 1994 and 1998 is not evident. Up to 80% of tourists to
Madagascar are international and whale watching has good potential to grow and develop along with
the strong tourism market. Madagascar is the most likely location for viewing sperm whales in
southern Africa and this aspect could be used as a draw card for tourists from other parts of Africa. In
1998 there were 12 operators, mostly offering boat trips from sports fishing boats. With development
of tourism and educational programs, the whale watching industry could contribute substantially to the
country.
In 2001 Madagascar were in the process of drafting legislation for whale watching. This legislation
stipulates, inter alia, that a minimum distance of 300 m must be maintained between the boat and
whales at all times, that a maximum time of 30 minutes is to be spent viewing a group of whales, only
one boat present at a group of whales at a time and that a trained guide from the Association of Parc
Masoala Guides must accompany all whale watching tours. The legislation provided for management
of the whale watching industry appears to be fairly comprehensive, however, implementation and
enforcement thereof will determine the success of this industry in Madagascar.
11.3 Australasia
11.3.1 Australia
Whale watching only originated in Australia in 1987 at Hervey Bay although viewing dolphins close
inshore at Monkey Mia had been taking place since the late 1960’s. By 1998 Australia had recorded
734 000 whale watchers that were estimated to contribute approximately US$56 million annually in
total expenditure. A survey conducted in 2003 (IFAW Report 2004) reported that Australia now hosts
1.6 million whale watchers, making Australia now part of the “million whale watch club”. In 2003 a
total of 290 whale watching operators were recorded to be active through six regions of Australia
namely; Queensland (43), New South Wales (28), Victoria (10), Tasmania (3), South Australia (9) and
the greatest whale watching activity emanating from in Western Australia (197). Along with the boom
in Australian tourism in the mid-1980’s the whale watching industry grew dramatically, and although it
is currently well developed, there remains potential for further growth, especially on the educational
and scientific components of the tours.
82

Both the National and state governments responded to a need for regulations and management of the
industry and in February 2000 National Guidelines for Cetacean Observation were introduced. The
guidelines provide detailed information on why they are needed, the aims of the guidelines, who they
apply to, what areas they cover, what species they apply to and explain the difference between a boat
approaching a cetacean and a cetacean approaching a boat. The guidelines are described as being
the first tier of a two-tiered management system for State and Commonwealth jurisdictions and that
jurisdictional authorities may choose to enforce additional conditions and controls under the second
tier of management. The guidelines are fully comprehensive and restrict the distance of a boat from a
whale to 100 m, stipulate a caution zone of 300 m from a whale with a maximum of three boats
permitted in this zone, place restrictions on the angle of approach to whales and provides details of all
other regulations similarly proposed by other countries. Australian guidelines even recognise
surfboards as being a whale viewing platform and, for the safety of the person onboard a surfboard,
recommend a distance of at least 30 m from a whale to be maintained at all times. Additional
guidelines in Australia include the requirement of maintaining the vessel and engines in good
condition especially to limit the extent of noise and oil/fuel leakages into the water. While vessels are
encouraged to make use of underwater microphones to listen to whale noises underwater, they are
strongly discouraged to introduce any additional noise (biological or non-biological) into the water. In
Australian waters it is strongly discouraged to approach foetal fold whale calves (very young calves
which can be identified by the presence of pales lines on the side of the body) and if such a calf is
encountered, the operator should slowly move away from the group and cease the encounter
immediately. Areas of special interest for cetacean viewing in Australia have been recognised as
such and have established specific additional management considerations to ensure tourism activity
does not negatively impact the whales. The majority of such special interest areas are declared as
such, due to them being critical breeding areas for Southern Right whales, including South Australia,
Queensland and Western Australia. New South Wales is located along the migration route of
humpback whales and boat-based whale watching is discouraged in some areas due to the high
quality and lower disturbance of land based whale watching here. Logan’s Beach, Victoria is similarly
a prime location for land based whale watching and boat-based activities are discouraged in this area.
The Queensland Government, Department of Environment, provided a Whales and Dolphins
Conservation Plan in 1997 forming part of the Nature Conservation Act 1992. This conservation plan
incorporates all the national guidelines as previously discussed and additionally requires a
commercial whale watching business to obtain a permit. The commercial whale watching is restricted
to within marine parks and permits are issued under the Marine Parks Act 1982. A new entrant to the
industry will be granted a permit initially for a single whale watching season, based on the experience
and performance of the permittee. The duration of the permit will then be increased with the first
renewal being for two years, the second for three years and the third for six years. The permit holder
is required to regularly submit prescribed information about their whale watching business to the
Department of Environment. Fees and levies from commercial whale watching will contribute to the
cost of monitoring and enforcement. Applications for commercial whale watching permits will be
assessed on criteria such as, inter alia, previous experience in the industry, participation in
training/educational programs and local physical and environmental knowledge. The proposed vessel
for use will be evaluated on the level of noise generated, level of comfort and adequate seating,
manoeuvrability, quality and type of onboard waste disposal and exhaust systems, wheelchair access
and existence of contingency plan in case of an emergency. Four areas within the Queensland
jurisdiction are listed as being of special interest for whale watching, namely, Whitsunday
management area, Hervey Bay, Moreton Bay to Fraser Island and Gold Coast to Moreton Island. The
Great Barrier Reef region also has special regulations pertaining to whale watching within its
boundaries. Specific limitations in these areas are summarised below:
83

Special Interest Area
Whitsunday Management Area
Hervey Bay
Moreton Bay to Fraser Island
Gold Coast to Moreton Island
Great Barrier Reef region
Management additional to general regulations
No vessel to approach closer than 300 m to any marine
mammal
No more than 20 commercial permit granted per season
No commercial whale watching between the northern
boundary of Moreton Bay Marine Park to Fraser Island
No more than three permits granted for any season for
commercial whale watching in Moreton Bay Marine Park
Permit holders within the park must not approach whales
from seaward side.
No permits for commercial whale watching in this area
Restricted number of permits granted for the north-western
portion
No commercial whale watching permitted in the remaining
area
The Queensland Conservation Plan also provides strict guidelines for aspects like commercial filming,
research and monitoring, community involvement and education.
Overall whale watching in Australia is considered to still be growing with New South Wales showing
the greatest growth in this industry between 1998 and 2003 (IFAW Report 2004). Interestingly, over
this period of time the number of whale watching operators in the New South Wales area decreased
from 73 to only 28, but this was associated with an increase of whale watchers from 206 000 to 936
000 and an associated increased in total expenditure. Numbers of whales occurring around the coast
are also reported to be increasing, with several cases of whale watching being able to extend into the
previous “off-season” periods (IFAW Report 2004). In most regions of Australia whale watching is a
seasonal business, which the operator usually complements by undertaking other businesses during
the non-whale watching season (often boat charters, fishing charters, scenic cruises). The number of
whale watchers fluctuates each season depending on the number of whales present. If there are few
whales, some operators will refrain from engaging in whale watching due to whale numbers being
insufficient to supply the demand from tourists. Permits to operate a commercial whale watching
enterprise are not considered difficult to obtain and in many instances operators hold the permits but
may not make use of them every season. The whale watching industry in Australia appears to be
very well regulated by the most comprehensive guidelines and legislation encountered in this review
and it would be expected that whale watching in this country would continue to grow and develop in a
sustainable manner.
11.3.2 New Zealand
Whale and dolphin watching began in early 1988 in New Zealand at Kaikoura, a small coastal village
on the north east coast of South Island with two individuals and one boat. The industry grew rapidly
and more than 50 operators now offer whale or dolphin tours around New Zealand. In 1998 the total
number of whale watchers recorded for New Zealand was 230 000, yielding a total expenditure of
U$48 million. Although whale watching does occur in several locations around New Zealand,
Kaikoura remains the “home” of New Zealand’s whale watching and attracts up to 60% of whale
watchers from the international sphere. As many as 12 000 whale watchers make use of fixed-wing
aircraft and/or helicopters to view whales at Kaikoura. With a wide array of species to be seen in
these waters, including the popular sperm whale, whale watching in New Zealand continues to grow
and ranks among the top in the world.
The need to regulate this industry was quickly realised and regulations specifically to control and
manage whale watching were introduced in 1990 and reviewed in 1992 with the introduction of the
Marine Mammals Protection regulations of 1992. All marine mammals around New Zealand are
protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1978, which the Department of Conservation
administers. The regulations of 1992 introduced the requirement of a permit for commercial whale
watching operations and define criteria for issuing permits, for land based operations, commercial
aircraft and general behaviour around marine mammals. The permit system allows for commercial
84

effort to be controlled through restrictions on the number of operations and the amount and type of
activity undertaken by each commercial operator. The regulations also list general operating
conditions for commercial operators or any other member of the public when in the vicinity of marine
mammals. These regulations pertain primarily to approach speeds, minimum distance (50 m) and
orientation of approach. No more than three vessels are permitted within a 300 m radius of whales
and whales with calves are not to be approached closer than 200 m by any vessel. Species specific
regulations are listed relating to approaching sperm whales. The regulations are used to manage the
effort expended on whale watching. An example of this is at Kaikoura where, despite numerous
applications, no further permits have been granted since 1989 and the current operators have not
been allowed to increase their number of trips. Overall a trend towards larger, quieter vessels has
been employed in this whale watching industry.
The whale watching industry at Kaikoura is considered to be a model example of a successful
community development initiative. With the attraction of whale watching and government support, the
Maori people of Kaikoura transformed their small, impoverished village into a highly successful,
internationally acclaimed tourist destination. The empowerment and socio-economic upliftment has
transformed this Maori community, and more importantly, by means of a sustainable resource
(whales) that has always played a significant role in the Maori culture. The early introduction of strict
regulations on this industry have thus far, allowed sustainable growth of the industry, however, the
increasing pressure and demand for whale watching encounters at Kaikoura means that the town
faces a difficult decision as to whether to expand further and possibly lose the aspect that originally
made it a successful tourism destination or limit further growth and also possibly lose attractiveness to
the tourist market. Although New Zealand’s permit based system has helped to control the number of
boats on the water and thus protect the resource, many argue that there are already too many permits
in some areas and not sufficient in others. Nonetheless whale and dolphin watching continues to
flourish in New Zealand and there is outstanding potential for growth and associated improvements in
the socio-economic sphere.
11.3.3 Tonga
In 1994 the first whale watching enterprise in the Kingdom of Tonga was established around the
Vava’u island group in the South Pacific Ocean. This area has been known to be an important
breeding area for humpback whales for centuries, however, due to the whaling industry in New
Zealand in the early 1900’s, the populations occurring here are considered to be endangered and only
a fraction of their original numbers (Orams 2002). Nonetheless the Vava’u islands are developing a
growing reputation as an international whale watching destination. The total number of whale
watchers recorded in Vava’u islands in 1998 was 2334, yielding a total expenditure of US$422 000,
which contributes a considerable amount of income to the tiny group of islands. Five main operators
offer whale watch tours and these companies are starting to invest in larger vessels with stable
platforms, hydrophones (for listening to whale sounds), toilets and seating onboard. The fairly new
whale watching industry is however, threatened by the recent consideration of the Tonga government
to return to hunting whales. The majority of visitors to Tonga are typically well educated, from upper
socio-economic groups and strongly conservation minded. A study conducted by Orams (2002)
shows that current visitors to Tonga are opposed to any resumption of whaling practices and that
should this occur, it would likely displace the majority of tourists from the area.
Although whales are not officially protected in Tonga, the Government of Tonga, in partnership with
the whale watch operators, have established a set of guidelines for viewing whales. These guidelines
are similar to those developed for many other countries and include, inter alia, a minimum distance of
100 m to be kept from whales at all times, a 300 m caution zone with no more than one vessel in this
zone at a time, a speed of 4 knots and human-powered paddle craft not permitted closer than 75 m
from a whale.
Although already well established as a whale watching location, by global standards the industry in
Vava’u can be considered to be in its infancy. There is considered to be outstanding potential for
further development and growth in the whale watching industry in Tonga, much of this depends on the
government’s decision whether to resume whaling or not. There is some pressure from the World
Council of Whalers and some local Tongans to return to whaling. A study conducted by Orams
85

(2002) has shown that humpback whales may be worth in excess of U$700 000 annually as a tourist
attraction and that there is significant potential for growth in this industry.
11.3.4 Antarctica
Whale watching tours to Antarctica have dated as far back as 1957, but whale watching has only
featured prominently since the 1980’s. In 1998 it was estimated that Antarctica had 2503 whale
watchers contributing U$16 million in total expenditure. The total expenditure is considered to be
disproportionately high to the low numbers of whale watchers because much of the whale watching
activity is in conjunction with cruise ships. which have an associated high overall expenditure. As
many as 18 companies use up to 15 cruise ships for tours through Antarctica, although none of these
tours are dedicated whale watching tours. However, whale watching is strongly promoted and many
ships carry accomplished whale watch guides. Inflatable zodiac boats are frequently used to view
whales from closer quarters than the cruise ships are permitted. Regulations of nation states
controlling different zones probably apply. There is still considered to be moderate potential for
further development of whale watching in Antarctica, although the capacity for tourism to this area is
still under contention and further impact studies are urgently needed.
11.4 Europe
11.4.1 Norway
Norway began whale watching in 1988 and by 1998 had an estimated 22 380 whale watchers
contributing a total expenditure of U$12 million annually. Whale watching predominantly occurs in
two areas of Norway, namely Andenes where one operator is based and Tysfjord where another eight
operators are based. There appear to be no written rules or regulations governing whale watching in
Norway, however, Andenes has developed a general code of conduct for whale watching.
Although Norway remains one of the few whaling nations of the world, there exists outstanding
potential to develop whale watching in the northern areas, especially Andenes and Tysfjord. There is
a strong emphasis on education and scientific work with researchers often serving as tour guides in
exchange for data. Whale watching in Norway grew by 18.8% between 1994 and 1998 and is
expected to continue at a similar growth rate in the near future.
11.4.2 Iceland
Whale watching in Iceland originated in 1991 and foreigners (mainly Germany, USA and Denmark)
contribute 90% of the whale watchers in Iceland. In 1999 it was reported that Iceland hosted 35 250
whale watchers, facilitated by 10 whale watching operators. The trips are mainly day trips aboard
traditional and modern fishing vessels, although at Stykkisholmur, two large catamarans provide
comfortable whale watching from large platforms. The whale watching trips in Iceland are the most
reliable in the world to see blue whales with a 100% success rate in June and July during 1998 and
1999. Since 1994 whale watching numbers in Iceland have shown an average increase of 251% per
year, which is the second highest increase rate in the world since the mid-1990’s. Hùsavík, in the
northern region of Iceland, is host to the largest whale watching community in the country and with the
opening of the Hùsavík Whale Centre in 1998 and the Hùsavík whale watch festival, has created a
target market for tourists wanting to experience whale watching in Iceland. The Hùsavík Whale
Centre, promoting education and research of marine mammals, have a set of guidelines for whale
watching which includes, inter alia, a minimum distance of 50 m to be maintained at all times between
a boat and whale. The guidelines are not as restrictive as those in some other countries and rely on
good ethics on the part of the operator to implement good practice.
There is continuing debate over whether to resume whaling in Iceland, which will obviously have
negative impacts on the whale watching industry. Although the issue of whether to resume whaling or
86

not is broached several times each year, provided this does not become a reality, it does create
tourism awareness and the public debate has positive impacts on the whale watching industry in
Iceland. However, in March 1999, Iceland’s parliament released a motion calling for the resumption
of whaling at the earliest opportunity. This statement resulted in several cancellations of holidays
booked to Iceland providing an indication of the negative impact whaling would have on the tourism of
Iceland. Provided whaling does not resume in Iceland, there exists outstanding potential for further
growth and development of whale watching.
11.4.3 Greenland (self-governing territory of Denmark)
Whale watching has been listed with the national Greenland tourism office as an activity in Greenland
since the mid-1990’s and in 1998 recorded a total of 2500 whale watchers, 80% of whom are
Europeans. Two main operators offer tours. Although whales are still hunted in the northern regions
of Greenland, sustainable whale watching is considered to provide a valuable contribution to local
economies. The potential to view rarely seen Arctic cetaceans makes Greenland a unique location
for whale watching, although tourism to the area needs to be strictly controlled so as to prevent
damage to the delicate ecosystems. No guidelines or legislation currently exists relating to whale
watching in Greenland.
11.4.4 United Kingdom
Whale watching in the United Kingdom was initiated in the mid-1980’s but only became a dedicated
tourist attraction in 1989. In 1998 over 120 000 whale watchers were reported, yielding more than
U$8 million in total expenditure annually. Although there are reported to be more than 40 operators
offering full or part-time marine mammal watching, the majority of tourists were not attracted to the UK
solely for whale watching. With more species of dolphins occurring along these shores than whales,
the former tends to attract more tourists and is a more reliable marketing tool. Tours are conducted
from a wide range of vessels including sailing vessels, inflatables, motor cruises and former fishing
vessels. Most trips are 2-3 hours in length, some were a full day and others can be anything from a
week to ten days in length. There is a strong seasonality to the whale watching industry, peaking in
northern hemisphere mid-summer when winds are lightest and temperatures highest. The Moray
Firth and Western Isles areas of Scotland dominate the whale watching industry in the UK with Wales
and England only having three operators each. The Hebridean Whale and Dolphin trust has raised
awareness and issues of conservation on the Mull and in the Hebrides, both important whale
watching locations.
All cetaceans in the UK are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The UK is also
party to the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and Northern Sea
(ASCOBANS) and to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
(the Bern Convention). Although no formal set of legislation exists for the management of whale
watching activities, a guideline document provides recommendations for minimising disturbance to
cetaceans from recreation at sea. Where they exist, these guidelines compliment existing local
guidelines. The general guidelines provide very broad recommendations on distance of approach,
angle of approach, length of encounter etc. to minimise disturbance. The Sea Watch Foundation and
the Wales Code of Conduct for watching dolphins specify for one boat to remain at least 100 m from
marine mammals (these areas are more focussed on dolphin viewing) or three boats to remain one
kilometre from marine mammals. The Scottish Code of Conduct for watching Minke Whales specifies
that three boats are to remain at one kilometre distance from the whales and one boat, 200 m
distance from minke whales, unless the whales approach the boat. Other rules, similar to those in
other countries, relating to angle of approach, noise levels, speed etc. also form part of the guidelines.
The best strategy for the United Kingdom seems to be to promote marine nature tours rather than
focus specifically on whale tours. The strength of the British currency currently deters international
tourists from engaging specifically in marine tours in the UK. Scotland appears to have the greatest
potential for expansion of marine wildlife tourism requiring focussed effort and appropriate resource
management mechanisms to be in place. High quality tours with emphasis on education and
research are required if the UK is to remain in the global whale watching market.
87

11.4.5 Ireland
Cetacean watching in Ireland was instigated by the presence of a solitary wild dolphin which took up
residence near the town of Dingle in 1986. In the early 1990’s the south coast and the Shannon River
Estuary also started marine wildlife tours, however, the majority of marine tours in Ireland are
focussed on dolphins with very few whales (minke whales occasionally present) featuring. There are
at least 12 boats offering trips to see the solitary dolphin at Dingle and two operators offering tours in
the Shannon River. The operators in the Shannon River estuary have accepted a code of conduct for
cetacean tours, but again, this pertains specifically to dolphins, as whales are very rarely seen in this
area. There is considered to be scope for growth and development in cetacean and marine life tours
in Ireland although the current focus at Dingle is only expected to persist while the solitary dolphin
remains resident to the area.
11.4.6 Spain (not including Canary Islands)
The wide diversity of cetacean species frequenting the coast of Spain has allowed whale watching to
expand from its inception in the late 1980’s to 38 000 whale watchers being recorded in 1998.
Andalucía along the southern Spanish coast experienced an explosion in whale watching between
1997 and 1999 with as many as 24 boats and 14 operators starting up whale watching tours in this
area. Gibraltar and Ceuta on the northern coast of Spain are beginning to develop their whale
watching industry. The sudden growth of whale watching in this country provides a classic example
where the legislation and regulations are not developing fast enough for the growing industry. There
is an urgent need for regulations or guidelines in the whale watching industry in Spain, along with
enforcement, training and developing education and scientific research. Whale watching in Andalucía
is currently of a casual nature and unregulated. With the growing tourist market in Spain, there is
outstanding potential for further development of whale watching, but this requires strict guidelines and
management to attain a high quality growth, with the associated benefits.
11.4.7 Azores Islands (Portugal)
Whale watching started in the Azores Islands in 1998 and is predominantly focussed on the areas of
Pico and Faial in the south. In 1998 the Azores Islands attracted 9500 whale watchers, which
contributed a total expenditure of over US$3 million to the region. As many as ten companies with
more than 12 rigid-hull inflatable boats offer whale watching tours, although at least three unlicensed
vessels also view whales, mainly for underwater film crews. This ex-whaling nation is able to offer
whale tours for up to five months of the year and sightings of rare beaked whales are frequent,
making this area popular for whale watching enthusiasts.
In 1999 the government declared regulations for the whale watching industry of Azores Islands but
there remains a need for better control over boat numbers, licensing and enforcement. There is also
a strong need for development of the educational and scientific aspects associated with other
successful whale watching ventures. The regulations provide rules relating to distance (no closer
than 50 m), direction of approach, speed and time (maximum of 30 minutes) spent viewing whales,
similar to that of other countries. If other boats are in the vicinity, they should not be closer than 200
m to the whales and females with calves should never be approached closer than 100 m.
Commercial whale watching companies must apply for a permit to conduct such business activities
and must state, among other things, the characteristics of the boats to be used (although details of
other requirements are not provided).
88

11.5 South America
11.5.1 Ecuador
The principle draw card to Ecuador for nature enthusiasts is a trip to the Galapagos islands, where
whale watching started in the 1980’s. Bryde’s whales and sperm whales are frequently seen off the
islands while humpback whales are encountered near the mainland. More than 11 000 whale
watchers are estimated to travel to Ecuador for this activity, bringing in more than US$23 million in
total expenditure. Trips to Galapagos are 10-day+ journeys aboard a wide range of vessels from
yachts to small motor cruises, but are not considered dedicated whale tours and are classified rather
as general marine life tours. Trips from the mainland are day trips and take place from June to
September to see humpback whales from aboard fishing boats, inflatables or small motor cruises.
The Galapagos Islands were one of the worlds first international ecotourism destinations and it is not
surprising that guidelines exists for the whale watching industry operational in this area of Ecuador.
The mainland operators however, do not have guidelines specific to their activities in whale watching
and this should be urgently implemented. Because Galapagos tours are mainly focussed on the
islands themselves, growth in the marine sector of the tours (i.e. spending more time at sea) is
unlikely and the greatest potential for growth in the whale watching industry exists with the mainland
industry.
11.5.2 Brazil
The primary cetacean viewing occurring in Brazil is that of the tucuxi dolphins found in the Amazon
region. Humpback and Southern Right whales also occur off the coast of Brazil at Abrolhos and
Imbituba, Santa Catarina State respectively. The humpback whale season in the Abrolhos
Archipelago between July and November attracted nearly 5000 visitors to the region in 1998. The
number of vessels permitted to conduct whale watching activities in the region of the Abrolhos Marine
Park are restricted to a maximum of 15 boats. One boat owner at Imbituba, Santa Catarina State
makes use of a 10 m inflatable boat carrying 12-15 passengers to view the Southern Right whales.
There is also a fairly large industry for land based cetacean watching in Brazil, although this is largely
restricted to viewing dolphins.
The Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources – Ibama, Edict 117 of
December 26, 1996, provides legislation to manage and regulate the boat base whale watching
industry in Brazil. This legislation provides clear instructions on distance from whales (50 m), angle of
approach, noise levels and speed of movements among others, when conducting whale watching
activities. It also stipulates that vessels engaged in such commercial activities must be registered
with the Conservation Unit and that a limit on the maximum number of vessels permitted within the
area may be enforced.
The low number of tourists visiting the country has been the major constraint facing whale watching in
Brazil. This has been attributed to poor tourism infrastructure, high cost of domestic air travel, high
crime in some areas and political and/or economical instability.
11.5.3 Argentina
In Argentina, Peninsula Valdés is the primary whale watching location with tours to view whales being
implemented in 1983 in this area. It is estimated that in 1999 nearly 75 000 whale watchers visited
Argentina for this purpose. At Peninsula Valdés, six operators, each using two boats run tours of
approximately 2 hours in length. Most boats carry 6-10 passengers, although some larger ferry-type
vessels can carry up to 70 people. One operator based at Punta Norte, Peninsula Valdés, advertises
orca boat-based tours although most orca viewing is conducted from the land. Three areas in
Argentina are in the early phases of starting up whale watching enterprises and have the potential to
89

oost the whale watching industry in this country. These are San Blas, Ria Gallegos and Cabo
Virgenes.
Although the biggest control measures on whale watching at Peninsula Valdés are the difficult
logistics in reaching the location, provincial law of Peninsula Valdés, Province of Chabut (No 2381/84
modified by No 2618/85) regulates the whale watching industry in this province. Operators require a
permit to conduct tours in this region and are not allowed closer than 50 m to a whale, along with
several other specifications similar to those of other such regulations. Operators are allowed a
maximum of two boats for use of whale watching tours.
Argentina is considered to have good potential for growth in the whale watching industry, especially
with the international attraction of Patagonian right whales, however, whale watching might have
reached its carrying capacity in the region of Peninsula Valdés as whale watcher numbers have
remained constant in recent years, while overall tourist numbers to the area continue to climb.
Improved educational and scientific aspects to the tours, as well as a high quality training program for
the guides and operators, might serve to boost the industry. There is excellent potential for the three
new whale watching areas, although legislation to manage the whale watching industry in these
regions would be required for sustainable growth in the industry.
11.6 Central America and West Indies
11.6.1 Bahamas
Historically the Bahamas have been a popular location for swimming with dolphins, which initially
provided the main attraction for marine tours. In more recent years (1996) however, Abacos has
developed a tourist market for whale watching. Two educational and scientific whale watch projects,
namely the Bahamas Marine Mammal Survey and the Bahama Naturalist Expeditions, have helped
promote this area as an attractive whale watching location. There is considered to be outstanding
untapped potential to develop the whale watch opportunities here, although infrastructure might be
considered limiting. An additional problem in the Bahamas is their proximity to the USA, which results
in a great number of “self contained” trips generating very little economic gain for the Bahamas
themselves, but makes use of their resources. Education and scientific input and land-based
experiences might assist in the growth of whale watching in this area.
11.6.2 Turks & Caicos Islands
The location of the Turks and Caicos Islands (proximate to the Bahamas and also to North America)
implies a level of whale watching similar to that in the Bahamas. The Turks and Caicos Islands
however, have an even less developed whale watching industry than the Bahamas, with 1500 whale
watchers visiting in 1998. Two legal operators offer day trips from Grand Turk island. The Turks and
Caicos Islands have three marine parks and consideration is being made to set aside an area therein
for a humpback whale refuge. This has the potential to attract international tourism (currently limiting
the growth of the industry) and will provide essential management components. New guidelines for
whale watching are being drafted for the Turks and Caicos Islands, although the old regulations
provide a good guideline on how to prevent disturbance of whales.
11.6.3 Dominican Republic
Whale watching activities began in the Dominican Republic in 1986 and have continued to grow with
32 000 whale watchers recorded in 2000. Two types of whale watching tours are offered, day trips
from Samaná Bay aboard small fishing boats or larger sailboats carrying anything between 7 to 125
passengers or the seven to ten day trips from Silver Bank aboard larger self-contained vessels.
90

The Dominican Republic has strict codes of conduct for whale watching operations, which include a
permit requirement for commercial operations as well as a limit of three commercial vessels operating
per area on a given day. The boat permit fees vary with the size of the boat and fees are used to pay
for whale watch monitors and other operational expenses for management of the industry. Although
general codes of conduct exist for whale watching, including specific regulations pertaining to sperm
whales, both Samaná Bay and Silver Bank Whale Sanctuary have additional regulations and
guidelines specific to these areas. The regulations pertaining to whale watching as a whole in the
Dominican Republic are considered to be comprehensive and of good quality when compared to
global standards.
Even though whale watching in the Dominican Republic earns the most revenue in the Caribbean, it is
still considered to be at a level far below its potential. Much of the income generated though tourism
filters out of the country due to “package tours”. The quality of tours is generally poor with old, small
boats and a lack of educational or scientific components offered. Land based whale watching sites
are being created, which will aid the economic growth of these communities. By addressing some of
the other issues mentioned above, the Dominican Republic has good opportunity to create positive
growth and development within the whale watching industry.
11.6.4 St Lucia
St Lucia is reported to be the fastest growing whale watching nation in the world since 1998, with
whale watching only originating here in 1997. By 2000 the number of whale watchers had grown to
over 4000 facilitated by four operators. The St Lucia Whale & Dolphin Watching Association
(SLWDWA) was formed in 1997 to promote and facilitate the development of high quality whale
watching around St Lucia. This Association is also tasked with drafting suitable regulations for whale
watching in this country, which currently remains unregulated. The Association is also aiming to
promote educational and scientific research of the whales and dolphins in the area. With St Lucia
being a popular natural marine environment to visit, whale and dolphin watching was a logical next
step and appears to be growing at a dramatic rate.
11.7 Asia
11.7.1 Oman
Oman began whale watching activities in 1996 and by 1998 had already attained 4700 whale
watchers. Although the current focus is on dolphins, this is thought to be simply because they are
easier to find. Humpback whales are present in waters slightly offshore, but guides and operators
seem too inexperienced at this stage to reliably locate them. The community of Muscat is taking the
lead initiative in the whale watching industry in Oman. The boats used are usually fishing boats or
other similar small vessels, having a capacity of 8 to 14 passengers. Whale sightings are seasonal
with the peak occurring between November to March.
Whale and dolphin watching guidelines for Oman are available and provide general basic behavioural
codes of conduct for whale watching operators. With improved levels of educational and scientific
input to the tours and more comprehensive legislation to minimize impacts on cetacean populations,
Oman has been highlighted as having the potential to become the leading whale watching country of
the Arab region.
11.7.2 Japan
Ogasawara, Japan implemented whale watching tours as early as 1988 and have a wide diversity of
species present in the waters surrounding the country. More than 100 000 whale watchers were
reported in 1998, 95% being from Japan, contributing substantially to the domestic tourism economy
of the country. There are an estimated 45 Japanese whale watch operators with the most whale
91

watching activity occurring in Tokyo-to, Kochi-ken, Kumamoto-ken and Okinawa-ken from aboard at
least 185 boats. The boat sizes are usually small fishing boats carrying between 10 and 12
passengers although some large ferries carrying several hundred passengers are commissioned for
special occasions. In total, 30 communities have attempted whale watching in Japan, but three of
these have ceased activities due to a lack of whales. Whale watching in Japan is considered to have
potential for growth although expansion to the non-Japanese market would be required to realise this.
Guidelines for whale watching in Japan are voluntary and there are no laws or ordinances that apply
directly to whale watching. Guidelines have been developed for Ogasawara, Ogata and Zamami and
are generally similar to those developed for other countries. It is recommended that boats do not
approach closer than 50 m to a whale and 100 m if a calf is present, a 200 m cautionary zone,
restrictions on noise in the water, angle of approach and departure, speed limits etc. A maximum
number of three boats are recommended to visit whales for no longer than one hour.
11.7.3 Taiwan
Although whale watching only began in Taiwan in 1997, the growth of this industry has been
considered the fastest in the world with whale watcher numbers increasing from 8500 in 1997 to
30 000 in 1998 and is estimated to be near 80 000 for 1999. Fourteen official whale watching boats
and six unofficial fishing boats cater for the demands of the whale watchers, 99% of which are
Taiwanese. The whale watching industry is strongly seasonal between May and September, and is
concentrated on the east coast, with operators supplementing their off-season income with fishing or
other businesses. Initiatives are being taken to develop sensible guidelines (none currently exist) and
to attract international tourists to enhance the socio-economic benefits to the country. Much work
remains to be done to develop the whale watching industry in Taiwan.
92

12. APPENDIX 3: NOTIFICATION OF PERMITS (1998)
GENERAL NOTICE NOTICE 936 OF 1998 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND
TOURISM SEA FISHERY ACT, 1988 (ACT No. 12 OF 1988) PERMITS FOR BOAT-BASED WHALE
WATCHING
As it is the intention to allocate a maximum of 20 permits for boat-based whale watching, interested
persons are invited to apply. The following concession areas and number of permits are proposed:
BOAT-BASED WHALE WATCHING AREAS: NB: ALL POSITIONS ARE BASED ON THE
NAVIGATION FORMAT WGS84 In all cases the boundaries of each area are defined, on the West
Coast up to Slangkop Lighthouse by a line due west (true) through the given position, Cape Point up
to Woody Cape by a line true south (true) through the given position and on the East Coast up to
Cape Vidal by a line due east (true) through the given position except where indicated. For further
clarification please refer to the accompanying maps.
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA DESCRIPTION, LATITUDE LONGITUDE
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 1 Olifants River Mouth (Northern Boundary) to 31º42.0'S 18º11.20'E Permit Cape St. Martin
(Southern Boundary) 32º42.83'S 17º55.367'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 2 North Head Lighthouse Saldanha Bay to 33º03.0'S 17º54.75'E Permit Southern Boundary
Dassen Island Lighthouse 33º25.917'S 18º05.417'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 3 Robbesteen Seal Colony (Northern Area) to 33º38.66'S 18º24.133'E Permit Slangkop
Lighthouse (Southern Area) 34º08.90'S 18º19.27'E Cape Point Lighthouse to 34º20.453'S
18º28.539'E Permit
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 4 Cape Point Lighthouse 34º23.199'S 18º49.662'E
_________________________________________________________________________
CLOSED AREA WITHIN Inshore of a line between AREA 4: the following waypoints SAND RIVER
34º06.35'S 18º28.60'E MOUTH TO MILLERS Sand River Mouth POINT (Offshore), waypoint 2
34º07.20'S 18º29.00'E RUNNING 1 Off Glencairn Quarry, NAUTICAL waypoint 3 34º09.10'S
18º27.70'E MILE Roman Rock Lighthouse, OFFSHORE waypoint 4 34º10.86'S 18º27.65'E Off
Boulders Beach waypoint 5 34º12.50'S 18º28.80'E Off Millers Point, 1 Nautical Mile, waypoint 6
34º13.90'S 18º29.80'E Millers Point (Shore), waypoint 7 34º13.90'S 18º28.55'E Die Mond to
34º20.668'S 19º00.00'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 5 West of a line between the following waypoints: New Hermanus Harbour Wall (Waypoint 1)
Offshore Sopiesklip (Waypoint 2) 34º25.971'S 19º13.743'E Offshore Sopiaklip (Waypoint 3) 34º29.3'S
19º17.1'E Permit Then following a Line Due South (True) 34º34.0'S 19º09.0'E Inshore of a line
between the following waypoint: CLOSED AREA (BETWEEN AREA 5 AND 6) New Hermanus
Harbour Wall (Waypoint 1)Offshore Sopiaklip (Waypoint 2) 34º25.971'S 19º13.743'E Sopiesklip
onshore (Waypoint 3) 34º29.3'S 19º17.1'E 34º27.199'S 19º20.119'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 6 To the East of a line between the following waypoint: Sopiesklip onshore (Waypoint 1)
34º27.199'S 19º20.199'E Permit Offshore Sopiaklip (Waypoint 2) 34º29.3'S 19º17.1'E Offshore
Sopiaklip (Waypoint 3) 34º34.0'S 19º09.0'E Then following a Line Due South (True)running to the cast
as far as a line running due South through Danger Point lighthouse 34º37.769'S 19º18.133'E
CLOSED AREA WITHIN Inshore, to the East of a line running through
AREA 6: Die Kelden to the following waypoint: Gansbaai Harbour Die Kelders (Waypoint 1)
34º33.28'S 19º21.927'E Offshore Die Kelders 1nm (Waypoint 2) 34º32.6'S 19º20 9'E Offshore New
Harbour Gansbaai 1nm (Waypoint 3) 34º34.6'S 19º19.4'E New Harbour Gansbaai (Waypoint 4)
34º35.118'S 19º20.488'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 7 Danga Point Lighthouse to 34º37.769'S 19º18.133'E Permit Quoin Point Lighthouse
34º46.802'S 19º38.384'E CLOSED AREA (Between area 7 and 8) Quoin Point lighthouse to
34º46.802'S 19º38.348'E Puntjie (East bark Duiwenhoks River) 34º21.954'S 21º00.082'E
_________________________________________________________________________
93

AREA 8 Dana Bay (Pinnacle Pt.) to 34º12.534'S 22º05.486'E Permit Groot Brak River 34º03.396'S
22º14.443'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 9 Gericke Point to 34º02.248'S 22º45.842'E Permit 1nm West of Robberg Peninsula (on land)
34º06.203'S 23º21.096'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 10 1nm East of Robberg Peninsula to 34º04.992'S 23º22.343'E Nature's Valley 33º59.399'S
23º32.236'E Permit CLOSED AREA (WITHIN Area 10) The inshore area is closed, within the
boundaries of following waypoints: 1nm West of Robberg Peninsula (on Land) 34º06.203'S
23º21.096'E Waypoint 1 nm West of Robberg Peninsula (offshore) 34º06.989'S 23º22.107'E
Waypoint 2 1nm of Island, Robberg Peninsula (Offshore) 34º07.531'S 23º23.203'E 1nm of Robberg
Peninsula (offshore) Waypoint 34º07.453'S 23º24.317'E 1nm of Robberg Peninsula (offshore)
Waypoint 34º07.201'S 23º25.679'E 1nm of Robberg Peninsula (offshore) Waypoint 34º06.446'S
23º25.98 1'E 1nm of Robberg Peninsula (offshore) Waypoint 34º05.660'S 23º25.074'E 1nm of
Robberg Peninsula (offshore) Waypoint 34º05.283'S 23º24.695'E 1nm of Robberg Peninsula
(offshore) Waypoint 34º05.3 14'S 23º23. 864'E 1nm offshore Robberg Beach (Waypoint 10)
34º04.937'S 23º23.524'E Offshore Beacon Is (Waypoint 11) 34º03.758'S 23º24.100'E Offshore 1nm
Keurbooms River (Waypoint 12) 34º02.720'S 23º24.469'E Keurbooms River (East bark) Waypoint 13
34º02.130'S 23º23.486'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 11 Cape Recife to 34º01.731'S 25º42.043'E Permit Woody Cape 33º45.935'S 26º20.016'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 12 Woody Cape to 33º45.935'S 26º20,016'E Permit Rocky Point at the Great Fish River mouth
33º29.642'S 27º08.580'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 13 Rocky Point at the Great Fish River mouth to 33º29.642'S 27º08.580'E Kei River Mouth
(North Bark) 32º40.589'S 28º23.146'E Permit
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 14 Kei River Mouth (North Bark) to 32º40.589'S 28º23.146'E Rame Head (Coffee Bay Area)
31º48.249'S 29º20.968'E Permit
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 15 Rame Head (Coffee Bay Area) to 31º48.249'S 29º20.968'E South Sand Bluff Lighthouse
(Port St Johns area) 31º19.652'S 29º57.660'E Permit
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 16 South Sand Bluff Lighthouse (Port St Johns area) 31º38.077'S 29º33.135'E Permit to
Margate 30º51.602'S 30º22.412'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 17 Margate to 30º51.602'S 30º22.412'E Permit Green Point Lighthouse (Scottburgh)
30º14.919'S 30º46.607'E
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 18 Green Point Lighthouse (Scottburgh) to 30º14.919'S 30º46.607'E Tugela River (North Bank)
29º13.308'S 31º30.288'E Permit
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 19 Tugela River (North Bank) To Richards Bay 29º13.308'S 31º30.288'E (North Breakwater)
28º48.336'S 32º05.88'E Permit
_________________________________________________________________________
AREA 20 Richards Bay (North Breakwater) to 28º48.336'S 32º05.88'E Cape Vidal Area 28º08.844'S
32º33.198'E Permit
_________________________________________________________________________
To assist applicants in the furnishing of information the following factors need to be taken into
account:
1. Access to suitable Department of Transport certified and fully operational motorized vessel with
certification to carry passengers is a prerequisite. Applicants must have local knowledge of the sea
and coastal conditions.
2. Applicants must either serve as the skipper or guide of the vessel. The guide must be adequately
qualified with appropriate knowledge of whales.
3. Applicants must be willing to cooperate with the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
to achieve both the conservation and development objectives.
94

4. Applicants must be willing to sign an agreement to abide by a prescribed Code of Conduct. Further
to the above, it is proposed to issue up to 4 permits for sea kayak operations. Sea kayak operators
are invited to apply and to specify the size of the proposed operation. The following areas are
proposed: 1) Berg River mouth - Cape Columbine 1 Permit 2) Three Anchor Bay - Camps Bay 1
Permit 3) Sandy Bay - Slangkop Lighthouse 1 Permit 4) Simon's Town - Cape Point 1 Permit
Applicants are expected to provide a detailed CV together with four copies which shall include the
following information: 1) ID no. or company number where applicable, 2) Shareholding; and 3) Names
and ID no's of nominees, where applicable. Applicants are further encouraged to comment on the
above factors and may offer additional information if they so desire. The closing date for applicants is
14 days after publication of this notice. Applications received after the closing date will not be
considered. As previous applications will not be taken into consideration, interested persons are
advised to reapply. Applications must be forwarded to the Chief director: Sea Fisheries, Private Bag
X2, Roggebaai, 8012.
95

13. APPENDIX 4: NOTIFICATION OF PERMITS (2002)
GENERAL NOTICE NOTICE 1171 OF 2002
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
INVITATION TO APPLY FOR PERMITS TO OPERATE A WHALE WATCHING BUSINESS FROM
A VESSEL IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT, 1998
(ACT NO. 18 OF 1998)
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism hereby announces for general information that
it is the intention of the Honourable Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to allocate a total of
26 permits to operate a Boat-based Whale Watching business from a vessel in terms of Section 13 of
the Marine Living Resources Act, 1998 (Act No. 18 of 1998) for a period of 4 years. Interested
persons are hereby invited to apply for the following areas:
Interested person are hereby invited to apply for the following areas:
BOAT-BASED WHALE WATCHING AREAS:
NB: ALL POSITIONS ARE BASED ON THE NAVIGATION FORMAT WGS84
In all cases the boundaries are defined, on the West Coast up to Slangkop Lighthouse by a line due West (true bearing)
through the given position, Cape Point up to Woody Cape by a line drawn due South (true bearing) through the given position
and on the East Coast up to Cape Vidal by a line drawn due east (true bearing) through the given position. No commercial
whale or dolphin watching vessel may enter a closed area.
AREA DESCRIPTION LATITUDE LONGITUDE
AREA LAMBERT'S
BAY
Olifants River Mouth (Northern Boundary)
to Cape Deseada (Southern Boundary)
31°42.0000'S
32°19.0632'S
18°11.2000'E
18°19.1766'E
1 Permit
AREA ST HELENA
BAY
Cape Deseada (Northern Boundary) to
Cape St Martin (Southern Boundary)
32°19.0632'S
32°42.8300'S
18°19.1766'E
17°55.367'E
1 Permit
CLOSED AREA
BETWEEN ST
HELENA BAY AND
SALDANHA BAY
Cape St Martin (Northern Boundary) to
North Head Lighthouse, Saldanha Bay
(Southern Boundary)
32°42.83'S
33°03.00'S
17°55.367'E
17°54.750'E
SALDANHA BAY
AREA
North Head Lighthouse, Saldanha Bay
(Northern Boundary) to Dassen Island
Lighthouse (Southern Boundary)
33°03.000'S
33°25.917'S
17°54.750'E
18°05.417'E
1 Permit
CLOSED AREA
BETWEEN
SALDANHA BAY AND
CAPE TOWN AREA
Dassen Island Lighthouse (Northern
Boundary) to Robbesteen Seal Colony
(Southern Boundary)
33°25.917'S
33°38.667'S
18°05.417'E
18°24.133'E
CAPE TOWN AREA Robbesteen Seal Colony (Northern
Boundary) to Slangkop Lighthouse
(Southern Boundary)
33°38.667'S
34°08.900'S
18°24.133'E
18°19.270'E
1 Permit
CLOSED AREA
BETWEEN CAPE
TOWN AND
SIMONSTOWN AREA
Slangkop Lighthouse (Northern Boundary)
to Cape Point Lighthouse (Eastern
Boundary)
34°08.900'S
34°21.333'S
18°19.27'E
18°30.00'E
96

SIMONSTOWN AREA Cape Point Lighthouse (Western
Boundary); the Eastern Boundary is a line
drawn south through waypoint 1.
34°21.333'S
34°04.620'S
18°30.00'E
18°36.00'E
1 Permit
GORDON'S BAY
AREA
East of a line drawn due south (true
bearing) through (WP1) (Western
Boundary). The Eastern boundary is a line
due south (true bearing) through Cape
Hangklip lighthouse.
34°04.620'S
34°23.199'S
18°36.000'E
18°49.662'E
1 Permit
CLOSED AREA
WITHIN SIMONSTOWN
AREA: SAND RIVER
MOUTH TO MILLERS
POINT RUNNING 1
NAUTICAL MILE
OFFSHORE
Inshore of a line joining the following
waypoints:
Sand River Mouth (Land) (Waypoint 1) 34°06.35'S 18°28.60'E
Sand River Mouth (Offshore) (Waypoint 2) 34°07.20'S 18°29.00'E
Off Glencairn quarry (Waypoint 3) 34°09.10'S 18°27.70'E
Roman Rock Lighthouse (Waypoint 4) 34°10.86'S 18°27.65'E
Off Boulders Beach (Waypoint 5) 34°12.50'S 18°28.80'E
Off Millers Point, I nm (Waypoint 6) 34°13.90'S 18°29.80'E
Millers Point (Land) (Waypoint 7) 34°13.90'S 18°28.55'E
CLOSED AREA
BETWEEN
GORDON'S BAY AND
OVERBERGSTRAND
AREA
Cape Hangklip Lighthouse (Western
Boundary) to Die Mond (Eastern
Boundary)
34°23.199'S
34°20.668'S
18°49.662'E
19°00.00'E
OVERBERGSTRAND
SUBAREA 1
Die Mond due south (Western Boundary)
to the West of a line joining the following
waypoints (Eastern Boundary):
34°20.668'S 19°00.00'E 1 Permit
The Westcliff Beacon (Waypoint 1) 34°25.782'S 19°13.768'E
Offshore 1 Sopiesklip (Waypoint 2) 34°29.65'S 19°16.80'E
Offshore 2 Sopiesklip (Waypoint 3) 34°33.3108'S 19°11.8194'E
And a line drawn due South (True bearing)
from waypoint 3
CLOSED AREA
(BETWEEN
OVERBERGSTRAND
SUBAREA 1 AND
OVERBERGSTRAND
SUBAREA 2) WALKER
BAY WHALE
SANCTUARY
OVERBERGSTRAND
SUBAREA 2
Inshore of a line joining the following
waypoints:
The Westcliff Beacon (Waypoint 1) 34°25.782'S 19°13.768'E
Offshore 1 Sopiesklip (Waypoint 2) 34°29.65'S 19°16.80'E
Sopiesklip onshore (Waypoint 3) 34°27.199'S 19°20.119'E
East of a line (Western Boundary) joining
the following waypoints:
Sopiesklip onshore (Waypoint 1) 34°27.199'S 19°20.119'E
Sopiesklip offshore 1 (Waypoint 2) 34°29.65'S 19°16.80'E
Sopiesklip offshore2 (Waypoint 3) 34°29.7234'S 19°16.7022'E
Sopiesklip offshore 3 (Waypoint 4) 34°33.3108'S 19°11.8194'E
And a line drawn due South (True bearing)
from waypoint 4 and the the Eastern
Boundary is a line due South (true bearing)
through Danger Point Lighthouse
1 Permit
97

OVERBERGSTRAND
ROVING AREA 3
(ALTERNATING
WEEKLY BETWEEN
SUBAREA 1 AND
SUBAREA 2)
The third (roving) Overbergstrand permit
holder will operate withion Subarea 1 and
subarea 2 alternately, fo0r a period of 1
(ONE) week within each subarea. This
alternating timetable is to be stipulated and
will run for the entire period of the permit.
Transit from Hermanus Harbour to
Overbergstrand subarea 2 is to be by
means of a no-stopping transit corridor
(see below).
34°37.769'S 19°18.133'E 1 Permit
NO STOPPING
TRANSIT CORRIDOR
FOR ROVING PERMIT
3 TO
OVERBERGSTRAND
BBWW SUBAREA 2
CLOSED AREA
WITHIN
OVERBERGSTRAND
SUBAREA2: DIE
KELDERS TO
GANSBAAI HARBOUR
Transit corridor from Hermanus Harbour to
Overbergstrand subarea 2:
Within the boundaries of a line joining the
following waypoints:
The Westcliff Beacon (Waypoint 1) 34°25.782'S 19°13.768'E
Offshore 1 Sopiesklip (Waypoint 2) 34°29.65'S 19°16.80'E
Offshore 2 Sopiesklip (Waypoint 3) 34°29.7234'S 19°16.7022'E
Onshore Hermanus Harbour (Waypoint 4) 34°25.8534'S 19°13.6716'E
Inshore of a line joining the following
waypoints:
Die Kelders (Waypoint 1) 34°33.28'S 19°21.927'E
Offshore Die Kelders, 1 nm (Waypoint 2) 34°32.60'S 19°20.90'E
Offshore New Harbour Gansbaai, 1nm 34°34.60'S 19°19.400'E
(Waypoint 3)
New Harbour Gansbaai (Waypoint 4) 34°35.118'S 19°20.488'E
KLEINBAAI AREA Danger Point Lighthouse (Western
Boundary) to Quoin Point Lighthouse
(Eastern Boundary)
34°37.769'S
34°46.802'S
19°18.133'E
19°38.384'E
1 Permit
CLOSED AREA
(BETWEEN
KLEINBAAI AND
STRUISBAAI/ARNISTO
N AREA)
Quoin Point Lighthouse (Western
Boundary) to Cape Agulhas Lighthouse
(Eastern Boundary)
34°46.802'S
34°49.758'S
19°38.384'E
20°00.579'E
STRUISBAAI/
ARNISTON AREA
CLOSED AREA
(BETWEEN
STRUISBAAI/ARNISTO
N AND MOSSELBAY
AREA)
Cape Agulhas Lighthouse (Western
Boundary) to Skipskop onshore (waypoint
1) and then extending due south (true
bearing) through waypoint 1.
The Western boundary Skipskop onshore
to Dana Bay, Pinnacle Point (Eastern
Boundary)
34°49.758'S
34°34.938'S
34°34.938'S
34°12.534'S
20°00.579'E
20°21.8898'E
20°21.8898'E
22°05.486'E
1 Permit
MOSSELBAY AREA Dana Bay, Pinnacle Point (Western
Boundary) to Groot Brak River mouth
(Eastern Boundary)
34°12.534'S
34°03.396'S
22°05.486'E
22°14.443'E
1 Permit
CLOSED AREA
(BETWEEN
MOSSELBAY AND
KNYSNA AREA)
Groot Brak River mouth (Western
Boundary) to Gericke Point (Eastern
Boundary)
34°03.396'S
34°02.248'S
22°14.443'E
22°45.842'E
KNYSNA AREA
Gericke Point (Western Boundary) to 2nm
West of Robberg Peninsula (Eastern
Boundary on land)
34°02.248'S
34°06.203'S
22°45.842'E
23°00.096'E
1 Permit
98

PLETTENBERG BAY
AREA
The Western Boundary is a line extending
due South (true bearing) from waypoint 7
(on land) 2nm West of Robberg Peninsula
34°06.203'S 23°21.000'E 1 Permit
CLOSED AREA 1
(WITHIN THE
PLETTENBERG BAY
BBWW AREA) -
ROBBERG
PENINSULA CLOSED
AREA
CLOSED AREA 2
(WITHIN THE
PLETTENBERG BAY
BBWW AREA) -
MILLIONAIRES MILE
CLOSED AREA
WITHIN
PLETTENBERG BAY
INSHORE CLOSED
SUBAREA A (ROVING
PERMIT AREA
ALTERNATING
WEEKLY BETWEEN
SUBAREA A AND
SUBAREA B)
WITHIN
PLETTENBERG BAY
INSHORE CLOSED
SUBAREA B (ROVING
PERMIT AREA
ALTERNATING
WEEKLY BETWEEN
SUBAREA A AND
SUBAREA B)
CLOSED AREA
(BETWEEN
PLETTENBERG BAY
AND PORT
ELIZABETH AREA)
The Eastern Boundary is a line drawn due
South (True bearing) through Nature's
Valley (on land)
Inshore area is closed within the
boundaries of the waypoints 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 6
and 7:
Waypoint 1: 1nm North of Robberg
Peninsula (on land)
33°59.399'S
34°04.992'S
23°32.236'E
23°22.343'E
Waypoint 2: 1nm offshore Robberg Beach 34°04.937'S 23°22.524'E
Waypoint 3: 1nm offshore Robberg
Peninsula
Waypoint 4: 1nm offshore Robberg
Peninsula
Waypoint 5: 1nm offshore Robberg
Peninsula
Waypoint 6: 1nm offshore Robberg
Peninsula
Waypoint 7: (On land) 2nm west of
Robberg
The inshore area is closed within the
boundary of waypoints 1, 2, 8, 9, 10:
1nm North of Robberg Peninsula (on land)
(Waypoint 1)
34°05.283'S
34°06.446'S
34°07.634'S
34°07.634'S
34°06.203'S
34°04.992'S
23°24.695'E
23°25.981'E
23°25.981'E
23°21.096'E
23°21.096'E
23°22.343'E
1nm offshore Robberg Beach (Waypoint 2) 34°04.937'S 23°22.524'E
1nm offshore Beacon Beach (Waypoint 8) 34°03.758'S 23°24.100'E
1nm offshore (Waypoint 9) 34°02.860'S 23°23.545'E
(on land) (Waypoint 10) 34°02.130'S 23°23.486'E
From the 1st June each year, the two
BBWW permit holders will operate inshore
areas A & B alternately, for a period of 1
(one) week. This alternating timetable is to
be stipulated and to run to the end of the
Southern Right Whale BBWW season
(30th November)
The inshore area is closed within the
boundaries of waypoints 10, 9, 11, 12:
(on land) (Waypoint 10) 34°02.130'S 23°22.486'E
1nm offshore (Waypoint 9) 34°02.860'S 23°22.545'E
1nm offshore (Waypoint 11) 34°01.595'S 23°26.170'E
(on land) (Waypoint 12) 34°00.498'S 23°26.176'E
The inshore area is closed within the
boundaries of waypoints 12, 11, 13, 14,
15:
(on land) (Waypoint 12) 34°00.498'S 23°26.176'E
1nm offshore (Waypoint 11) 34°01.595'S 23°26.170'E
1nm offshore (Waypoint 13) 34°01.224'S 23°29.571'E
1nm offshore (Waypoint 14) 34°00.509'S 23°32.775'E
(on land) (Waypoint 15) 33°59.399'S 23°32.236'E
The Western Boundary is a line drawn due
South (true bearing) through Nature's
Valley (on land) to Cape Recife (Eastern
Boundary).
33°59.399'S
34°01.731'S
23°32.236'E
25°42.043'E
PORT ELIZABETH
AREA
Cape Recife (Western Boundary) to
Woody Cape (Eastern Boundary)
34°01.731'S
33°45.935'S
25°42.043'E
26°20.016'E
1 Permit
99

WOODY CAPE TO
ROCKY POINT AREA
Woody Cape (Western Boundary) to
Rocky Point at the Great Fish River mouth
(Northern Boundary)
33°45.935'S
33°29.642'S
26°20.016'E
27°08.58'E
1 Permit
EAST LONDON AREA
Rocky Point at the Great Fish River mouth
(Southern Boundary) to Kei River mouth,
North Bank (Northern Boundary)
33°29.642'S
32°40.589'S
27°08.58'E
28°23.146'E
1 Permit
TRANSKEI AREA
Kei River mouth, North Bank (Southern
Boundary) to Rame Head, Coffee Bay
area (Northern Boundary)
32°40.589'S
31°48.249'S
28°23.146'E
29°20.968'E
1 Permit
PORT ST JOHNS
AREA
Rame Head, Coffee Bay area (Southern
Boundary) to South Sand Bluff Lighthouse,
Port St Johns area (Northern Boundary)
31°48.249'S
31°19.652'S
29°20.968'E
29°57.66'E
1 Permit
SOUTH SAND BLUFF
TO MARGATE AREA
South Sand Bluff Lighthouse, Port St
Johns area (Southern Boundary) to
Margate (Northern Boundary)
31°19.652'S
30°51.602'S
29°57.66'E
30°22.412'E
1 Permit
MARGATE TO
SCOTTSBURGH AREA
Margate (Southern Boundary) to Green
Point Lighthouse, Scottburgh (Northern
Boundary)
30°51.602'S
30°14.919'S
30°22.412'E
30°46.607'E
1 Permit
DURBAN AREA Green Point Lighthouse, Scottburgh
(Southern Boundary) to Tugela River,
North Bank (Northern Boundary)
30°14.919'S
29°13.308'S
30°46.607'E
31°30.288'E
1 Permit
TUGELA RIVER TO
RICHARDS BAY AREA
Tugela River, North Bank (Southern
Boundary) to Richards Bay, North
Breakwater (Northern Boundary)
29°13.308'S
28°48.336'S
31°30.288'E
32°05.88'E
1 Permit
ST LUCIA TO CAPE
VIDAL AREA
Richards Bay, North Breakwater (Southern
Boundary) to a position 7nm North of Cape
Vidal (Northern Boundary)
28°48.336'S
28°07.482'S
32°05.88'E
32°33.392'E
1 Permit
SODWANA BAY AREA N5 beacon, Red Cliffs (Southern
Boundary) to N3 beacon approximately
11km north of Ngoboseleni stream,
Sodwana Bay (Northern Boundary)
27°43.056'S
27°26.837'S
32°37.592'E
32°42.143'E
1 Permit
Applicants must note the following:
1. An applicant must be a South African person who is –
(a) a South African citizen in terms of the South African Citizenship Act, 1995 (Act No. 88 of 1995); or
(b) a company registered in terms of the companies Act, 1973 (Act No. 61 of 1973), in which the
majority of the shareholders are South African citizens; or
(c) a Close Corporation in terms of the Close Corporation Act, 1984 (Act No .69 of 1984), of which the
majority of members are South African citizens; or
(d) a trust in which
(i) the majority of trustees, having the controlling power, are South African citizens; or
(ii) a majority of the beneficial interests are held by South African citizens.
2. In considering applications full information and documentary proof where necessary is
required regarding the following –
(i) whether or not the applicant owns or has access to a suitable vessel for boat-based whale
watching and which is licensed by SAMSA to perform such an activity;
(ii) whether or not the applicant exhibits the necessary experience and technical ability to perform
such an activity in an efficient and safe manner;
100

(iii) the extent to which the applicant provided proof of capital or access thereto in order to cover the
operational expenses required;
(iv) the willingness of the applicant and/or its operators to comply with the code of conduct for
responsible Boat-based Whale Watching and to supply the necessary data in the manner required by
the Senior Manager: Resource Management; and
(v) whether the applicant and/or its operators have contravened the provisions of the Marine Living
Resources Act, 1998 (Act No. 18 of 1998) and the Regulations promulgated thereunder;
(vi) the applicant's and/or its operators' suitability to act as skipper and/or guide on board the
nominated vessel;
(vii) adequate public liability insurance must be demonstrated;
(viii) the applicant and/or its operators is/are registered Satour guides;
(vix) the degree to which the applicant can promote the eco- tourism activity.
3. Vessels carrying five persons or less require a skipper / guide only. Boats carrying more
than five persons and up to fourteen persons need at least one qualified guide on board in
addition to the skipper. Boats carrying fourteen persons or more on board require two guides
on board in addition to the skipper.
4. Skippers are required to hold a valid skippers ticket with the necessary SAMSA ratings to
carry passengers. The guides and the skipper need to have completed the training module
'Whale Watching Theory for Boat-based Whale Industry". In addition to the theory, the skipper
needs to have completed his or her practical on "approaches".
5. Application forms will be available at the Cape Town office of the Executive Manager: DEAT,
Branch: Marine and Coastal Management Private Bag X2, Roggebaai, 8012, or the Seventh
Floor, Foretrust Building Martin Hammerschlag Way, Foreshore, Cape Town. (Ms N
Abdurahman, telephone: (021) 402 3381).
6. The original application form and 2 copies must reach the Cape Town office of the
Department (attention : Ms N Abdurahman) on or before the closing date.
7. The closing date for applications is 21 calender days after publication of this notice. No
applications received after 16:00 on the closing date will be considered.
8. No faxed or late applications will be considered.
9. The application fee is R55-00 (Fifty-five rand), which is non- refundable.
101

14. APPENDIX 5: ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE WHALE
RESOURCE
The whale resource was scored in terms of quality for boat-based whale watching by whale experts
(Dr Peter Best and Simon Elwen). This involved devising indices of sighting probability for each of the
three most common whale species, a diversity index, and an overall quality index, as follows.
Sighting Probability Index:
1. very poor, sightings highly unlikely ever
2. poor, sightings unlikely or rare, but are seasonal (e.g. SRW on upper east coast)
3. animals will be seen in season, but numbers vary and behaviour and numbers might vary within the
season
4. good, animals quite likely to be seen within season, but not guaranteed sighting
5. excellent, animals likely to be seen on 100% of trips within season, sightings close to shore
Diversity Index: Includes other species e.g. minke, sperm.
1. Whale density generally low and only 1 species of whale ever likely to be seen
2. Only one likely to be targeted or only one at at time, but a 2nd species also likely in area
3. Two species of large whale likely to be seen, either within a trip or with equal probability if searched for
4. Three or more species of whale possible throughout the year
5. Multiple species of whale possible and likely
Overall Whale watching Quality Index
1. Generally poor, few whales even in season, exposed ocean
2. BBWW possible, but whale density not always predictable
3. Good BBWW in season, but limited out of season, almost one species exclusively.
4. Excellent BBWW in season, sightings can be almost guaranteed, but a limited season and low diversity
5. Good to excellent whale watching in season with two possible species AND a long season (~9 months) or
year round low density sightings
NOTE: 5 is not necessarily BETTER than 4 - see comments in Table.
Sighting probability ratings were done on the basis of personal experience, existing count data and
logbook data. Scores, and some explanatory comments, are given in the following table
102

Table I. Rating of the whale resource for different areas of the country.
Area Name Southern
Right
Humpback Bryde's 7 Diversity
Index
Overall
Whale
watching
Quality
Index 22
1 Lambert's Bay Area 3 4 1 2 9 2 23
2 St Helena Bay Area 5 4 1 3 10 5 24
3 Saldanha Bay Area 4 4 1 3 11 5 24
4 Cape Town Area 4 3 1 3 12 5 24
5 Simonstown Area 4 3 3 3 13 4 25
6 Gordon's Bay Area 4 3 3 3 13 4 25
7 Overbergstrand Sub area 1 5 3 3 3 13 4
8 Overbergstrand Sub area 2 5 3 3 3 4
9 Overbergstrand Roving Area 3 5 3 3 3 4
10 Kleinbaai Area 5 3 3 3 4
11 Struisbaai/ Arniston Area 5 3 4 2 14 4
12 Mossel Bay Area 4 3 4 2 3
13 Knysna Area 3 1 4 3 4 3 15 3
14 Plettenberg Bay Area 5 4.5 4 4 5 16 5
15 Port Elizabeth Area 4.5 2 4.5 5 4 5 16 5
16 Woody Cape to Rocky Point Area 3 4.5 3 3 17 3 26
17 East London Area 3 4.5 6 3 3 18 3 26
18 Transkei Area 2 5 3 4 19 4
19 Port St Johns Area 2 5 3 8 4 19 4
20 South Sand Bluff to Margate Area 2 5 3 3 20 4 27
21 Margate to Scottsburgh Area 2 5 3 3 20 4 27
22 Durban Area 2 5 3 3 20 4 27
23 Thukela River to Richards Bay 2 5 2 2 21 4 27
Area
24 St Lucia to Cape Vidal Area 2 5 1 2 4 27
25 Sodwana Bay Area 2 5 1 2 4 27
Notes: 1 SRW: density much lower along straight exposed coastlines, than in the bays on either side. 2 Density lower than in
Walker Bay and Plettenberg Bay but still good and increasing rapidly. 3 Whales are seasonal but will still come past in two
peaks: June-July and Nov-Jan. 4 Category 5 in Sept-Nov, but only 4 to 5 in Jul, Aug, Dec, Jan due to dual migration peaks.
5
Category 4 to 5 in June-Jul and Dec-Jan, only rated 4 between that due to dual migration peaks. 6 Migration stream becomes
stronger as you move up the coast to the East. 7 BW on the South coast (False Bay to Port Elizabeth) are not seasonal, but
largely resident. On the lower East Coast (Woody Cape - Durban) they are seasonal, being seen during the Sardine Run (late
Mar-May, variable) but very seldom outside that season. 8 BW: from here and East are likely to be seasonal over a short (and
variable) period of the Sardine Run (Mar-Jun). Numbers will be much reduced outside this period. 9 SRW: low to medium
density in season. HW: low to medium density in season. 10 SRW: high density in season; long season. HW: medium density.
11
SRW: reasonable density in season; long season. HW: medium density in season. 12 SRW reasonable density in season; long
season. HW: low density in season. 13 SRW: high density. HW low -medium density in season. BW: almost year round in low
density if you look for them but slightly seasonal. 14 SRW: high density in season. Occasional HW in season. Occasional BW
all along South coast. 15 SRW and HW can be seen in low density. Occasional BW. 16 SRW and HW: good in season. BW:
almost year round. Occasional Minke. 17 HW: medium density in season. BW: low density year round; higher with Sardine Run.
SRW: low to medium in season. 18 HW: medium to high density in season. BW: low density year round, higher with Sardine
Run. SRW: low to medium in season. 19 HW: good density. BW: in season. SRW: low in season. Potential to see Sperm
whales offshore due to narrow shelf. 20 HW: high density in season. BW: with Sardine Run. SRW: low in season. 21 HW: high
density. SRW: very low density. BW: very rare. 22 This is difficult to rate as it is not possible to say whether it is better to have
one species guaranteed for 5 months every day (e.g. HWs on the east coast) or, to have a slightly lower density for almost 9
months of the year with sightings of a second species (SRWs and HWs on lower West Coast). 23 SRW: low density. HW: low
density. 24 Long season of SRW and HW. 25 SRW: low density. HW: reasonable density, migrating past in two peaks. 26 Whole
of False Bay. SRW: good in season. HW: low in season. 27 HW: very good over the whole East Coast, but a limited season
and a low diversity north of Durban (no BW).
Additional note: MCM felt that the rating for Southern Right may have been overestimated for Simonstown, Gordons Bay,
Struisbaai, Plettenberg Bay and Port Elizabeth.
103

15. APPENDIX 6. STATUS OF BOAT-BASED WHALE WATCHING IN
SOUTH AFRICA – STATEMENT BY SABBWWA, JANUARY 2005
SABBWWA has been in existence for over 7 years, since the first Boat-based Whale Watching
Permits were granted by Marine & Coastal Management (MCM) in 1998. The current status of the
industry as monitored by the Association, is as follows:
1. Boat-based Whale Watching, after an initial trial period, has proven to be sustainable and has
tremendous growth potential provided the industry problems can be overcome.
2. South Africa has some of the best whale watching opportunities in the world. Yet, in term of other
countries, we do not even come close to generating their turnover. These are some of the
reasons:
a) Despite ratification on establishment by Mr Valli Moosa (Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism), MCM continue to ignore or bypass SABBWWA as representative of the industry.
b) The ‘SA Whale Route’, under MTN sponsorship, put whale watching on the map for South
Africa. Although still very much active, MCM do not recognize the ongoing contributions to the
industry of the Whale Route, SABBWWA and COMET Corporation.
c) Unless funding is offered, MCM do not attend or send local representation to the SABBWWA
Annual General Meetings.
d) Certain members of MCM have made statements to International Representatives that
SABBWWA and the Whale Route are ineffective and/or do not exist.
e) Boat-based Whale Watching is allowed only on award of a Permit by MCM. However, there
are now more Non-permit Operators than Permit Operators.
f) There is no regulation of the industry and illegal whale watching operators are still on the
increase. It is illegal to approach close to whales without a Permit or to swim with dolphins in
SA Coastal waters – yet Operators without Permits continue to advertise, both locally &
internationally, close encounter whale watching and, (along the Natal Coast), ‘Swim with
Dolphin’ experiences. MCM do not stop them or prosecute them.
g) The Boat-based Whale Watching (BBWW) Permits are never issued on time. Some years they
have been nearly 12 months late.
h) BBWW annual Permit fees are high. In return for this fee, MCM are supposed to conduct
whale research, provide banners/flags & logbooks for the operators and regulate the industry.
This does not happen – there are no banners/flags or log-books available, and there has
never been any feedback about research.
i) Permit holders are expected to submit monthly log-books to MCM for statistical purposes.
MCM are supposed to combine these figures and submit them back to the operators on a
regular basis for use in marketing, long term planning etc. The log-books are submitted, but no
feedback or information is available from MCM.
j) Twelve months ago, MCM undertook to change the Act to enable easier enforcement,
regulation and prosecution. SABBWWA were to be consulted during the drafting of these
changes. So far there has been no such action by MCM.
k) Seven years ago the industry was awarded with 13 Permits. Today there are only 9 Permit
Holders actually operating, which means the industry has regressed. Of these legal operators,
only about 40% make a profit out of Whale Watching.
l) The three-year Permits that were granted are expiring at the end this year, yet there is still no
indication from MCM as to what the future holds. Growth, investment and development of the
industry is being stifled.
m) The existing SABBWWA members have made every effort to benefit and/or incorporate local
communities in their businesses. In general the industry now averages around 46% black
empowerment.
n) SABBWWA / COMET have made numerous offers to assist MCM in regulating the industry,
Permit awards and administrative functions. These offers have been rejected.
3. The industry has reached the stage where it is more beneficial not to hold a Permit than to have
one. It can no longer grow and develop without proper MCM / DEAT support, and certainly cannot
function effectively with the current situation. Any business that is constantly threatened with
losing it’s Permit to operate will never grow and reach it’s full potential.
4. Clearly MCM have mis-managed the entire process over the past seven years, and a solution
needs to be found. The industry can grow and can generate the same business as other
countries, but not under the current administration.
31st January 2005
104