Final Technical Report - ACP Fish II

"Strengthening Fisheries Management inACP Countries"Final Technical ReportElaboration of the Management Plan for Hake – NamibiaCU/PE1/MZ/10/005Region: SADC RegionCountry: NamibiaMarch 2011A project implemented by:Project Funded by the European Union.“This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union.The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of NFDS Africa andcan in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.”“The content of this document does not necessarily reflect theviews of the concerned governments”

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ NamibiaTable of contentTable of content ................................................................................................................................................... 2List of acronyms and abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 31 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 42 Issues raised regarding the Terms of Reference .......................................................................................... 43 Set up and members of the Technical Team ............................................................................................... 44 Proposed work plan and delivery of ToR .................................................................................................... 54.1 Key milestones ...................................................................................................................................................... 65 Results of document review and consultations ........................................................................................... 76 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................................ 87 Annexes ..................................................................................................................................................... 97.1 Terms of reference ................................................................................................................................................ 97.2 Institutions and individuals consulted .................................................................................................................. 107.3 Interim Technical Report ..................................................................................................................................... 137.4 Draft hake management plan .............................................................................................................................. 147.5 Consulatative meeting 15 December 2010 – Presentation ................................................................................... 157.6 Stakeholder meeting 25 to 26 January 2011 – Presentation ................................................................................. 167.7 Validation workshop 17 February 2011– Presentation ......................................................................................... 17Project Funded by the European Union Page 2 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ Namibia1 BackgroundThe purpose of this project is to support the Directorate of Policy, Planning and Economics (DPPE) ofthe Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) in Namibia to devise a Management Plan forthe Namibian Hake Fishery, thus reinforcing its capacity to achieve ecological sustainability andeconomic profitability of the fishery.The results that have been achieved are:a draft Management Plan devised in a participatory manner with input from stakeholdersthrough consultative meetings and a workshop.a final version of the Management Plan devised and validated in a workshop bystakeholders.The consultancy work has been undertaken during two visits to Namibia. The first took place inDecember 2010 and the second during January and February 2011. This final technical reportoutlines the work of the project throughout the period.2 Issues raised regarding the Terms of ReferenceThe expectation of 30 participants in the first consultative workshops in Walvis Bay and Lüderitzworkshops was considered to be too high by the MFMR. This is because the MFMR wanted to focuson industry representation only in those workshops, and the total number of right holders is only 38.3 Set up and members of the Technical TeamThe contract was undertaken by NFDS Africa, who appointed two consultants to conduct the work.Vilhjálmur Wiium (VW) was the team leader and concentrated on the social‐economic aspects of theplan, while Dave Boyer (DB) took primary responsibility for the biological and ecological parts. VWand DB largely worked together, taking joint responsibility for all activities, but on occasion had todivide their efforts to enable consultations with all stakeholders. They were supported by a TechnicalTeam from MFMR, consisting of the following people:Mrs Lucia Haufiku – Technical Team leader and main contact in MFMRMr Paul Kainge – Principal biologist in charge of hake researchMr John Kathena – Principal biologist in charge of hake EAF researchMr Sam Goreseb – EconomistMr Victor Pea – Policy AnalystAs indicated in the ToR, MFMR provided the two consultants with office accommodation in MFMR’sheadquarters in Windhoek.Project Funded by the European Union Page 4 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ Namibia4 Proposed work plan and delivery of ToRThis ACP‐EU Fish II contract was awarded to NFDS Africa on 23 November 2010 the field work beganin Windhoek on the 2 December 2010 for VW and the 6 December 2010 for DB.During the first week of the visit, time was mostly spent on meetings and gathering documents.Dave Boyer proceeded to Swakopmund almost immediately to visit NatMIRC, the national researchcentre for fisheries, as a number of scientists that work on hake would be on leave during thesecond week of the visit. Vilhjálmur Wiium met with numerous people in Windhoek, in someinstances accompanied by Mr Leone Tarabusi, Regional Manager of ACP Fish II.As the first week progressed, analysis of documents and other information began. A draft outline ofthe Management Plan was put together and continuously amended during the week. On Monday,13 December, the draft outline was sent to the Hake Association to allow for preparation before theworkshop scheduled on 15 December. The workshop was attended by 15 stakeholders.The Interim Technical Report was delivered to MFMR on 17 December, following which thePermanent Secretary of MFMR approved the time plan for the second visit of theconsultants.Between the two visits a first draft of the management plan was prepared. It wasdelivered by e‐mail to Mrs Haufiku on 10 January 2011.The second visit followed the approved time plan. VW starting field work again on 11 January and DBon 17 January. On 19 January, a consultative workshop was held in Lüderitz, with 8 stakeholdersattending (note that in Lüderitz there are only three hake right holders).The national workshop took place on 25‐26 January in Walvis Bay, and was opened by theHonourable Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Mr Bernard Esau. The workshop was wellattended, by 43 participants, and many issues were raised. The almost three weeks following thenational workshop were used to incorporate the issues raised there and seek further consultation asneeded. On 15 February, an updated draft Management Plan was distributed.On 17 February, the validation workshop was held in Walvis Bay. As the Honourable Ministerdelivered his annual address to the fishing industry and other stakeholders on that same day, theworkshop had to be shortened from the original plan; from a full day to 4 hours. As a result, theworkshop was intense, but at the same time more focused due to the time constraint. No majorissues were identified as lacking from the management plan and the 32 participants, in general,seemed pleased with the plan.The final draft of the management plan was delivered to MFMR on Thursday 24 February. Therelevant stakeholders had until 10 March 2011 to submit any comments and the final Report andmanagement plan was to be submitted by 24 March 2011. As the MFMR only submitted commentson the 22 March 2011 it was agreed to extend the date for submission to the 31 March 2011. Theconsultants were able to address all comments by the MFMR and are confident that the plan nowaddresses these concerns and provides the Minister with a suitable plan for his needs.The delivery of the Terms of Reference has been completed on schedule.Project Funded by the European Union Page 5 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ Namibia6 Conclusions and recommendationsThe contract was issued at short notice and the time allowed was very short – management plansare usually developed over many months or longer. Despite this the level of stakeholderinvolvement was high and management plan was delivered on time.Senior staff of MFMR were often occupied with a myriad of other tasks and consultation with themwas challenging. The industry and other stakeholders showed considerable interest in the plan andwhile they did not always agree with some of the issues (even amongst themselves) they seemed tobe appreciative of the opportunity to have input.The consultative meetings and workshops provided excellent opportunities for interaction betweenMFMR staff, senior managers from the fishing industry and other stakeholders. It was gratifying tosee how keen everyone was to share their viewpoints and to learn from each other. Of course, therewas disagreement on many issues, however, many gained better understanding of the viewpoints ofothers.In general there was high level of agreement with the goals, objectives and strategies set out in theMP.The project proceeded according to the ToR and the HMP was delivered to the Ministry as planned.Amendments were made to the draft plan following comments from the Ministry.The format of the project was largely effective and could be used for the development ofmanagement plans in other fisheries, both within the Benguela region and elsewhere.Project Funded by the European Union Page 8 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ Namibia7 Annexes7.1 Terms of referenceThe following pages contain the ToR for the work.Project Funded by the European Union Page 9 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

ANNEX II: TERMS OF REFERENCE1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ..................................................................................... 21.1. Beneficiary country ...................................................................................................... 21.2. Contracting Authority ................................................................................................... 21.3. Relevant country background ....................................................................................... 21.4. Current state of affairs in the relevant sector ................................................................ 21.5. Related programmes and other donor activities: .......................................................... 22. OBJECTIVE, PURPOSE & EXPECTED RESULTS ....................................................... 32.1. Overall objective ........................................................................................................... 42.2. Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 42.3. Results to be achieved by the Consultant ..................................................................... 43. ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS ................................................................................................... 43.1. Assumptions underlying the project intervention ......................................................... 43.2. Risks ............................................................................................................................. 44. SCOPE OF THE WORK ...................................................................................................... 44.1. General .......................................................................................................................... 54.2. Specific activities .......................................................................................................... 54.3. Project management ...................................................................................................... 65. LOGISTICS AND TIMING ................................................................................................. 75.1. Location ........................................................................................................................ 75.2. Commencement date & Period of implementation ....................................................... 76. REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................ 76.1. Personnel ...................................................................................................................... 76.2. Office accommodation .................................................................................................. 96.3. Facilities to be provided by the Consultant .................................................................. 96.4. Equipment ..................................................................................................................... 96.5. Incidental expenditure .................................................................................................. 96.6. Expenditure verification ............................................................................................. 107. REPORTS ............................................................................................................................ 107.1. Reporting requirements .............................................................................................. 107.2. Submission & approval of progress reports ................................................................ 108. MONITORING AND EVALUATION .............................................................................. 108.1. Definition of indicators ............................................................................................... 108.2. Special requirements ................................................................................................... 102008 (update 01/12/09) Page 1 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION1.1. Beneficiary countryThe direct beneficiary country for the implementation of this contract is Namibia.1.2. Contracting AuthorityACP FISH II Coordination Unit36/21 Av. de Tervuren5th FloorBrussels 1040Tel: +32 (0)2.7390060Fax: +32(0)2.73900681.3. Relevant country backgroundThe republic of Namibia, bordering Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana and South Africa, has atotal population of 2.2 million leaving in a territory of 825,418 Km 2 . The country has a 1,500 kmcoastline on the Atlantic Ocean and a defined Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 nauticalmiles. The country is classed as “medium” in human developed terms by the UNHD Report (2009),with a GPD per capita (PPP) of US$ 5,155 in 2007, but remains one of the most unequal societiesin the world and almost 30% of the population is considered ‘poor’. The economy consistsprimarily of mining (12.4% of the GDP in 2007), agriculture (9.5%), and manufacturing (15.4%).Fishery’s average contribution to GDP has been estimated to be 6.5 % in the last years. Namibiahad a high unemployment rate, standing at 29.4% in 2008.Namibia is a presidential representative, democratic and multi-party republic since 2004 whenelections were hold and SWAPO retained the presidency, after which elections have been heldregularly. In 2005, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) was established and has since receivedincreasing resources from the budget. The country is therefore considered one of the best countriesin Africa regarding human rights, and one of the most stable.The Government of Namibia embarked in a decentralization process since 1997 when the NationalAssembly unanimously adopted decentralization as a national policy for the promotion of equaleconomic, cultural and socio-economic development and improved public service provision acrossthe country. In 2008 the third National Development Plan (NDP3) was adopted. This plan ispoverty-focused and contains benchmarks consistent with the country’s Poverty ReductionStrategy (PRS) – the National Poverty Reduction Action Programme (NPRAP) of 1998. The PRSfocuses on increasing agricultural production and productivity, promoting community basedtourism, promoting the development of small and medium scale enterprises, strengthening socialsafety nets, and generating labour intensive public works.1.4. Current state of affairs in the relevant sectorNamibia’s coastline falls within the Benguela Current system, one of the most productive habitatsin the world, rich in pelagic and demersal fish. Marine fisheries are exclusively industrial and are amajor contributor to the national economy, with the potential for sustainable yields of up to 1.5million metric tons per year. The demersal fishery is the most valuable fishery in Namibia, andalmost the entire catch is exported. About 90% of the catch is hake, with monkfish making up mostof the remainder. The mid-water fishery for horse mackerel is next in importance. Finally, there is asmaller pelagic fishery with canned sardine as the most valuable product. The value of landingswas N$3,593 in 2007 and direct revenue generated from the sector was US$16 million in 2005. Thetotal employment in the fishing industry has been estimated to be about 13,400 people in 2008, and2008 Page 2 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

the number of people benefiting from fisheries to be 135,000. The country also has a small inlandfisheries sector, mostly in the northern regions of Caprivi, Okavango and in the Zambezi riverbasin, where perennial rivers provide over 1 million hectares of flood-plain wetlands with fisheriespotential of great importance for livelihood and food security. The aquaculture sector is growingfast, providing sound prospects for investment, and playing an important role in alleviatingpoverty, creating employment and enhancing food security.Fisheries in Namibia is under the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) set up in1991, with the mission of strengthening Namibia's position as a leading fishing nation andcontributing towards the achievement of economic, social and conservation goals for the benefit ofthe country. The MFMR has four directorates: the Directorate of Resource Management (DRM),responsible for scientific research and advice; the Directorate of Operation and Surveillance (DOS),responsible for MCS; the Directorate of Policy Planning and Economics (DPPE), responsible forplanning activities, including advice on socio-economic issues for policies and legislation; and theDirectorate of Aquaculture. Namibia also has a National Marine Information & Research Centre(NatMIRC), located in Swakopmund and a Namibian Maritime Fisheries Institute (NAMFI),providing training for professionals of the sector. The level of education of human resources isquite high; however the MFMR lacks high level expertise to support the planning exercise andresearch activities. Moreover, the budget of the ministry is limited, considering the high number ofresponsibilities and tasks to be carried out and the great importance of the sector.Major fisheries policies were set out in December 1991 in a White Paper entitled “TowardsResponsible Development of the Fisheries Sector” written by the Namibia’s Marine ResourcePolicy, later reviewed in 2004. The main objectives of the policy are maintaining an appropriatelegislative, institutional and administrative framework, the conservation and responsiblemanagement of marine resources, the support for domestic catching, processing and marketing, andthe enhancement of participation of Namibians in the sector. The country also has an AquaculturePolicy adopted in 2001, followed by the Aquaculture Strategic Plan in 2004. The MFMR finallydevised a Fisheries Strategic Plan for the period of 2009-2014. The main legal instruments are: theSea Fisheries Act (1992), the Marine Resources Act (2000), the Fisheries and Marine ResourcesAct (2007), the Aquaculture Act (2002), the Inland Fisheries Resources Act (2003), the VesselMonitoring System Regulations (2005) and the Fishermen Investment Trust Act (2006).1.5. Related programmes and other donor activities:The country is currently receiving strong support from the Spanish Agency for InternationalCooperation and Development (AECID), mainly for research and aquaculture. The main ongoingprojects are the following: a) Support to the research programme of the National MarineInformation and Research Centre (NATMIRC); b) Strengthening the capacity of the Ministry ofFisheries and Marine Resources in aquaculture matters in Namibia; c) Support the Namibia FishConsumption Promotion Trust (NFCPT) in its main mission of feeding the most neededcommunities with high quality fish protein and to promote the local consumption of fish by makingit available to Namibians at an affordable price; d) Annual scientific campaigns, aboard theResearch Vessel “Vizconde de Eza”, in marine geology, fisheries and marine biology; e)Supporting the Namibian Standards Institute (NSI) in improving its installations and the training ofits personnel as final beneficiary of the project, f) Technical assistance for the improvement of themaritime and fisheries training levels at the Namibia Marine and Fisheries Institute (NAMFI); andg) Technical assistance programme between Namibia and Vietnam in the aquaculture sector.The Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLEME) programme, a multinational crosssectoralinitiative by Angola, Namibia and South Africa, funded by Global Environment Facility(GEF) is also active in the country. The programme facilitates research aimed at managing theliving marine resources of the Benguela Current in an integrated and sustainable manner and toprotect the marine environment.2008 Page 3 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

In carrying out the assignment, the consultant is expected to liaise with the aforementionedprogrammes or institutions when appropriate, in order to gather relevant information and to ensurecooperation with the projects/programmes and to avoid overlapping of activities. Representativesof the programmes/projects will be also involved in the consultation and validation process, whenrelevant.2. OBJECTIVE, PURPOSE & EXPECTED RESULTS2.1. Overall objectiveThe overall objective of the project of which this contract is a part is to contribute to the sustainableand equitable management of fisheries in ACP regions, thus leading to poverty alleviation andimproving food security. The specific objective of the Programme is to strengthen fisheries sectoralpolicy development and implementation in ACP countries.2.2. PurposeThe purpose of this contract is to support the DPPE of MFMR of Namibia in devising theManagement Plan for the Hake Fishery (MPHF), thus reinforcing its capacity to achieve theecological sustainability and economic profitability of the fishery.2.3. Results to be achieved by the ConsultantThe Consultant will achieve the following results: A draft MPHF is devised in a participatory manner with input from stakeholders throughconsultative meetings and a workshop. A final version of the MPHF is devised and validated in a workshop by stakeholders.3. ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS3.1. Assumptions underlying the project interventionThe need for the elaboration of the MPHF in Namibia has been clearly identified as priority sincethe first needs assessment workshop for Southern African Countries held in Maputo duringNovember 2009. Consultation with Fisheries Administration’s (FA) designated Focal Point (FP)and a visit to the country confirmed this need. The assumption is that the beneficiary state andstakeholders are well aware of the intervention and are prepared to allocate official hours to itsimplementation.Since ACP FISH II is a demand-driven Programme, it is expected that counterpart institutions willtake all measures necessary to ensure the fulfilment of their obligations and responsibilities as setforth under this project. Failure to meet that requirement is likely to result in the project notachieving the expected results.3.2. RisksRisks for implementation of this contract are minimised, since the intervention has been indentifiedin cooperation with the FAs and endorsed by them. However a sudden change in the political will2008 Page 4 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

of the FA and/or Government might negatively affect the assignment’s implementation. To preventsuch a risk the participatory planning approach adopted in the development of this intervention willcontinue throughout the implementation of the assignment, to ensure the full ownership by localstakeholders and the development of activities and methodology that are consistent with the FAsapproaches.4. SCOPE OF THE WORK4.1. General4.1.1. Project descriptionThe demersal hake fishery has distinguished itself for a number of years as the leadingcommercially viable fishery in Namibia. Hake is amongst the most important fisheries resources inNamibia since it represents very relevant sources of income and foreign currency, due to highquantity of exports, mainly to the EU. In 2009 the fishery accounted for 46% of the fisheries’s totalfinal value and 48% of the landed value. Furthermore the fishery, with some 8,000 workersinvolved, is estimated to contribute about 60% of all onshore and offshore employment in thefisheries industry. Namibian hake stocks were depleted to very low levels prior to 1990, sincemany countries were involved in the industry and no control measures were in place. Afterindependence, in 1990, the Namibian government introduced control measures, such as theestablishment of the 200 miles EEZ and the implementation of the Total Allowable Catches (TAC)policy, in order to allow the stocks to recover from the pressure of excessive fishing. TAC levelsare currently kept low enough to promote stock recovery (150,000 tonnes per annum), howeversome concerns remain due to the recent trend in the hake trawl fishery: large catches of small hakeand reported dumping of small fish. The need for the development of a specific management planfor marine resources is provided by both the Marine Resources Policy Paper (MFMR, 2004) andthe Strategic Plan on Fisheries for 2008-2014. Nevertheless, the country has not developed amanagement plan for this fishery, due to the lack of high level specific expertise (i.e fisherieseconomists and fisheries scientists) and to the limited budget of the DPPE.The purpose of this assignment will be therefore to support the DPPE in the process of devising theMPHF. The assignment will involve the delivery of technical assistance to the FA in order todevise the document. The contract implementation will also include the organization andfacilitation of the consultation and validation process to ensure ownership of the project andoutputs by both the administration and the stakeholders.4.1.2. Geographical area to be coveredCountry covered by current contract is Namibia. The consultancy will involve marine fisheriesfocusing on hake related resources.4.1.3. Target groupsTarget groups of the present consultancy will include Namibia’s FA and other relevant governmentagencies that will be supported in their planning and management activities within their mandate.Furthermore, the intervention will directly target the fishing industry as a whole (producers,processors, and traders), that will benefit from the improved management framework to be put inplace. These groups will be involved through the consultations and workshops included in theassignment as well as with required meetings and interviews to ensure meaningful input by keystakeholders.2008 Page 5 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

4.2. Specific activitiesThe Consultants will complete the following tasks:1. Meet, work closely with and refer to the head of MFMR;2. In consultation with FA, establish a project technical team, composed by the experts andthe staff of the FA, which will be involved in the follow up activities and in theelaboration of a work plan for the assignment;3. Collect all relevant background and scientific documents available;4. Identify, collate and evaluate current policy instruments and laws and regulations relevantto the fishery and analyse the existing fisheries institutional framework;5. Make an assessment of the current status of the fishery, analyzing the existing informationand trends, indentifying main potentialities and constraints relevant to the development ofthe hake fishery; active projects by other donors in the country will be assessed as well;6. Support the MFMR in identifying the main technical duties on hake fisheries management– in terms of consolidated data collection and management and the requirements to ensureits continuity – and the specific needs to devising and enforcing the management plan;7. Organize at least one consultative meeting (1 day, 30 participants) in each of the two mainfishing area (Luderitz and Swakopund) in order to ensure meaningful input by keystakeholders (i.e representatives of FA, research institutes, fishing industry, civil societyorganizations)8. Prepare in close collaboration with the technical team the first draft of the MPHF andpresent it in a national workshop for discussion (2 days, 40 participants).9. Carry out further consultative meetings and interviews with stakeholders, if necessary10. Review the MPHF, in consultation with the technical team, so as to include newfindings/recommendations of the workshop, meetings and interviews;11. Present the final version of the MPHF in a national validation workshop (1 day, 40participants);In addition to the reporting requirements mentioned in section 7.1 of these terms of reference, theConsultant is required to prepare the following technical reports in English:i. An Interim Technical Report (ITR). This report will present the findings and conclusionsof the assessment phase, along with the methodology and the work plan to be used tosupport the elaboration of the MPHF. It will be a short document, not exceeding 12 pagesin length, to be submitted to the RFU/CU and FA within 10 days of arriving of experts inthe country;ii.The Final Technical Report (FTR), taking into account changes and comments from theRFU, CU and the FA to be submitted within one month of the Consultant leaving thecountry. A draft FTR will be submitted before the Consultant leaves the country onconclusion of his mission. Comments on the draft FTR may be made by the RFU, CU andthe FA within 14 days. If required, a second draft FTR will be submitted.4.3. Project management4.3.1. Responsible bodyThe Co-ordination Unit of the ACP Fish II Programme, on behalf of the ACP Secretariat isresponsible for managing the implementation of this contract.The ACP Fish II Programme is implemented through the Co-ordination Unit (CU) in Brussels and6 Regional Facilitation Units (RFUs) across the ACP States. The RFU in Maputo, Mozambique,covering ACP Member states in Southern Africa, will closely support implementation of thisintervention and will monitor the execution of this contract pursuant to these terms of reference. All2008 Page 6 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

contractual communications should be addressed in original to the CU and copied to the RFU. Dayto-daysupervision will be carried out by the RFU. For the purposes of this contract, the ACP FishII Programme Coordinator will act as the Project Manager.4.3.2. Facilities to be provided by the Contracting Authority and/or other partiesNot applicable.5. LOGISTICS AND TIMING5.1. LocationThe activities of the assignment will be carried out in Namibia. The Consultant will be based in theWindhoek with field visits to be carried out according to approved work plan.5.2. Commencement date & Period of implementationThe intended commencement date is 15 October 2010 and the period of implementation of thecontract will be five months from this date. Please refer to Articles 4 and 5 of the SpecialConditions for the actual commencement date and period of implementation.6. REQUIREMENTS6.1. Personnel6.1.1. Key expertsAll experts who have a crucial role in implementing the contract are referred to as key experts. Theprofiles of the key experts for this contract are as follows:Key expert 1: Team Leader – Fisheries Resource Planner/EconomistQualifications and skillsA degree or equivalent in a relevant subject area (e.g. Economics, Fisheries Management,Natural Resources Management, Biology, Marine Science)The expert should have a high level of proficiency in written and spoken English.Previous experience as a team leader.General professional experienceMinimum 10 years of international experience in planning and management of projects inmarine fisheries.Excellent communication, report-writing and project management skills.Specific professional experience2008 Page 7 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

Previous experience in drafting marine fisheries management plans or other fisheriespolicy/management tools (Minimum 3 assignments).Previous experience in the region.Minimum 3 years of experience in carrying out consultancy assignments for the EU orother equivalent international development partners.The maximum number of working days for this expert is 55.There will be no missions for this expert.Key expert 2: Fisheries ScientistQualifications and skillsMaster degree or the equivalent in a relevant subject area (e.g. Biology, Marine Science,Natural Resources Management)The expert should have a high level of proficiency in written and spoken English.General professional experienceMinimum 5 year of experience in management of marine fisheries resourcesExcellent communication, report-writing and project management skillsSpecific professional experienceMinimum 3 years of experience in research/assessment of marine fisheries resourcesPrevious experience in the regionPrevious experience in the country is an assetThe maximum number of working days for this expert is 35.There will be no missions for this expert.Indicative number of working days by expert and task:Indicative task Key Expert 1 Key Expert 2NamibiaHomebasedNamibiaPreparatory work 8 4Assessment and information analysis 10 5Stakeholders visits and field work 10 6MPHF drafting 10 6 12Workshop/consultations 6 4Homebased2008 Page 8 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

Briefing, debriefing and FTRpreparation2 3 2 2Total working days per KE 46 9 33 26.1.2. Other expertsNo other experts will be recruited under this contract.6.1.3. Support staff & backstoppingBackstopping and support staff costs must be included in the fee rates of the experts.6.2. Office accommodationOffice accommodation of a reasonable standard and of approximately 10 square metres for eachexpert working on the contract is to be provided by the Beneficiary country, through the FA.6.3. Facilities to be provided by the ConsultantThe Consultant shall ensure that experts are adequately supported and equipped. In particular itshall ensure that there is sufficient administrative, secretarial and interpreting provision to enableexperts to concentrate on their primary responsibilities. It must also transfer funds as necessary tosupport its activities under the contract and to ensure that its employees are paid regularly and in atimely fashion.If the Consultant is a consortium, the arrangements should allow for the maximum flexibility inproject implementation. Arrangements offering each consortium member a fixed percentage of thework to be undertaken under the contract should be avoided.6.4. EquipmentNo equipment is to be purchased on behalf of the Contracting Authority / beneficiary country aspart of this service contract or transferred to the Contracting Authority / beneficiary country at theend of this contract. Any equipment related to this contract which is to be acquired by thebeneficiary country must be purchased by means of a separate supply tender procedure.6.5. Incidental expenditureThe Provision for incidental expenditure covers the ancillary and exceptional eligible expenditureincurred under this contract. It cannot be used for costs which should be covered by the Consultantas part of its fee rates, as defined above. Its use is governed by the provisions in the GeneralConditions and the notes in Annex V of the contract. It covers: Travel costs and subsistence allowances for missions, outside the normal place of posting, to beundertaken as part of this contract. If applicable, indicate if the provision includes costs forenvironmental measures, for example C02 offsetting. The cost of organisation the consultative workshops and field visits including travel (carrental...), accommodation, daily allowance for the participants, and workshop venue cost.2008 Page 9 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

The Provision for incidental expenditure for this contract is EUR 24,900. This amount must beincluded without modification in the Budget breakdown.Any subsistence allowances to be paid for missions undertaken as part of this contract must notexceed the per diem rates published on the Web site:http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/index_en.htm at the start of each such mission.6.6. Expenditure verificationThe Provision for expenditure verification relates to the fees of the auditor who has been chargedwith the expenditure verification of this contract in order to proceed with the payment of furtherpre-financing instalments if any and/or interim payments if any.The Provision for expenditure verification for this contract is EUR 2,500. This amount must beincluded without modification in the Budget breakdown.7. REPORTS7.1. Reporting requirementsPlease refer to Article 26 of the General Conditions. There must be a final report, a final invoiceand the financial report accompanied by an expenditure verification report at the end of the periodof implementation of the tasks. The draft final report must be submitted at least one month beforethe end of the period of implementation of the tasks. Note that these interim and final reports areadditional to any required in Section 0 of these Terms of Reference.Each report shall consist of a narrative section and a financial section. The financial section mustcontain details of the time inputs of the experts, of the incidental expenditure and of the provisionfor expenditure verification.7.2. Submission & approval of progress reportsThree copies of the progress reports referred to above must be submitted to the Project Manageridentified in the contract. The progress reports must be written in English. The Project Manager isresponsible for approving the progress reports.8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION8.1. Definition of indicatorsThe results to be achieved by the consultant are included in section 2.3. Progress to achieving theseresults will be measured through the following indicators:1. Quality of consultants fielded and speed of mobilisation to the relevant country willindicate a positive start to the assignment;2. Identification of issues and problems as recorded in the Interim Technical Report;3. Reported involvement of stakeholders in review/elaboration of policy documents;2008 Page 10 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

4. Number of consultations and workshops carried out;5. Level of attendance at the stakeholder meetings/workshops;6. Number and nature of comments received on the Draft Final Report;7. Respect of project milestones time schedule and reports time delivery.The Consultant may suggest additional monitoring tools during the contract’s duration.8.2. Special requirementsNot applicable.* * *2008 Page 11 of 1108 - BII - Terms of Reference.doc

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ Namibia7.2 Institutions and individuals consultedThe following table lists the people consulted and indicates attendance at workshops, where WS1 isfirst consultative work shop in Walvis Bay, WS2 is the consultative work shop in Lüderitz, NWS is thenational work shop and VWS is the validation workshop. The “Other” column refers to people thatwere personally consulted.Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesWS1 WS2 NWS VWS OtherBernard Esau Honourable Minister √ √Ulitala Hiveluah Permanent Secretary √Anna Erastus Director √ √Peter Amutenya Director √Moses Maurihungirie Director √Lucia Haufiku Deputy Director √ √ √Aina Ipinge Deputy Director √Bonnie Amutse Deputy Director √Steven Ambabi Deputy Director √Titus Iilende Deputy Director √ √ √Graca d'Almeida Deputy Director √Hilda Khoeses‐Bone Deputy Director √Adolf Kaukungwa Snr. Fisheries Inspector √Peter K. Shivute Snr. Fisheries Inspector √Ivory Uirab Chief Fisheries Inspector √ √Jesaya Nambundunga Chief Fisheries Inspector √Stanley Ndara Chief Fisheries Inspector √Desmond Bester Chief Fisheries Inspector √Carola Kirchner Principal Fisheries Biologist √ √ √Jean‐Paul Roux Principal Fisheries Biologist √ √Rudi Cloete Chief Fisheries Biologist √ √ √Kollette Grobler Chief Fisheries Biologist √C. Bartholomea Scientist √ √Hannes Holtzhausen Principal Fisheries Biologist √Anya van der Plas Principal Fisheries Biologist √Stefanus Voges Principal Fisheries Technician √Project Funded by the European Union Page 10 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ NamibiaPaul Kainge Principal Fisheries Biologist √ √Johannes Ithembu Senior Fisheries Biologist √Johnny Kathena Principal Fisheries Biologist √ √Mike Nghipunya Economist √ √Shitenga Ndesheetelwa Economist √ √N. Sheya PA to Minister √Hilma T. Shikongo C.C. √ √Michael Mushimba Pilot √ √O. Haufiku Clerk √Sam Goreseb Economist √ √ √Victor Pea Policy Analyst √ √ √Sesilia Adeigbo Fisheries Inspector √Lucia Mundilo√Fishing IndustryJose Romero Cadilu Fishing √ √Phella Kambanzera Cadilu Fishing √Max Schwieger Corvima/Agatha Bay √ √A.F. Das Neves Demersal Fishing √Silvanus Kathindi Etale √M. T. Amukwa FISHCOR √ √Ronnie Coppin FISHCOR √ √ √ √Herman Theron Hangana Seafood √D. Correia Merlus √ √Jose Lloves Merlus √ √Callie Jacobs Midwater Trawling Assoc. √Ron Wolters Novanam √ √Sam Alfheim Overberg/Rainbow √ √S.P. Kadhula Amoono Pereira Fishing √Antonio Marino Tunacor √ √ √Peya Hitula Tunacor Ibeluga √ √ √ √Wayne HartLarge Pelagic Assoc.Project Funded by the European Union Page 11 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ NamibiaN. Green Namibian Hake Assoc. √K.P. Schroeter Hatutungu Fishing √ √H. Westhuizen Hangana Seafood √ √Hugo Burger Marco Fishing √José Calaca Blomeha Fishing √Juan Magdalena Vera Novanam √Matthew Hambuda Possession Fishing √Other stakeholdersH. Tjikurunda Min. Environment and Tourism √ √Elwin Kruger Fisheries Observer Agency √Elizabeth H. Kamperuka Min. of Agricult., Water and Forestry √Steven Marais First National Bank √Hafeni Kathindi Fisheries Observer Agency √R.V. Hamunyela Fisheries Observer Agency √ √John Paterson Albatross Task Force √ √ √Rod Braby NACOMA √Lister Tawana NAFAU √ √Cornelius Bundje NAMFI √Barbara Paterson NNF/UCT √ √Tore Stromme EAF‐Nansen Project √Werner Thesen Bank Windhoek √Stephan Haenisch Bank Windhoek √L. Imbuwa EU Delegation, Windhoek √Hashali Hamukuaya BCC √Nico Willemse BCLME √Frikkie Botes BCLME √ √E. Suero AECID √Leone Tarabushi ACP‐Fish II √Project Funded by the European Union Page 12 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ Namibia7.3 Interim Technical ReportThe following pages contain the Interim Technical Report.Project Funded by the European Union Page 13 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

NFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 1

Table of contentTable of content ................................................................................................................................................... 2List of acronyms ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 32 Issues raised regarding the Terms of Reference .......................................................................................... 33 Approach to the assignment ...................................................................................................................... 44 Set up and members of the Technical Team ............................................................................................... 45 Proposed work plan and delivery of ToR .................................................................................................... 45.1 Key milestones ............................................................................................................................................... 55.2 Proposed expert time allocation ...................................................................................................................... 56 Results of initial document review and consultations ................................................................................. 66.1 People consulted ............................................................................................................................................ 77 Key issues to be addressed ......................................................................................................................... 88 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................................ 89 Annex: Draft outline of Management Plan for Hake Fishery ........................................................................ 910 Annex: Presentation from workshop ‐ Walvis Bay Dec. 2010 .................................................................... 12List of acronymsAcronymFull nameBCCDBDPPEDRMMFMRNatMIRCNHATACToRVWBenguela Current CommissionDavid BoyerDirectorate of Policy, Planning and EconomicsDirectorate of Resource ManagementMinistry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesNational Marine Information and Research CentreNamibian Hake AssociationTotal allowable catchTerms of ReferenceVilhjálmur WiiumNFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 2

1 BackgroundThe purpose of this project is to support the Directorate of Policy, Planning and Economics (DPPE) ofthe Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) in Namibia to devise a Management Plan forthe Namibian Hake Fishery, thus reinforcing its capacity to achieve ecological sustainability andeconomic profitability of the fishery.The results that will be achieved are:a draft Management Plan is devised in a participatory manner with input from stakeholdersthrough consultative meetings and a workshop.a final version of the Management Plan is devised and validated in a workshop bystakeholders.The consultancy work will be undertaken during two visits to Namibia. The first one has taken placein December 2010 and the second one during January and February 2011. This interim technicalreport outlines the progress made during the first visit.2 Issues raised regarding the Terms of ReferenceFollowing some delays in the approval of the tender, NFDS Africa signed the contract for thepreparation of the Management Plan for the Namibian Hake Fishery on 23 November 2010. Sincethe project had been scheduled to start on 15 October, work began immediately to adjust the workplan. Time constraints of Vilhjálmur Wiium (VW), the Team Leader, meant that field work has to becompleted by the end of February 2011. Therefore, the project needed to begin in 2010 toaccommodate these constraints. Following discussions with the MFMR and their keenness to moveahead quickly with the project agreement was met that the work would start in the beginning ofDecember.Vilhjálmur Wiium was able to begin work on 2 December as he was already in Namibia due to aprevious assignment and was able to start on very short notice. David Boyer (DB), the Key Expert 2,left the UK on 4 December, arriving the following day in Windhoek.In the Terms of Reference (ToR) it is specified that two workshops involving all stakeholders were tobe held during the first visit, one in Walvis Bay and the other in Lüderitz. During the first meetingwith MFMR, it came clear that MFMR felt that this would not be a wise strategy. In MFMR’s view itwas of utmost importance to bring the hake fishing industry to the first workshops. The otherstakeholders identified would be invited for the national two day workshop that are scheduled forthe second visit. In Lüderitz there are only three hake right holders out of a total of 38. Since a trip toLüderitz will take three days and some of these companies have representatives in Walvis Bay,MFMR advised that the initial workshop be held in Walvis Bay. To that workshop all hake rightholders were invited through the Hake Association, also those from Lüderitz.It was decided to take the advice of MFMR. Hence in the beginning of the second visit in January2011, the team will go to Lüderitz and have the one day workshop then with key stakeholders, alsomaking use of the trip to visit as many of the other stakeholders as possible.Apart from the adjustment of the Lüderitz workshop to the second visit, the project followed theToR as planned.NFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 3

3 Approach to the assignmentDuring the first week of the visit, time was mostly spent on meetings and gathering of documents.Dave Boyer went to Swakopmund to visit NatMIRC, the national research centre for fisheries, as anumber of scientists that work on hake would be on leave during the second week of the visit.Vilhjálmur Wiium met with numerous people in Windhoek, in some instances accompanied by MrLeone Tarabusi, Regional Manager of ACP Fish II.As the first week progressed, analysis of documents and other information began. A draft outline ofthe Management Plan was put together and continuously amended during the week. On Monday,13 December, the draft outline was sent to the Hake Association to allow for preparation before theworkshop scheduled on 15 December.4 Set up and members of the Technical TeamThe Technical Team from MFMR consists of the following people:Mrs Lucia Haufiku, who leads the Technical Team and is the main contact in MFMRMr Paul KaingeMr John KathenaMr Sam GoresebMr Victor PeaAs indicated in the ToR, MFMR provided the two consultants with office accommodation in MFMR’sheadquarters in Windhoek.5 Proposed work plan and delivery of ToRAs seen in the “Key milestones” section below, the project follows the initial work plan quite closely.All tasks scheduled for the first visit were completed on time, apart from the consultative visit toLüderitz. The reason was explained above in Section 2. The Lüderitz visit is scheduled to take placeduring the first week or so of the second visit.The delivery of the Terms of Reference is therefore on schedule.The second visit will begin on 12 January 2011 and continue until 24 February. The main milestonesduring that visit are:Lüderitz stakeholders workshop, scheduled for 18 January.National consultative workshop, scheduled for 25 and 26 January.Validation workshop, scheduled for 17 February.Delivery of the final draft of the Management Plan and draft of the Final Technical Report,scheduled for 24 February.NFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 4

5.1 Key milestonesMilestone New proposed date CommentsAward of contract 23 November CompletedMobilisation of team 2 and 4 December CompletedInception meeting with MFMR 6 December CompletedDB to Swakopmund to interviewscientists8 and 9 December CompletedOutline of the MPHF 13 December CompletedStakeholder Consultation in WalvisBay and Lüderitz15 DecemberPartially completed, Lüderitz consultation scheduled forJanuaryThe Interim Technical Report (ITR) December 17th CompletedFirst draft of Management PlansubmittedSecond visit by teamStakeholder consultation in Lüderitz10 January Before second visitVW ‐ 12 JanuaryDB – 17 January18 JanuaryNational consultative workshop25‐26 JanuaryTwo day workshop to get comments on the draftManagement Plan from a wide range of stakeholdersValidation workshop 17 February One day workshop with stakeholders for final commentsFinal draft of Management PlandeliveredDraft Final Technical Report (FTR)Deadline for comments from RFU,CU and FA24 February24 February10 March 14 days from delivery of Draft FTRFinal Technical Report 24 March One month after consultants leave Namibia5.2 Proposed expert time allocationTeam leaderVilli WiiumKey Expert 2Dave BoyerLocationMonth 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 cumulativeDec‐10 Jan‐11 Feb‐11 Mar‐11 totalIn country 12 15 19 0 46December 2 to 12 to 14, 17 to 1 to 4, 7 to 11,Working days 3, 21, 24 to 28 14 to 18, 21 toin country and 6 to 10 and 31 January 24 Februarytravel days And 13 to 17 Plus 11 Jan Plus 25 Febtravel day travel dayHome‐based 3 4 2 9In country 12 11 10 33Working daysin country andtravelDecember 6 to10And 13 to 17plus travel dayson 4‐5 Dec and18‐19 Dec17 to 21 and 24to 28Plus 15‐16 Janas travel day14 to 18 Feband 21 to 24FebPlus 25 traveldayHome‐based 2 2Total days 26 30 33 90NFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 5

6 Results of initial document review and consultationsMuch information is available on the Namibian hake fishery, but it is widely dispersed. This isparticularly the case for biological research, although in recent years quite a bit of work has alsogone into defining and understanding the wider ecosystem. While copious reports are available,these are not always easy to access. Also, people in MFMR do not always seem aware of reports anddocuments. This seems to underline the necessity for having a MP.The available documents will provide good guidance for many of the objectives, strategies andperformance indicators.The consultative meeting with industry provided many insights into the fishing operations. Theindustry in general accepts the management system that the Namibian government has in place.There seems general support for the biological research done by NatMIRC and acceptance of theresults coming from the research. On many issues the industry seems to share the same opinions asMFMR. The industry was also supportive of a management plan to bring together the variouspolicies, strategies, goals and objectives.A few issues surfaced during the consultations that need to be looked at carefully during the secondvisit: The process in which changes in the TAC are determined is not clear to the industry. ThatDirectorate of Resource Management (DRM) has a policy of not changing the TACrecommendations by more than 10% each year seemed not widely known.Lack of transparency and consistency regarding quota allocations.While the industry understands the 30/70 division of the hake TAC into freezer quota andwet fish quota, many in the industry feel that the implementation of this policy should bemodified.Lack of action against those fishing companies that do not pay the quota fees on time is anissue that many of the industry people felt strongly about.Access to investment funds is difficult and a few ideas were discussed in that regard.On some of these issues, the consultants will need guidance from senior staff of MFMR, even fromthe Honourable Minister.NFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 6

6.1 People consultedMinistry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesB. Esau, Hon. Minister U.M. Hiveluah, Permanent SecretaryA. Erastus, Director DPPE L. Haufiku, Deputy Director DPPET. Ilende, Deputy Director, DRM N. Sheya, PA to MinisterHannes Holtzhausen, DRMAnya van der Plas, DRMStefanus Voges, DRMPaul Kainge, DRMJohnny Kathena, DRMJean‐Paul Roux, DRMMike Nghipunya, DPPEKollette Grobler, DRMGraca D’Almeida, DRMCarola Kirchner, DRMJohannes Ithembu, DRMRudi Cloete, DRMSamuel Goreseb, DPPEVictor Pea, DPPEShitenga NdesheetelwaHake Fishing IndustryA. Moriño, Chairman, Hake Association P. Hitula, Tunacor GroupWayne Hart, Large pelagic fisheryJ. Romero, Cadilu FishingS. Alfheim, Cato & Overberg Groups N. Green, Hake AssociationM. Schwieger, Agatha Bay & NFA K.P. Schroeter, Hatutungu FishingR. Wolters, Novanam H. Westhuizen, Hangana SeafoodOthersL. Imbuwa, EU Delegation, Windhoek H. Hamukuaya, BCCE. Suero, Spanish Agency for InternationalDevelopment CooperationJohn Paterson, Albatross Task ForceBarbara Paterson, BCC (Consultant)NFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 7

7 Key issues to be addressedDifferent sections of the Ministry are frequently unaware of work done by others and many reportssubmitted for approval by senior management remain untouched for years. For example, whilesome biological goals (reference points) are defined, none seem to have been given officialrecognition. Similarly, ecological goals have also been defined (for hake and most othercommercially harvested species), but these are yet to be recognised. Hopefully, by including thesegoals in the MP will ensure that they are finally given the recognition which they deserve andrequire.As stated in Section 6, some issues surfaced during the consultative meeting that need specialattention. These tend to be issues where no explicit policy has been formed. During the second visit,MFMR must give the consultancy team some guidance on how to tackle these.8 Conclusions and recommendationsIn general the project is progressing as planned. The delay in awarding the project cased sometimetabling problems, however, these were solved thanks to good cooperation with MFMR and MrTarabusi from the ACP Fish II project. The consultancy team would like to express thanks to seniormanagement of MFMR and the ACP Fish II team for their understanding of the issue.The consultancy team would like to make note to the ACP Fish II team that it would have beenhelpful and resource effective to have had some preparatory days to work from their head office,prior to the first visit. It would then allow consultants to hit the ground running and not use fielddays for work that could be more easily and effectively have been completed in the head office. Itwould also be helpful to have been able to spend a larger proportion of the time allocated to followup on work in‐between the visits with supplementary analysis and preparations as well as at the endof the final visit.NFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 8

9 Annex: Draft outline of Management Plan for Hake Fishery13 December 2010PurposeA prosperous and industrialised Namibia, developed by her human resources, enjoying peace,harmony and political stability, is the Vision of Namibia for 2030 (Office of the President, 2004).Namibia’s sub‐vision on marine resources states that by 2030 Namibia’s marine species and habitatssignificantly contribute to the economy without threatening biodiversity or the functioning ofnatural ecosystems, in a dynamic external environment.This Management Plan sets goals, objectives and management measures for the hake fishery thatwill bring Namibia closer to the above sub‐vision during the years 2011‐2015 (Note: time frame stillto be decided). The Plan sets out a formal harvest strategy for the fishery that includes a set ofdecision rules to guide management of the fishery in each fishing season.The Management Plan brings together in one document the relevant legal and policy documentsthat currently govern the management of the hake resource. In the development of this Plan, nosignificant changes in policy were made. However, the Plan highlights some issues that may needreview and further evaluation during the Plan’s time frame.Access to the hake resource comes with certain obligations for the right holders regarding theproper management and care of the resource. Where appropriate, these obligations are set out inthis Management Plan.While the sustainability of the hake resource is the fundamental goal of the Plan, additional goalsrelate to establishing a conducive business environment promoting economic efficiency; to ensuringthat benefits from the hake fishery accrue to a wide number of Namibian nationals; and to providingcost effective and participatory management of the hake fishery.The Management Plan sets out key performance indicators to allow for assessment of whethermanagement objectives are being achieved.IntroductionNOTE: This chapter will include a description of the hake fishery, its current status, andproblems and other issues that are relevant to this plan. The chapter will be readybefore the national workshop planned towards the end of January 2011. It is expectedto be 3-4 pages.Management goals and objectivesThe mission of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources is to strengthen Namibia’s position asa leading fish producing nation and contribute towards the achievement of our economic, social andconservation goals for the benefit of all Namibians.This mission statement forms the backbone of the goals and objectives outlined in this ManagementPlan. In the Plan the more general laws, regulations and policies of the Namibian governmentrelating to marine resources are also used to form specific objectives for the hake fishery.In addition, Namibia is a party to a number of international legal instruments and agreements. Theseinclude the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, the United Nations Fish StocksAgreement, 1995, the FAO Compliance Agreement, 1993, the Code of Conduct for ResponsibleNFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 9

Fisheries and its associated International Plans of Action. These have all been considered in thedevelopment of this Management Plan.NOTE: The following goals and objectives were discussed at the consultative meeting withindustry on Wednesday 15 December 2010. The consultants are currently revising theseaccording to these discussions, and information in the numerous documents that dealwith these issues. The chapter will be also be ready for circulation before the nationalworkshop.Goal 1: Responsible and sustainable utilisation of the hake resource1. Biomass increasing (increasing survey catch rate) towards optimal levela. Set TACs in line with established target and limit reference pointsb. Use gear and area restrictions to avoid catches of juveniles2. Sufficient biological and environmental information existsa. Collect fisheries statistics through logbooksb. Maintain the annual hake surveyc. Collect appropriate environmental data for proper assessment3. Minimise bycatchesa. Set the appropriate level of bycatch fees to encourage minimum bycatches4. Taking due account of transboundary nature of one hake stocka. Promote research within the Benguela Current Commissionb. Enter into discussions with the Government of South Africa5. Meeting international obligationsa. Prepare the appropriate National Plans of Action in accordance with the Code ofConduct6. Ecosystem approach7. Environmental changesGoal 2: Conducive business environment for the hake industry established to promote economicefficiency1. Appropriate fleet – type, size, age etc.2. Quota allocation3. Profitable industryGoal 3: Hake fishery benefits a large number of Namibians, directly and indirectly1. Quota fees provide revenue to governmenta. Timely payments of quota feesb. Regular review of the levels of quota fees2. Hake industry provides maximum employment to Namibiansa. Wet fish versus freezerb. Quota fee structure encourages on shore processingNFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 10

c. MFMR and hake industry provide support to NAMFI3. Increased Namibian ownership in the hake industrya. Preference given to Namibians when rights are allocatedb. Quota fee structure encourages Namibian ownership4. Corporate Social Responsibilitya. Hake industry supports community projects (in all regions?)b. MFMR and industry provide training on HIV/AIDSc. Hake industry gives support to the Fish Consumption Promotion Trust.Goal 4: Cost effective and participatory management of the hake fishery1. MFMR strives to minimise costs of providing the required management servicesa. Determine the annual real cost of management, research and compliance for thehake fisheryb. Seek ways to reduce management costs while maintaining the appropriate level ofmanagement2. Consultations with stakeholders and wider communitya. Seek stakeholders input when preparing management plansb. Communicate management arrangements to stakeholders and the wider community3. Industry contributes to research and compliancea. Industry pays levies into the Marine Resources Fund and the Fisheries ObserversFundb. Commercial surveys4. Management measures are complied witha. Fisheries Observers and InspectorsManagement measuresReview of the management planBibliographyOffice of the President, 2004. Prosperity, Harmony, Peace and Political Stability: Namibia Vision2030. Policy Framework for Long‐Term National Development. Government of Namibia.MFMR, various years. Annual Report. Government of Namibia.MFMR, 2004. Namibia’s Marine Resource Policy: Towards Responsible Development andManagement of the Marine Resources Sector. Government of Namibia.FAO, 1998. International Fisheries Instruments with Index. United NationsUnited Nations, 1997. The Law of the Sea.NFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 11

2010/12/18IntroductionManagement Plan for theNamibian Hake FisheryConsultative MeetingPelican Bay Hotel15 December 2010• Who are we?– Villi Wiium– Dave Boyer– ACP Fish 2– NFDS Africa –Botswana based consultingfirm• Aim: Develop a Management Plan forHake Fishery before end of February• Today: Your input and advicePurpose with MP• Long term vision• MP aims to reach vision• Sets specific goals, objectives andstrategies• Defines performance indicators• Formal document setting out harveststrategy• Based on current legislation and policiesCode of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Article 7.3.3)“Long-term management objectivesshould be translated into managementactions, formulated as a fisheriesmanagement plan or othermanagement framework.”Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Article 7.3.3)HAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN“Long-term management objectives should be translated intomanagement actions, formulated as a fisheries managementplan or other management framework.”FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries (Fisheries Management)“…. the process of agreeing on a MP for a fishery, including the need forconsultation and, where appropriate, cooperative decision‐making. The needfor periodic review of MPs is stressed.” (Abstract)”“….MPs should be drawn up for all fisheries. These MPs will then serve as areference and information source for the management authority and allinterested groups, summarizing the current state of knowledge on theresource, its environment and the fishery, and reflecting all decisions andactions agreed upon during the course of consultations ….” (Section 4.1 (ii))…1

2010/12/18HAKE MANAGEMENT PLANPreparation for developing the HMPIIIIIIIVPreparation for developing the HMPWhere are you now?Deciding on appropriate management goalsWhere do you want to be?Developing the HMPHow are you going to get there?Planning to implement, evaluate and reviewthe HMPHow will you know you are there?1 PurposeAgree the overall purpose of FMP2 DefineDefine the hake fishery3 Management approach4Describe the management approachStakeholder analysisCarry out a stakeholder analysis and decide howstakeholders are going to involvedDeciding on appropriate managementgoals5Situation analysisCarry out a situation analysis and list the problems faced bythe hake fishery6 GoalsDecide on the biological, ecological, social and economicgoals needed to achieve this purpose7 ObjectivesDefine objectives for each goal8 Management standardsAgree the management standards – the reference pointsand indicators for each objective – how these are going tobe measured to show objectives are being achieved9Developing the HMPManagement measuresDecide the management measures – the actions that needto be taken to achieve the objectives10 Control rulesAgree a set of decision control rules stating whichmeasures and which levels of measures will be applieddepending on the status of the fishery11 ResourcesDecide what resources that will be needed to put the FMPinto actionPlanning to implement, evaluate andreview the HMP12 ImplementationMake an action plan to implement the FMP13 MonitoringMonitor regularly how the FMP is achieving the objectives14 ReviewingReview the FMP every few yearsDeciding on appropriate managementgoals5Situation analysisCarry out a situation analysis and list the problems faced bythe hake fishery6 GoalsDecide on the biological, ecological, social and economicgoals needed to achieve this purpose7 ObjectivesDefine objectives for each goal8 Management standardsAgree the management standards – the reference pointsand indicators for each objective – how these are going tobe measured to show objectives are being achieved2

2010/12/18Goals• Goal 1: Responsible and sustainable utilisationof the hake resource• Goal 2: Conducive business environment forthe hake industry established to promoteeconomic efficiency• Goal 3: Hake fishery benefits a large number ofNamibians, directly and indirectly• Goal 4: Cost effective and participatorymanagement of the hake fisheryGoal 1 ‐ Resource1. Biomass increasing (increasing survey catch rate)towards optimal levela. Set TACs in line with established target and limit referencepointsb. Use gear and area restrictions to avoid catches of juveniles2. Sufficient biological and environmental informationexistsa. Collect fisheries statistics through logbooksb. Maintain the annual hake surveyc. Collect appropriate environmental data for properassessment3. Minimise bycatchesa. Set the appropriate level of bycatch fees to encourageminimum bycatchesGoal 1 ‐ Resource4. Taking due account of transboundary natureof one hake stocka. Promote research within the Benguela CurrentCommissionb. Enter into discussions with the Government ofSouth thAfrica5. Meeting international obligationsa. Prepare the appropriate National Plans of Actionin accordance with the Code of Conduct6. Ecosystem approach7. Environmental changesGoal 2: Economic efficiency1. Appropriate fleet – type, size, age etc.2. Quota allocation3. Profitable industryGoal 3: Social dimension1. Quota fees provide revenue to governmenta. Timely payments of quota feesb. Regular review of the levels of quota fees2. Hake industry provides maximum employment to Namibiansa. Wet fish versus freezerb. Quota fee structure encourages on shore processingc. MFMR and hake industry provide support to NAMFI3. Increased Namibian ownership in the hake industrya. Preference given to Namibians when rights are allocatedb. Quota fee structure encourages Namibian ownership4. Corporate Social Responsibilitya. Hake industry supports community projects (in all regions?)b. MFMR and industry provide training on HIV/AIDSc. Hake industry gives support to the Fish Consumption PromotionTrust.Goal 4: Save money ‐ participation1. MFMR strives to minimise costs of providing the requiredmanagement servicesa. Determine the annual real cost of management, research andcompliance for the hake fisheryb. Seek ways to reduce management costs while maintaining theappropriate level of management2. Consultations with stakeholders and wider communitya. Seek stakeholders input when preparing management plansb. Communicate management arrangements to stakeholders andthe wider community3. Industry contributes to research and compliancea. Industry pays levies into the Marine Resources Fund and theFisheries Observers Fundb. Commercial surveys4. Management measures are complied witha. Fisheries Observers and Inspectors3

2010/12/18Further consultations• Would like to establish contact withthose interested in contributing• National workshop – likely 26‐27 January• Validation i workshop kh – likely l 17 February4

NFDS Africa ‐ Interim Report for the Namibian Hake Management Plan Page 13

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ Namibia7.4 Draft hake management planThe following pages contain the draft hake management plan as distributed seperately.Project Funded by the European Union Page 14 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

Republic of NamibiaMinistry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesDRAFTManagement Plan for the Namibian Hake Fisheryfor the period May 2011 to April 201431 March 2011

ForewordThe hake fishery is the most valuable fishery in Namibia. It generates almost half of thefinal value of all Namibian fisheries. The fishery is the largest provider of employmentin the fishing industry and generates a considerable amount of foreign currency.It is vital for Namibia as a nation to manage this fishery properly. In particular we needto ensure the responsible and sustainable utilisation of the resource itself. Without thehake, there will be no industry, no employment and no benefits to Namibia.This management plan brings together in one document all of the relevant policies forthe hake fishery. It explains how we will manage the hake fishery during the next fewyears and identifies where we would like the fishery to be in the future. The plan outlinesthe goals we have for this fishery, using Vision 2030 as its basis, and sets objectivesand strategies for us to achieve these goals.The development of this management plan represents a new beginning in our fisheries.Most of our policies were created when Namibia was a new nation. When we had nolocal fishing industry to speak of. At that time we needed to set in place a fisheries managementsystem that would create a Namibian fishing industry. An industry that wouldcontribute significantly to the Namibian economy, both through income and employment.An industry that would bring valuable foreign exchange into our country. This wehave successfully done. We have put in place a management system in Namibian fisheriesthat is praised by most outside observers, and the hake fishery is no exception.In spite of our success, the time has come to look carefully at our policies and reviewthem. There is no doubt that the current policies have achieved many of the objectivesthat were set out in the beginning. In fact, I am of the opinion that given the situation atIndependence, these policies were excellent. However, 21 years have passed since ourIndependence. We are not the same country as back then. The hake industry is not thesame industry as back then. We have developed. Therefore, the policies that have servedus well in the past may not be the best policies for our future.The development of the management plan for the hake fishery represents the first step inour assessment of our policies as they relate to the hake fishery. It will give us an overviewof the fishery, allowing us to identify gaps in our policies and areas that may needadjustment and improvement.Once the plan is in place we will begin assessment of the policies. Are they in factachieving what we want them to achieve? Once we have answered that question we willlook for ways to improve our policies and our management plan. This is a long termprocess. In fact it will never end as our environment constantly changes.________________________________Honourable Bernard EsauMinister of Fisheries and Marine Resourcesi

AcknowledgementsThe preparation of this management plan for the Namibian hake fishery was funded bythe 9 th cycle of the European Development Fund (EDF) “Strengthening Fisheries Managementin ACP Countries” (9 ACP RPR 12), known as ACP-Fish II, projectCU/PE1/MZ/10/005. The compilation of the plan was undertaken by Vilhjálmur Wiiumand Dave Boyer on behalf of NFDS Africa.We would like to acknowledge the cooperation and interest from the Namibia Hake Associationand other members of the fishing industry, and the many other stakeholderswho participated in the workshops and consultative meetings. The Honourable Ministergave personal guidance which we appreciate greatly. Personnel of the Ministry of Fisheriesand Marine Resources provided valuable inputs, guidance and information to theconsultants. In particular, our thanks go to Anna Erastus, Titus Iilende, Carola Kirchnerand the Technical Team from the Ministry: Lucia Haufiku, Paul Kainge, John Kathena,Sam Goreseb and Victor Pea.ii

Table of contentsForeword .......................................................................................................................................................... iAcknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... iiList of tables .................................................................................................................................................... vList of acronyms ............................................................................................................................................. vi1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Current situation ...................................................................................................................................... 22.1 Biology of hake .............................................................................................................................. 22.1.1 Distribution ........................................................................................................................... 22.1.2 Spawning ............................................................................................................................... 22.1.3 Diet and predation ................................................................................................................. 22.1.4 Growth ................................................................................................................................... 32.1.5 Influence of the physical environment on hake ..................................................................... 32.2 Stock Assessment........................................................................................................................... 42.3 TACs and harvesting levels ........................................................................................................... 52.4 The fishing industry ....................................................................................................................... 52.4.1 Holders of exploitation rights ................................................................................................ 52.4.2 Fishing fleet ........................................................................................................................... 62.4.3 Employment .......................................................................................................................... 62.4.4 Hake bycatch in other fisheries ............................................................................................. 72.4.5 Bycatch of other species in hake fishery ............................................................................... 72.4.6 Processing and marketing ...................................................................................................... 72.5 Current management measures ...................................................................................................... 73 Management goals and objectives ........................................................................................................... 9Goal 1: Responsible and sustainable utilisation of the hake resource ....................................................... 11Objective 1.1: Recovery of the hake stocks to the MSY level ............................................................. 11Objective 1.2: Management measures based on best available scientific evidence ............................. 12Objective 1.3: New assessment of the hake stocks ............................................................................... 13Objective 1.4: Sufficient institutional capacity, skills, equipment and funding ................................... 15Goal 2: Minimal impact on the ecosystem ................................................................................................ 17Objective 2.1: Maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functioning ........................................................ 17Objective 2.2: Minimise bycatches including incidental mortality of non-commercial species .......... 18Objective 2.3: Mitigate habitat and substrate damage .......................................................................... 19Objective 2.4: Sufficient institutional capacity, skills, equipment and funding ................................... 19Goal 3: Stable business environment established conducive to the promotion of economic efficiency ... 20Objective 3.1: The hake industry can respond effectively to external changes. ................................... 20Objective 3.2: Appropriate investments are undertaken by the industry. ............................................. 22Objective 3.3: Promote increased level of value addition by hake fishing and processing companies. 24Goal 4: Hake fishery benefits a large number of Namibians, directly and indirectly ............................... 25Objective 4.1: Quota fees provide revenue to government .................................................................. 25Objective 4.2: Hake industry provides sustainable and quality employment to Namibians................. 26Objective 4.3: Increased Namibian ownership in the hake industry .................................................... 26Objective 4.4: Support to community initiatives encouraged. .............................................................. 27Goal 5: Efficient, cost-effective and participatory management of the hake fishery ................................ 28Objective 5.1: MFMR provides the required management services cost-effectively. .......................... 28Objective 5.2: Consultations with stakeholders and wider community. ............................................... 28Objective 5.3: Industry contributes to research and compliance. ......................................................... 29Objective 5.4: Management measures are complied with. ................................................................... 29Summary of research and reviews ............................................................................................................ 30iii

4 Summary of management measures ...................................................................................................... 314.1 Total allowable catch ................................................................................................................... 314.2 Limited entry into fishery ............................................................................................................ 314.3 Quota system ................................................................................................................................ 314.4 Fees .............................................................................................................................................. 314.5 Technical measures ...................................................................................................................... 314.6 Management capacity .................................................................................................................. 325 Response of management ...................................................................................................................... 336 Review of the management plan ........................................................................................................... 347 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 35iv

List of tablesTable 1: TACs and landings of hake, 1990-2009 (tonnes).............................................................................. 5Table 2: Allocation of hake quotas to others (tonnes)..................................................................................... 6Table 3: Hake as bycatch, 2007-2010 (tonnes) ............................................................................................... 7Table 4: Exports of hake, country shares 2007-2009 ...................................................................................... 7Table 5: Strategies for Objective 1.1: Recovery of the hake stocks to MSY level ....................................... 12Table 6: Strategies for Objective 1.2: Management measures based on best available scientific evidence.. 13Table 7: Strategies for Objective 1.3: New assessment of the hake stocks ................................................... 14Table 8: Strategies for Objective 1.4: Sufficient institutional capacity, skills, equipment and funding ....... 16Table 9: Strategies for Objective 2.1: Maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functioning ............................. 17Table 10: Strategies for Objective 2.2: Minimise bycatches including incidental mortality of noncommercialspecies ................................................................................................................... 18Table 11: Strategies for Objective 2.3: Mitigate habitat and substrate damage ............................................ 19Table 12: Strategies for Objective 2.4: Sufficient institutional capacity, skills, equipment and funding ..... 19Table 13: Strategies for Objective 3.1: The industry can respond effectively to external changes............... 22Table 14: Strategies for Objective 3.2: Appropriate investments are undertaken by the industry ................ 23Table 15: Strategies for Objective 3.4: Promote increased level of value addition by hake fishing andprocessing companies ............................................................................................................... 24Table 16: Strategies for Objective 4.1: Quota fees provide revenue to government ..................................... 25Table 17: Strategies for Objective 4.2: Hake industry provides sustainable employment to Namibians ...... 26Table 18: Strategies for Objective 4.3: Increased Namibian ownership in the hake industry ....................... 27Table 19: Strategies for Objective 4.4: Support to community initiatives encouraged. ................................ 27Table 20: Strategies for Objective 5.1: MFMR provides required management services cost-effectively ... 28Table 21: Strategies for Objective 5.2: Consultations with stakeholders and wider community .................. 29Table 22: Strategies for Objective 5.3: Industry contributes to research and compliance ............................ 29Table 23: Strategies and performance indicators for Goal 5 objectives ........................................................ 29Table 24: List of research and reviews .......................................................................................................... 30Table 25: Important milestones regarding review ......................................................................................... 34v

List of acronymsBCC Benguela Current CommissionBCLME Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem ProgrammeBENEFIT Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction and Training ProgrammeCPUE Catch per unit effortDOP Directorate of OperationsDPPE Directorate of Policy, Planning and EconomicsDRM Directorate of Resource ManagementEAF Ecosystem approach to fisheries managementFAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United NationsFCPT Fish Consumption Promotion TrustFOA Fisheries Observer AgencyIMP Interim management procedureIQ Individual quotaITQ Individual transferable quotaMCS Monitoring, control and surveillanceMFMR Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesMSY Maximum sustainable yieldNAMFI Namibian Maritime Fisheries InstituteNHA Namibian Hake AssociationNPOA National plan of actionOMP Operational management procedureSADC Southern African Development CommunityTAC Total allowable catchVMS Vessel monitoring systemvi

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources1 Purpose“A prosperous and industrialised Namibia, developed by her human resources, enjoyingpeace, harmony and political stability” is the Vision of Namibia for 2030 (Officeof the President 2004). The sub-vision for marine resources states that by 2030 Namibia’smarine species and habitats “significantly contribute to the economy withoutthreatening biodiversity or the functioning of natural ecosystems, in a dynamic externalenvironment.”This management plan sets goals, objectives and management measures for the hakefishery that should bring Namibia closer to the above sub-vision during 2011-2014.This includes three fishing seasons, from May 2011 to April 2014. The managementplan brings together in one document the relevant legal provisions and policies thatcurrently govern the management of the hake resource. In the development of thisplan, no significant changes in policy were made. However, the plan highlights issuesthat need reviewing and further evaluation during the plan’s time frame and beyond.Access to the hake resource comes with certain obligations for the right holders regardingthe proper management and care of the resource and the environment. Whereappropriate, these obligations are set out in this management plan.While the recovery and long term sustainability of the hake resource is the first priorityof the plan, additional goals relate to ecosystem management; to establishing a stablebusiness environment promoting economic efficiency; to ensuring that benefitsfrom the hake fishery accrue to a wide number of Namibian nationals; and to providingcost effective and participatory management of the hake fishery. Consequently,this plan is an important step in the direction of an ecosystem approach to fisheriesmanagement (EAF). It should be kept in mind that sometimes these goals contradicteach other, in which case compromises need to be made.The plan refers to the hake resource as two separate stocks as one of the importantobjectives during the coming years is to assess and manage the two species separately.This is the first management plan for the hake fishery. It has two main aims. Firstly, tobring together in one plan all the current management measures and policies that applyto the hake fishery. These measures and policies are currently found in differentdocuments, making it hard to obtain an overview of the fishery and its management.Secondly, to identify aspects of the current management measures and policies thatneed attention and perhaps improvement in the coming years. In order to incorporatemany of the management measures discussed in this plan a number of reviews andinvestigations are needed to identify the most appropriate strategies. This is entirely tobe expected and as the plan evolves, particularly at the nominated review dates, morespecific management measures, indicators and time frames will be incorporated.The following section (Chapter 2) briefly describes the status of knowledge of thehake stocks, some important aspects of the industry and the current managementstrategies. Chapter 3, the core section of this document, defines five goals; each goalhaving a number of objectives. These objectives set out several strategies and key performanceindicators to allow for assessment of whether management objectives arebeing achieved. Chapter 4 summarises the main management measures and any newactions that will be required to achieve the defined goals. Chapters 5 and 6 set out thetime frame of the plan, including the review process, and describe the procedure to befollowed if any performance indicators are not being achieved.Hake Management Plan Page 1

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources2 Current situationThis section of the management plan gives a brief synopsis of the current situation inthe fishery, providing a historical background as needed. Much of the biological informationwas taken from MFMR 2010; the data on the fishery coming from the annualreports and the economic model used to calculate the contribution of the fishingsector to the gross domestic product.2.1 Biology of hakeThree species of hake occur in Namibian waters: Cape hake (Merluccius capensis),deep-water hake (M. paradoxus) and Benguela hake (M. polli) 1 . Benguela hake has amaximum total length of 80 cm, but Namibia is at the extreme southern limit of itsdistribution where only much smaller fish occur. The industry has no interest in thisspecies and it is therefore not included in this management plan.2.1.1 DistributionThe two species of commercially important hake occur on the continental shelf inNamibian waters: Cape hake at depths from about 100 m to 350 m, overlapping withthe shallow end of the distribution range of deep-water hake, which occurs mainly atdepths of 300 m to 600 m.Both species occur in Namibian and South African waters, but the degree of stockseparation, if any, is unclear. In particular, it has been suggested that deep-water hakeis shared with South Africa as there is no recent evidence of this species spawning inNamibian waters. The transboundary nature of this species is the subject of a cooperativeresearch project between Namibia and South Africa, previously under BCLMEand BENEFIT and now under BCC.The distribution of Cape hake extends into southern Angola, but the portion of thestock is believed to be small and the impact on the stock of any catches is likely to belimited.2.1.2 SpawningSpawning of Cape hake occurs primarily in winter, mainly between 100 m and 400 mdepending on environmental conditions. Juvenile fish are pelagic, becoming demersalat about 2 years of age (at around 23 cm total length).Deep-water hake has not been recorded spawning in Namibian waters (Kainge et al.2007).2.1.3 Diet and predationHake are piscivorous, feeding on a range of fish species. No data on diet from the pre-Independence period exists, but a comparison between the recent diet of hakes inSouth Africa, where the small pelagic stocks of sardine and anchovy are still abundant,and Namibia show a larger component of small pelagics in South Africa. InNamibia a greater proportion of lower quality fish are eaten, such as gobies. This suggeststhat the diet of Namibia hakes may, historically, have contained more small1 Note that M. capensis and M. paradoxus are sometimes referred to as “shallow-water Cape hake” and“deep-water Cape hake,” respectively.Hake Management Plan Page 2

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resourcespelagics, which with their higher energy content (per gram) may have allowed higherproductivity – faster growth, better survival and higher levels of recruitment.The effects of predation on the hake stocks is largely unknown. This is likely to below for adult hake, being top predators themselves, but juvenile hake are more susceptibleand are known to be preyed on by a range of fish and mammals, including sealsand adult hake (cannibalism).2.1.4 GrowthHake may grow to more than 100 cm in length, although the largest found since trawlsurveys started in 1990 was 92 cm, but hake of up to 112 cm are still being landed bylong-line boats. Both species may live up to 12 years, but few of that age are found intrawler samples. Cape hake and deep-water hake grow at different rates. Males matureearlier than females in both species and have a lower average maximum length and ahigher growth rate.According to the latest trawl survey results (2010), 50% of the Cape hake populationreaches maturity at about 21 cm, as compared to 35 cm for deep-water hake, at 1.7and 2.5 years respectively (but see next paragraph). There is a large amount of annualvariation in growth, possibly caused by feeding conditions or by environmental factors.Growth and maturity may also vary with species abundance.Current age validation research suggests that the age of Cape hake has previouslybeen overestimated and hence growth underestimated. This work still needs to bepeer-reviewed, but if accepted means that Cape hake at least are shorter-lived andfaster growing than reported above (Wilhelm pers. comm.).2.1.5 Influence of the physical environment on hakeA regime shift is believed to have occurred in the northern Benguela during the 1980sand 1990s, at least partially driven by fishing. Very low biomass levels of exploitedfish stocks associated with changes in the transfer of energy between predators andprey may have resulted in a less efficient energy transfer (Cury and Shannon 2004).This is believed to have reduced the productivity of top predators such as hake (Rouxpers. comm.)Being demersal fish the adult portion of the stocks are partially buffered from mostenvironmental anomalies, which generally have the highest impact on the inshore andnear-surface pelagic zone. It is generally accepted that the 1993-1994 low oxygenevent in the central area of the Namibian shelf had a negative effect on both demersaland pelagic fish stocks. While no clear link has been established between the occurrenceof Benguela Niños (warm and saline surface water intrusions) and the productivityof adult hake, pre-recruits were severely affected during the 1995 BenguelaNiño through poor growth and high natural mortality. The impacts of climate changeare currently unknown and various scenarios are possible. These range from a decreasein upwelling, and hence productivity, of the system, through to an increase inupwelling and productivity. An increase in the frequency and severity of adverse conditions,such as Benguela Niño events, is also considered likely. It is probably safe tospeculate that any changes will have severe effects on the Namibian fishing industry,although predicting which sectors will be most affected is difficult.Hake Management Plan Page 3

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources2.2 Stock AssessmentAn important aspect of the current approach to stock assessment is that the two hakespecies are treated as a single stock, since separate data for the two species has onlybeen collected during research surveys since 1990. Catch, and hence the commercialcatch rate data, is not differentiated between the two species, although the proportionof each species, and their length frequency, has been recorded from sampled catchesby on-board fisheries observers since 1997. Given that growth and maturity rates aresignificantly different for the two species this is far from ideal.During the years 1991 to 1996, hake TAC recommendations were based on the biomassestimated by annual combined swept-area/acoustic research surveys. It was assumedthat these surveys estimated the absolute abundance of Namibian hake and arecommended TAC was calculated as 20% of the fishable biomass 2 . This resulted inthe TAC increasing from 60 000 t in 1990 to 170 000 t in 1996.Between 1997 and 2000 TAC recommendations were based on an Interim ManagementProcedure (IMP); this adjusted the recommended TAC up or down dependingon trends in the research survey and the commercial CPUE data. This procedure wasintroduced at a time when there was great uncertainty about the status of the hake resource.This IMP should have been replaced in 2001, but the process of developingand testing a new procedure was not completed. Therefore, the TAC recommendationfor the 2001/02 season was based on an assessment which looked at the effect thatdifferent catch levels were predicted to have on the future state of the stock. Note thatuntil 1999 the hake fishing season followed the calendar year. In 1999 the fishing seasonwas changed, starting on 1 May and ending 30 April the following year.The TACs for the 2002/03 to 2004/05 seasons were based on an Operational ManagementProcedure (OMP). From 2005/06 to 2008/09, the recommended TACs werebased on an age-structured production model with future projections of the stockstatus using various models and assuming different levels of catch. The recommendedannual TAC was 140 000 t in 2006/07, decreasing to 100 000 t by 2009/10, but theactual TACs were set at a constant level of 130 000 t for three seasons.Since 1997 the main population indicators estimated were virgin biomass, currentbiomass, MSY and depletion. Due to the imprecise (and in some cases unreliable)data and different methods used to calculate these, large year-to-year variations inrecommended TACs made decision-making a difficult task. Since 2008, a referenceyear of 1990 has been used as a baseline, this being the first time that reliable data becameavailable. Although, the absolute abundance of the stock in 1990 is unknown, itis well-recognised that the resource was in a critical state at that time.Since 2009 the stock was again evaluated using an age-structured production model.As with the OMP this model integrates all the available reliable information from boththe commercial fishery and the research surveys on the state of resource: historiccatches, indices of abundance, age and length composition data, but calculates thelikely yield, on which TAC recommendations are based. In addition seal scat informationprovides an index of recruitment. Despite the fact that the stock was assessed at2 Note that “fishable biomass” refers to fish larger than 35 cm total length and is a management term.“Spawning biomass”, a biological term, refers to Cape hake larger than about 21 cm and deep-waterhake larger than 35 cm when 50% of the fish reach maturity; these lengths refer to 2010 and vary accordingto environmental and other conditions.Hake Management Plan Page 4

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resourcesbeing around 90% of the 1990 biomass, the TAC was increased to 148 000 in2009/10. 32.3 TACs and harvesting levelsTable 1 gives an overview of TACs and landings in the hake fishery from the 1990fishing season. Note that until 1999 the hake fishing season followed the calendaryear; then the season was changed, starting on 1 May and ending 30 April the followingyear. However, in the tables below landings are reported for the calendar year,making comparison with the TAC problematic after 1999. The landings data reportedhere come from the economic model used to calculate official national account statisticsas published annually by the National Planning Commission.Table 1: TACs and landings of hake, 1990‐2009 (tonnes)Season TAC Year Landings1990 60 000 1990 54 9891991 60 000 1991 56 1351992 90 000 1992 87 4981993 120 000 1993 106 9211994 150 000 1994 111 6721995 150 000 1995 129 9961996 170 000 1996 135 3391997 120 000 1997 116 7271998 165 000 1998 149 4561999 (to May) 65 0001999/00 210 000 1999 164 2492000/01 194 000 2000 159 5742001/02 200 000 2001 166 3512002/03 195 000 2002 144 4492003/04 180 000 2003 184 6052004/05 195 000 2004 169 1542005/06 180 000 2005 152 0482006/07 130 000 2006 132 5662007/08 130 000 2007 120 3372008/09 130 000 2008 122 0362009/10 148 000 2009 134 976Analysis of the fishing seasons between 2002/03 and 2009/10 shows that on averageabout 10% of the annual quota allocated to the hake industry remained uncaught;ranging from 81.1% in 2005/06 to 99.3% in 2003/04.2.4 The fishing industry2.4.1 Holders of exploitation rightsCurrently, 38 companies hold rights of exploitation for hake. Of these 24 companiesare fully Namibian owned and only one has less than 50% Namibian ownership. Thatcompany is in fact fully foreign owned.3 See Kirchner & Ianelli (2010) for more information on stock assessment of hakes.Hake Management Plan Page 5

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesIn addition to the hake right holders, small amounts of hake (as shown in Table 2) arealso allocated to large pelagic right holders, for research, to the Fish ConsumptionPromotion Trust and to Lüderitz Town Council.Table 2: Allocation of hake quotas to others (tonnes)Recipient of quota 2008/09 2009/10Large Pelagic Right Holders 1 000 1 000Research 1 600 1 600Fish Consumption Trust 443 1 000Lüderitz Town Council 300 200Total 3 343 3,8002.4.2 Fishing fleetThe hake fishing fleet consists of three different types of vessels. Firstly, there arefreezer trawlers which have processing facilities onboard. In most cases their catchesare exported directly without any additional processing on-shore. Secondly, wet-fishtrawlers land their catches for further processing on-shore. Thirdly, long-line vesselstarget larger fish which are exported fresh to European markets. The long-line catchesare a relatively small share of total catches, averaging 5.5% from 1998 and never exceeding8%.The number of vessels licensed to harvest hake fluctuates year from year, during thepast few years varying from 78 to 121 vessels. However, since vessels are often onlylicensed for a part of the season these figures do not reflect the actual effort used. Infact, vessels are often licensed, but not used for harvesting (Kirchner 2010).During the 2009/2010 fishing season, 62% of the wet-fish trawlers are older than 30years, with 64% of the freezer vessels also falling into that category. The long-linefleet was somewhat younger, with an average age of 25, although 33% were olderthan 30 years. Little renewal of vessels has taken place in recent years, resulting in afleet that is inefficient in many respects. The Fisheries and Aquaculture Conferenceheld in Swakopmund in 2008 recommended that it was imperative to address theproblem of Namibia’s aging fleet (MFMR 2008).Since the hake fishery is managed with quotas, effort is not usually considered a majorconcern for the management of the fishery. It is normally logical for the fishingcompanies to minimise the effort they use to catch their quota by adapting the effort tothe quota allocated to them. However, as quota allocation depends partly on the levelof investments, including in vessels, some excess capacity has developed.2.4.3 EmploymentThe hake industry is the major provider of employment in the fishing sector, employingaround 7 000 people in the 2008/2009 fishing season (MFMR 2009b). The numbersemployed on fishing vessels has decreased slightly during the past six years, butthis has been more than compensated by number of people working on-shore. About98% of people working in the hake industry are Namibians and 44% are women. Ofthe total, 95% have permanent jobs in the industry.It is worth noting that even though the TAC has been highly variable in recent years,for example falling by 27% in 2006, employment has remained relatively stable(MFMR 2009b).Hake Management Plan Page 6

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources2.4.4 Hake bycatch in other fisheriesSmall amounts of hake are caught as bycatch in other fisheries as shown in Table 3.Table 3: Hake as bycatch, 2007‐2010 (tonnes)Fishery 2007/8 2008/9Monk 1 269 1 985Mid-water 3 592 2 264Orange Roughy 27 0Total 4 888 4 2492.4.5 Bycatch of other species in hake fisheryThe hake fleets catch other commercial species, including orange roughy and horsemackerel. By far the greatest amount is monk. Between 1994 and 2001 the averagecatch was around 3 500 tonnes, representing almost 30% of the total monk catch.However, monk as a percentage of the hake caught is relatively trivial, generally lessthan 3%.2.4.6 Processing and marketingIn the first years following Independence all hake catches were taken by freezer vessels,processed at sea and exported directly without any on-shore processing. However,soon policies were introduced aimed at reducing offshore processing and givingpriority to the more labour intensive on-shore processing. These policies had the desiredeffect, resulting in ever decreasing proportion of the catch processed at sea.As the proportion of on-shore processing has increased, the number of factories hasalso increased. Twenty years after Independence sixteen factories in Lüderitz andWalvis Bay process hake with an overall capacity of over 200 000 tonnes per year.Namibian hake products are primarily exported to Europe, with Spain traditionallybeing by far the largest market. However, due to the recent financial crisis in Spain,the exports have reduced drastically since 2007 with a greater proportion going toSouth Africa and Italy.Table 4: Exports of hake, country shares 2007‐2009Country 2007 2008 2009Spain 71% 61% 49%South Africa 12% 16% 24%Italy 2% 4% 14%Other countries 15% 19% 13%Total 100% 100% 100%2.5 Current management measuresThe management of the hake fishery consists of a combination of exploitation rights,TACs, individual quotas (IQs), quota fees, bycatch fees, a number of technical measures,and a comprehensive MCS and observer system.The backbone of Namibian fisheries management is the right of exploitation. Anyonenot holding a right is strictly forbidden from fishing in Namibian waters. Rights areissued for different time periods, ranging from seven to twenty years, depending onHake Management Plan Page 7

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resourcesvarious factors specified in the Marine Resources Act, 2000, such as level of Namibianownership, investments and fishing experience.TACs are set in order to ensure that the fishery is sustainable. These are determinedannually and are based on a comprehensive scientific assessment of the state of thestocks. Recommendations from DRM are considered by the Marine Resources AdvisoryCouncil who make their own recommendations. Both sets of recommendationsare forwarded to the Minister, who then sets the TAC.IQs are allocated in order to ensure economic viability of the fishing industry. Quotasare issued to right holders and can be caught by any vessel licensed to fish in Namibianwaters. These quotas are not permanently transferable, but can be leased betweenright holders within a fishing season. Even if leased, it is the original right holder thatis responsible for the use of the quota and payments of fees.Right holders must pay quota fees on the quota allocated to them. This represents theresource rent and must be paid regardless of whether the quota is caught or not, thusencouraging rights holders to make full use of their allocated quota. Quota fees haveproved an effective management tool to achieve a number of government objectives.Firstly, the level of the fee is constructed in such a way that those utilising Namibianvessels pay lower fees than those utilising foreign vessels. Secondly, hake rights holdersusing Namibian vessels carrying over 90% Namibian crew pay a more favourablefee than those using crews that are less Namibian. Thirdly, to promote local employment,fish landed for on-shore processing is subject to lower quota fees than fishprocessed at sea.During a fishing trip, a vessel can only carry a quota for one species. Any other speciesthat is caught is labelled bycatch and a penalty fee must be paid on any such harvest.The bycatch fees are carefully constructed, recognising that some bycatch willalways be taken, so some bycatch is exempt from the fee. However, once the feecomes into effect, it creates a considerable incentive to reduce the level of bycatch,but without encouraging discarding.Various technical measures are in place, first and foremost with the aim of protectingthe hake resource and the environment. These measures specify the allowed fishinggear for the harvesting of hake. For instance, a bottom trawl may not have a cod-endmesh size under 110 mm, while area and time closures are used primarily to protectspawning grounds. All hake vessels have been banned from fishing within the 200 mdepth line since the early 1990s in order to protect both the small pelagic stocks andjuvenile hake. More recently this has been extended south of 25; since 2006 wet-fishvessels have been banned from fishing within the 300 m isobath, and freezer vesselswithin 350 m, to protect juvenile hake. Since 2006, fishing for hake is not allowedduring the month of October, once again to protect juvenile hake which are perceivedto move offshore, and so become mixed with the adult fish, at that time. A full list oftechnical measures, such as these, are published in relevant regulations and licencesand will not be listed in this management plan (see MFMR 2001).Finally, all Namibian vessels must carry an observer on board when fishing. The primaryrole of the observer is to monitor that the at-sea provisions of the Marine ResourcesAct and Regulations are adhered to. For instance, it is forbidden by law todiscard fish, so all fish caught must be landed and it is the observer’s role to reportany discarding that may take place. The observers also play an important role in collectingscientific information, primarily length frequency data, of catches.Hake Management Plan Page 8

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources3 Management goals and objectivesThe mission of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources is “to responsiblymanage living aquatic resources to continuously ensure a conducive environment forthe fishing and aquaculture sector to prosper” (MFMR 2009).This mission statement and MFMR’s core values of transparency, accountability, equity,honesty, loyalty and diligence form the foundation for the goals and objectivesoutlined in this management plan. In the plan the more general laws, regulations andpolicies of the Namibian government relating to marine resources provide the basis tomany of the specific objectives for the hake fishery.In addition, Namibia is a party to a number of regional and international legal instrumentsand agreements. These include the United Nations Convention on the Law ofthe Sea, 1982, the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995, the FAO ComplianceAgreement, 1993, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and its associatedInternational Plans of Action and the SADC Regional Protocol on Fisheries, the 2001Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem and the Rio(1992) and Johannesburg (2002) declarations on sustainable development. These haveall been considered in the development of this management plan.While the plan is specifically designed for the hake fishery, due cognisance is taken ofthe EAF (FAO 2003). The incorporation of the EAF into a fisheries management systemshould typically be an iterative process, building on the existing system. This planis a first step in this process and an important objective for the first revision of theplan (in 2014) should be to have reviewed the management system such that the EAFcan be more fully integrated at that point in time. The BCC will play an important rolein this regard (BCC 2010). Indeed, for the forthcoming 5 years, the BCC has an ambitioussuite of projects planned, although to be successfully achieved a large commitmentfrom MFMR will be required. It is not clear whether DRM and PPE have thecapacity to fully participate in this work. MFMR will still remain responsible to implementany of the outputs from these projects.As noted above, a considerable amount of biological and ecological research is currentlybeing directed at hake. The plan includes many of these studies as strategies toprovide information on the most appropriate measures for the management of thehake stocks. As these studies are completed the plan will be updated to include therecommendations as strategies with precise indicators and time frames.The management of the hake fishery is already well developed in Namibia and thisplan records the existing structures and measures. Some inconsistencies were identifiedby MFMR and other stakeholders and these are either aligned or reviews are recommended.A number of changes were also proposed during the consultation processand reviews to investigate these have been included.The five major management goals for the hake fishery are the following:1. Responsible and sustainable utilisation of the hake resource.2. Minimal impact on the ecosystem.3. Stable business environment conducive to the promotion of economic efficiency.Hake Management Plan Page 9

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources4. Benefits from the fishery accrue to a large number of Namibians, both directlyand indirectly.5. Efficient, cost-effective and participatory management of the fishery.Sometimes these goals contradict each other. For instance, increasing quota fees inorder to increase the benefits accruing to Namibians as a whole, may negatively impactthe business environment. Also, increased employment often results in decreasedefficiency, which in turn means lower taxes and resource rents accrue to the government(e.g., Kirchner 2010). This highlights the need for prioritisation allowing informeddecisions to be taken. However, the recovery and sustainable utilisation of thehake resource is first priority.For each goal a number of objectives have been identified. A set of strategies is linkedto each objective to ensure that the objectives are pursued effectively during the timeframe of the management plan and beyond. Each objective has an associated indicatoror output which will show whether the strategy has been completed successfully.Hake Management Plan Page 10

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesGoal 1: Responsible and sustainable utilisation of the hake resourceThe hake stocks yielded annual catches in excess of 300 000 tonnes for most yearsbetween 1967 and 1988, the level calculated to have been the sustainable yield. Thehake stocks are currently assessed as being overexploited 4 and indeed even below thebiomass at Independence in 1990, which at that time was considered to be an historiclow. There are some indications of a slight recovery in the Cape hake stock since2007.The decline of the hake stocks in the decades between the mid-1960s and 1990 is believedto be primarily due to prolonged annual catches in excess of the sustainableyield level and up to 800 000 t in 1973 (unofficial reports suggest that the catcheswere considerably higher); depletion of many of the key prey species, especially thesmall pelagic stocks of sardine and anchovy; and possibly a change in the ecosystemfunctioning. The reasons for the failure to recover during the past two decades are lessclear. TACs set above the recommended levels (catch was higher than estimated yieldin 10 of the past 20 years), partly due to a lack of data and hence uncertainties in theassessments, may have been compounded by ecosystem anomalies resulting in highlevels of juvenile mortality and subsequent poor recruitment. The lack of high qualityprey seems to have forced the hake to switch to other lower quality food types such asgobies, which together with increased levels of cannibalism, may have further contributedto the lack of a recovery of the stocks.It is highly unlikely that catches of historical levels will be achievable in the future;the functioning of the ecosystem is believed to have changed, and as a result the productivityof the hake stocks may have been reduced. Preliminary assessments suggestthat sustained catches in the order of 150 000 – 200 000 t may be the maximum possible.Four broad objectives are defined which it is believed will lead to the achievement ofthis first goal.Objective 1.1: Recovery of the hake stocks to the MSY levelThe biological goal for the hake stocks is to provide an optimal yield on a sustainablebasis. The primary biological objective is to manage the stocks to enhance the chancesof a recovery in the stocks to the biomass at which the MSY is reached. This optimalutilisation level can only be achieved by first allowing a sustainable improvements inthe state of the stocks, including an increase in the spawning biomass of Cape hakeand an improved age structure of both species.An indicator previously applied (to 2010) to monitor the recovery of the hake stockswas that the combined spawning biomass of the stocks should reach the 1990 level.This was being achieved by setting TAC levels somewhat below the average yield(net growth), thereby allowing any excess production to grow the stock. Whether thebiomass in 1990 is an appropriate indicator is contentious given that the stock was insuch a depleted state at that time and that some abundance indicators suggest that the4 Overexploited, according to the FAO classification scheme means that “the fishery is being exploitedabove the optimal yield/effort which is believed to be sustainable in the long term, with no potentialroom for further expansion and a higher risk of stock depletion/collapse”. Some may argue that thestocks are actually depleted, i.e. “catches are well below historical optimal yields, irrespective of theamount of fishing effort exerted”.Hake Management Plan Page 11

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resourcesstock has reached or is beyond this level. However interim indicators to monitor therecovery of the stocks would clearly be useful to assess the success, or otherwise, ofmanagement actions.In the longer term, once the stock sizes approximate the MSY biomass, managementmeasures (primarily TACs) will be set slightly below MSY to ensure long-term sustainableyield.Existing population indicators (such as MSY) for the hake stocks (as a single unit) atleast partially refer to the stock from the pre-Independence era. It is likely that theproductivity of hake has changed and hence, if used as reference points, these indicatorsmay be misleading. As proposed in strategy (c), updated target and limit referencepoints applicable to the new productivity regime are needed.Table 5: Strategies for Objective 1.1: Recovery of the hake stocks to MSY level(a)(b)(c)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo set the TAC at 80% of the averagebiological yield of the previous 5 years,until strategy (c) introduces a differentstrategyTo assess the appropriateness of 1990 asa baseline year, and define alternativeinterim indicators to monitor the recoveryof the stockTo implement new management measuresin order to enhance the recovery ofstock beyond 1990 baselineSpawning biomass reaches1990 levelAlternative indicators introducedNew management measuresin placeTAC set annuallyCompleted beforeend of2011/12 seasonMeasures implementedwithin 3 years(2013)Objective 1.2: Management measures based on best available scientific evidenceThe first objective is to manage the stocks in order to enable a recovery to a level approachingthe MSY biomass. In order for this to be achieved internationally acceptedgood fisheries management practices should be used, notably “…management measures….. should be based on the best scientific evidence available and be designed toensure the long-term sustainability of the resource……. to maintain or restore stocksat levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield …….” (taken from Articles7.11 and 7.21 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries). This is confirmed inthe Marine Resources Act, 2000, paragraph 38 (2) which states that “TACs shall bedetermined on the basis of the best scientific advice available”.Scientifically determined TACs will be considered as maximum levels of harvest.Note that during exceptional circumstances recommended TACs may need to be setbelow this. For example, during periods of severe adverse environmental anomaliesthe TAC may need to be decreased at rates greater than allowed under 3.1 (a), thusapplying the precautionary approach. Note that the Code of Conduct refers to this as“emergency action” (FAO 1995). Catches should not exceed recommended TACs.These first two objectives are relevant during both the rebuilding phases and once thestock has recovered to the MSY level.The ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) has in recently years been adopted as arecognised and formal management protocol. This plan incorporates the EAF but tomore fully implement this approach some of the current legislation, policies andstrategies may need adapting. As part of this multispecies, bio-economic and socialHake Management Plan Page 12

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resourcesmodels will be developed and incorporated into management advice. These actionswill be supported by the BCC programme “Development of ecological sustainablefisheries practices in the Benguela Large Marine Ecosystem – ECOFISH”. (BCC2010).Table 6: Strategies for Objective 1.2: Management measures based on best available scientific evidence(a)(b)(c)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo set TACs and other managementmeasures according to scientific recommendationsTo implement emergency measures duringexceptional circumstances, notably toreduce the TAC beyond the level definedin Objective 1.1To review legal, policy and strategicchanges to the management of hake thatwill be needed for the further applicationof the EAFScientific advice forms thebaseline to managementdecisionsOnly used during severeenvironmental anomaliesand similar eventsHMP changed to fully incorporateEAFContinuousRarely appliedIncrementallyapplied duringnext 5 yearsObjective 1.3: New assessment of the hake stocksThe two hake species are currently assessed as a single stock, despite having differentgrowth, distributional and other biological characteristics. An important objective toachieve the overall goal is to assess the two species independently and to developmanagement protocols that will allow catches to be adjusted separately. Achievingthis objective in not a trivial development and will require adequate resources, andtime, to achieve. The development of regional stock assessment through BCC isplanned by the end of 2015 (BCC 2010), although, as previously noted, with all BCCprojects it will remain the responsibility of the national governments to accept andimplement outputs. Given the importance of the hake resource to the Namibian economy,and both the risks and potential lost catches through inappropriate assessments,all efforts will be made to develop single stock assessments and the other strategieslisted below much sooner than this. Cooperation with assessment experts from outsidethe region, for example with the ICES Demersal Working Group, will be considered.Once single species assessments are developed, the outputs will need to be incorporatedinto management measures. As the two stocks are harvested by the same fishery,and often both species are found in the same trawl, this will be far from simple. Settingseparate TACs will in all likelihood not be feasible. Effort could be used as ablunt tool to control the amount of each species, possibly through forcing vessels tofish in specific areas, this will be complicated by the species co-occurring in some regions(notably around the 350 m bathymetric line) and annual changes in the distributions.Despite the difficulties of implementing separate species management measures,this will not be used to avoid developing the best practices possible.The current assessment uses abundance indices spanning the history of the fishery.The productivity of the system is believed to have changed between mid-1980s andmid-1990s (Cury and Shannon 2004) and therefore these historical indices may nolonger be relevant. These new assessments will be based on the “current” system, onlyusing data from 1990 onwards.Hake Management Plan Page 13

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesRecent ageing research suggests that at least Cape hake age-length keys have overestimatedage and hence underestimated growth (Wilhelm In prep.). Ageing validationof both species needs to be completed and the assessments updated accordingly.However, until these age-length keys have been fully validated the precautionary approachwill be applied and the more conservation keys used, i.e. the current ones.The migration patterns of hakes are poorly understood, but it is generally acceptedthat at least deep-water hake is a shared stock with South Africa. Each country currentlymanages their fishery independently and harvesting strategies and managementrules of one country could have a major impact on the stock status in the other country.Ascertaining the precise transboundary nature of both stocks (but especially deepwaterhake) and agreeing on joint management protocols are crucial. This researchwill include both surveys and genetic analysis. The genetic work is planned throughBCC (BCC 2010), while the surveys are already part of an EAF-Nansen project.Note that many of the strategies listed to achieve this objective are currently being, orwill soon be, researched. Once this research has been completed it will be necessaryto define new strategies based on the outputs of the research. Until then, the indicators,or outputs as they actually are, will be the results of these research projects. It isalso worth noting that this section of the management plan will be updated as andwhen new information becomes available and not necessarily solely at the review periodin 2014.Table 7: Strategies for Objective 1.3: New assessment of the hake stocks(a)(b)(c)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo develop separate species assessments.Assessments to be peer-reviewedTo investigate procedures to manageeach species independentlyTo incorporate into new assessmentsassumptions that the ecosystem haschangedAssessments to be peer-reviewedOutputs of assessmentsavailable to enable managementof each speciesindependentlyIf feasible, managementmeasures implementedAvailability of reliable estimatesof MSY and othertarget and limit referencepoints in new productivityregime.By 2016, butideally sooner 5As aboveAs above(d)(e)(f)(g)To validate new ageing research andincorporate into assessmentsTo research transboundary shared stocklevels through BCC projectsTo agree transboundary managementprotocols with Government of S AfricaTo assess transboundary status of Capehake with AngolaAge-length keys incorporatedinto assessments, butonly if keys validatedSufficient information availableto negotiate managementprotocols with S. AfricaImplementation of agreedmanagement protocolsIf necessary, agree and implementjoint managementprotocols with the Governmentof AngolaAs aboveAs above31/12/20125 years5 BCC will be developing this over a 5-year project, but all efforts should be made to implement thismuch earlierHake Management Plan Page 14

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources(h)To develop multispecies, bio-economicand social models to replace single speciesmodelsTo apply the precautionary approachwhere uncertainty exists, including dueto climate changeTo improve understanding of the processesand consequences of any alteredecosystem functioning, including theconsequences of climate change, and ofthe productivity of hakeModel outputs used in managementof hake5 years(i)TACs set well below theestimated maximum yieldContinuous(k)Assessments and managementcan apply this informationas appropriateContinuousIn line with the move towards an integrative EAF, multispecies, bio-economic andsocial models will need to be developed to guide in the management of both hakestocks, and other species. As already noted, much of this development will take placewithin the BCC, but the incorporation of the outputs into management will remain theresponsibility of the MFMR.Detailed monitoring of the changes in the environment and their effect on the dynamicsand the trophic structure of the system will be the keys to successful managementand sustainability of the system. In the interim period of uncertainty the precautionaryapproach will be rigorously applied, ensuring that all fish stocks, not just the hakestocks, are in a robust condition and hence more likely to be resilient to long-term environmentalchanges.Objective 1.4: Sufficient institutional capacity, skills, equipment and fundingThe above three objectives require considerable research into understanding the populationdynamics of hake stocks and advising management on appropriate options toensure that the objectives are reached. While a competent core of research and technicalstaff have been built up in the past two decades in Swakopmund and Lüderitz,staff turn-over is high resulting in far too many personnel lacking experience. It iscritical that more staff are trained, and in particular retained, to face the challengesthat these objectives will demand of them.Similarly, adequate equipment and funding is also needed to enable this research to beconducted.The current government employment and funding structures are largely designed forroutine state functions and do not cope well with highly specialised services such asresearch. A review of the human resources and funding requirements to provide thelevel of research required for management of the hake stocks (and others) is urgentlyneeded, including the consideration to privatise research (possibly within a parastatalorganisation).Such a review, and especially the necessary recruitment and training of staff, will takesome years to achieve. The research proposed in the next few years is way beyond thecapacity of the current staff. Given the economic and social value of the hake stockssome of this work cannot be delayed and in the interim period outside researchersmay be needed to guide some of the required tasks, possibly being drafted in throughthe BCC projects. In some cases, if staffing or other resources are unavailable forsome the work proposed above, the time frames suggested may need to be reconsidered.Hake Management Plan Page 15

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesTable 8: Strategies for Objective 1.4: Sufficient institutional capacity, skills, equipment and funding(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo assess the human resource requirements,Report delivered1 yeartraining and retention to imple-ment this GoalTo assess the equipment and funding that Sufficient research equipment2 yearsis requiredand fundingavailableTo implement the results of the assessmentTo obtain support and assistance fromthe industry and other stakeholdersTo collect data to enable the above objectivesto be reached, including:Annual trawl surveyLandings by fleetCommercial CPUE dataCommercial length frequency dataCatch-at-age dataSeal scat dataSufficient qualified and experiencedresearch and technicalstaff, etc. availableData are collected timeouslyand are available for analysis5 yearsContinuousContinuousThe industry already provides support to research, both indirectly through the paymentof a research levy, and more directly through the annual trawl survey, notingthat a new research vessel is currently being negotiated and may replace the industryvessel currently used for the annual trawl survey. This support will be continued andwhere possible extended.Hake Management Plan Page 16

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesGoal 2: Minimal impact on the ecosystemThe ecological risks and issues for the Namibian hake fishery were compiled at anecological risk assessment workshop held in 2005 (Nel et al. 2005, Cochrane et al.2007). This listed a number of issues that, if not addressed, were perceived to have apotential negative impact on the recovery of the hake (and other) stocks. These ecologicalrisks were reviewed by a group of stakeholders in July 2009 and the issueswere combined into some specific objectives (Paterson et al. 2010). Much of the informationthat follows is taken from these reports.Most of these issues are currently poorly understood and hence many of the strategieslisted under this goal are to initiate, or increase, research studying these impacts.Within the overall goal of minimising the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem,three broad objectives can be defined:Objective 2.1: Maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functioningThe structure and trophic functioning of the northern Benguela ecosystem has clearlychanged during the half-century since large-scale commercial fishing started, althoughprecisely how and to what extent is not known. The hake fishery must bear some ofthe responsibility for this and while this process can never be reversed, efforts need tobe made to halt some of the more critical negative impacts, and in the case of endangeredspecies, communities and habitats, to attempt to reverse these changes.The small pelagic stocks are an important prey for hake, especially sardine and anchovy.These stocks have both become seriously depleted and as a result the hake diethas adjusted to include a greater proportion of lower quality prey items such as gobies,and possibly increased cannibalism. This is believed to have affected the productivityof the hake stocks. Hence it is important for the recovery of the hake stocks thatthe small pelagic stocks themselves recover. This research will partly be conductedthrough the BCC where the trophic position of small pelagics, hake and horse mackerelwill be determined (BCC 2010).Table 9: Strategies for Objective 2.1: Maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functioning(a)(b)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo undertake trophic and diet-related studies,especially prey, e.g. small pelagicstocks, and predators, e.g. seals, that are activelymanaged. Also undertake studies ofthe interactions between the two hake species,especially the consequences of cannibalism.To introduce necessary management strategiesto safeguard trophic functioningInformation available thatcan be incorporated in themanagement of hake (andother species)Recovery of small pelagicstocks to at least early-1990 levels.Improvement in the hakeyield5 yearsStrategiesintroducedwithin 5years, butstock recoverywill takemuch longerHake Management Plan Page 17

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesObjective 2.2: Minimise bycatches including incidental mortality of non‐commercialspeciesThe bycatch of other commercial species has been more successfully managed inNamibia than most fishing nations. Despite this, bycatch remains a concern and needsto be monitored to ensure that the yield of these species is not compromised. Monk isthe main species of concern, but the bycatch of other species will also be minimised.Similarly, the bycatch of hake in the midwater fishery and of juvenile hake in thesmall pelagic fisheries, and also in the hake fishery itself, will be carefully monitoredand actions implemented to reduce hake bycatch if necessary.Incidental mortality (bycatch) of non-commercial species in fisheries is a universalproblem, with an increasing realization of the seriousness of the impacts on vulnerablespecies, such as sharks and seabirds. The bycatch of seabirds may be negatively impactingthe viability of 13 species of albatross and petrels, plus Cape gannet (Moruscapensis) in Namibia. This is compounded by changes in behaviour and populationdynamics due to the supplementation of their diets by foraging on offal, discards andfish “stolen” from the cod-end or off the line.The bycatch of sharks may be negatively impacting the viability of three endemic(Benguela) shark species and three endemic skate species. The impacts on the populationsof other sharks and rays (not currently classified as threatened or specificallyprotected), such as blue and mako sharks (a targeted fishery for mako sharks exists) issimilarly unknown but may be significant.Research to ascertain the precise level of mortalities and the impact of supplementaryfeeding on these vulnerable species is urgently needed. National Plans of Action(NPOAs) for both seabirds and sharks have been developed, which detail the implementationof mitigating devices and practices. Sufficient information on the negativeimpacts of both trawl and line fisheries on these vulnerable species exists from elsewherein the world to indicate that these need to be adopted with immediate effect,even before the precise impact on local species has been ascertained.Changes in behaviour, population dynamics and distribution of seals through foragingon offal and ingestion of discarded rubbish is possible but unknown. Measures tominimise these impacts will be taken immediately prior to research to quantify them.Table 10: Strategies for Objective 2.2: Minimise bycatches including incidental mortality of noncommercialspecies(a)(b)(c)(d)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo assess the cost-effectiveness of currentbycatch measures for commercial speciesand conduct further research into minimisingbycatch (of all commercial species),including area closures and technicalmeasuresTo approve and implement NPOA forseabirdsTo approve and implement NPOA forsharksTo assess the extent of seal mortalities inhake fisheryIntroduction of appropriate improvementsIntroduction of methods to reducethe impact on seabirdpopulationsIntroduction of methods to reducebycatch of sharks and raysIf necessary, introduce appropriatemanagement measures5 yearsImmediateImmediate5 yearsHake Management Plan Page 18

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesObjective 2.3: Mitigate habitat and substrate damageThe impact of trawling on the substrate is a global problem. Research needs regardingecologically sensitive marine habitats and ecologically important areas within Namibiahave been identified but so far, apart from a broad area classification of trawlingimpacts and some limited experimental work, little has been attempted (MafwilaIn prep.). Fishery impacts on the populations and structures of the benthic fish community(primarily rattails) is similarly well-recognised, but the level of impact is unknownwithin the Namibian system. Considerably more work detailing the impacts offishing on the substrate and benthic zone is needed.Table 11: Strategies for Objective 2.3: Mitigate habitat and substrate damage(a)(b)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo extend research measures on the effect oftrawling and other gear types on substratehabitat and benthic community, including areview of the effectiveness of current protectedareasTo introduce mitigating methods after stakeholderconsultations, including establishingclosed areasPropose mitigating methodsto reduce impactsDamage to substrate andbenthic communities reduced5 years 6As aboveObjective 2.4: Sufficient institutional capacity, skills, equipment and fundingAs detailed under Goal 1, considerable research effort will be needed to achieve Objectives2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. The staff and funding requirements need to be defined andappropriate changes made.Table 12: Strategies for Objective 2.4: Sufficient institutional capacity, skills, equipment and funding(a)(b)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameSame strategy as in Objective 1.4 (a, b, c andd)To collect data to enable the above objectivesData are collected timeously Continuousto be reached, including (but not lim-and available for analysisited to):Probable inter-annual variability inyield and any likely long-term trendsin resource productivityDetails on environmental constraintsand sensitive habitatsData on predator-prey relationships6 Time frames for these strategies are uncertain and may need to be revised once the capacity of DRMhas been reviewedHake Management Plan Page 19

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesGoal 3: Stable business environment established conducive to the promotion ofeconomic efficiencyMost of Namibian hake catches are exported and sold in foreign markets, thus providingvaluable foreign exchange earnings. Namibian hake products compete againstsimilar products from many other countries. In order for Namibian companies to becompetitive in these markets, it is important for them to operate in an environmentthat allows them to respond to changes in the markets as well as to changes in variousexternal factors that affect profitability.The following three objectives all work towards the above goal.Objective 3.1: The hake industry can respond effectively to external changes.A number of external factors have the potential of significantly affecting the economicviability of the hake industry. Fuel comprises a considerable part of the expendituresof a fishing company, typically 15-25%. Changes in oil prices can thereforehave a considerable impact on profitability. Market prices are another important factor.As hake from Namibia competes with fish from many other countries, the impactthat Namibian companies can have on the fish price is negligible. Namibian companiesare more or less price-takers and must have the ability to adjust to changes inprices in the foreign markets. Finally, the exchange rate of the Namibian dollaragainst other currencies can have a large impact of fishing companies that earn mostof their revenue in foreign currency while costs are to a large degree in Namibian dollars.The possibility of changes in these three factors requires that the hake industry maintainsa degree of flexibility in its operations. While the Namibian government cannotinfluence these factors directly, it may be possible to have policies in place that makesthe industry better equipped to meet such changes. In order to be equipped to do that,MFMR needs to have reliable information about the operations of the hake industry.For that purpose MFMR undertakes the annual Income and Expenditure Survey. It isimperative, as with all data collection, that correct information be provided in a timelymanner.In addition to the above external factors, the industry depends on a volatile resource,where the overall production is constrained by the level of TAC. For example, in2005/06, the TAC for hake was 180 000 tonnes, but the following season it had reducedto 130 000 tonnes, a decrease of more than 27%. A similar decrease was experiencedfrom 1996 to 1997. While the Ministry is unable to affect external factorssuch as fuel prices, market fluctuations and exchange rate changes, providing a levelof certainty of TAC and allocation of quotas is within the power of MFMR and willreduce one of the major causes of uncertainty faced by industry.In order to reduce the “TAC uncertainty” the Ministry will aim to maintain stabilityfrom one year to the next by keeping changes of the TAC within a range of ±10%.This will only be deviated from in exceptional circumstances, for example, in the caseof a severe environmental anomaly, in line with Strategy 1.2 (b). In such circumstancesthe TAC may be reduced more than 10%. It is not foreseen that the TAC willbe increased by more than 10% from one year to the next.Once a TAC has been announced, it will not be changed within a fishing season. Thepossibility of an increase in the TAC currently results in some quota holders harvest-Hake Management Plan Page 20

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resourcesing their quota earlier, as an increase in the quota is anticipated. This behaviour reducesthe efficiency of the quota system, resulting in wasteful operations.The Minister divides the TAC into individual quotas and allocates to right holders.The main reason for the quotas is to allow right holders to harvest their share of theTAC as efficiently as possible. Quotas also reduces risk, as right holders know thatthe quota is exclusively theirs until the end of the fishing season. The Marine ResourcesAct, 2000, guides the Minister as to the criteria he may use when allocatingquotas.Currently, quotas are allocated for one year, with the allocation announcement made afew weeks prior to the start of each fishing season. Right holders have for a long timecomplained that quota allocations lack transparency and that it would be preferable tohave quotas allocated for a longer period. One possibility is that a right holder begiven a certain percentage of the TAC for a number of years. This could be a permanentpercentage or linked to a rolling TAC, for instance for three years. Another possibilityis that a certain part of the TAC is allocated permanently and the remainder isat the discretion of the Minister. Other possibilities exist. The Ministry will embark ona study to explore alternative ways to allocate quotas (Esau 2011) to reduce uncertaintyin the industry further.According to the Marine Resources Policy, quota fees should provide revenue to governmentvalued between 5 and 15 percent of the first-hand value of the catch (MFMR2004). That implies that if the first-hand value falls, so should the quota fee revenueand vice versa. Currently, quota fees are rarely changed resulting in quota fees revenuefluctuating as a percentage of the first-hand value. By linking quota fees to pricesand exchange rates the quota fee revenue would better match government policy.Such a link would benefit industry when there is a downturn in markets. If the marketprice of fish falls, or if the Namibian dollar gains strength, revenue of the fishingcompanies when measured in Namibian dollars reduces. Consequently, the currentlyfixed quota fee becomes a larger share of the price received for the fish. On the otherhand, when prices increase, or the Namibian dollar weakens, the revenue of the industryrises and the quota fees become a smaller share of the price received. In this way,the fixed quota fees can increase fluctuations in profits. Intuitively, this should be theother way around; when prices fall the quota fee should fall, easing the price drop.When prices increase the quota fee should rise, allowing the state to capture a part ofthe price increase.In a BCLME report (BCLME 2007) it was pointed out that the process of calculatingfees in Namibian fisheries lacks a quantitative basis and that MFMR acknowledgesthe importance of taking into account the economic viability of the industry and itsinternational competitiveness when setting charges, such as quota fees.A review of quota-related fees was started in 2008. It is important to finish that review,keeping the above concerns in mind. Of course, one consideration will be theeffort and cost needed by MFMR to adjust the quota fees periodically. However, between2005 and 2007 quota fees for hake were less than 3% of the first-hand value,indicating that quota fee revenues could increase by tens of millions of dollars ifbrought up to 5%. Such an increase would warrant some increase in the administrativecosts of collecting and monitoring the fees.In the case of longer-term external changes, such as the continuing increase in theprice of fuel, companies, regardless of sector, often change their structure. SometimesHake Management Plan Page 21

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resourcescompetitors merge, alternatively companies may split into smaller and more specialisedunits. This is difficult in the Namibian fishing industry, because of the structureof the rights system. If two fishing companies merge, for instance in order to gainfrom economies of scale, it is possible that they would receive less quota combinedthan when they were separate. Also, a right holder will have difficulty in splitting itsoperations as one right holder cannot become two.In the academic literature, one of the main arguments for the use of individual quotasis that once quotas are allocated, quota holders have incentives to maximise the valueof the catch they are allowed to take and to minimise the operating costs (Hannesson2004). In addition, it is also argued that transferability of quotas is of critical importanceto achieve efficiency. In the past, MFMR’s policies have not allowed transferability,apart from quota leasing within a fishing season, the main reason being concernsabout the impact on smaller right holders. However, observations of the industryreveal that many of the smaller right holders do not participate in the industry, butrather lease their quota to some of the larger right holders.The problems of individual transferable quotas (ITQs) are well documented and henceITQs have not been considered in Namibia. However, due to the problems resultingfrom the lack of tradability the transferability of quotas will be analysed, specificallythe potential impacts that a change in policy could have (BCLME 2006, p. 47). Tradingof quotas may allow companies to specialise more than currently possible whiletradable quotas would also allow companies to use them as collateral.These two items, the structure of the rights system and transferability of quotas, willbe considered in the review analysing the impact of policy on investment (see strategiesfor objective 3.2) since they will also impact the incentives for over- and undercapitalisationin the industry.(a)(b)(c)Table 13: Strategies for Objective 3.1: The industry can respond effectively to external changesStrategy Indicators / Outputs TimeframeTo collect income and expendituredata and publish regularly in a summaryreportTo keep the TAC relatively stablefrom year to year and not to change itwithin a fishing seasonTo allocate IQs timeously to allowcompanies to harvest hake efficientlyTimely submission of dataAnnual reportingTAC changes less than 10% from year toyearAllocation completed well before start offishing season(d) To finalise the review of quota fees Changes in quota fees approved and implemented(e) Right holders to supply contingency Plans submittedplans to MFMR as part of Income andExpenditure survey(f) To analyse the structure of rights andtransferability of quotasAnnuallyAnnualAnnualMid year2011AnnualRecommendations delivered to Minister June 2012(g) To review quota allocations Review completed During2011Objective 3.2: Appropriate investments are undertaken by the industry.For a number of years considerable investments have been made in on-shore processingfacilities for hake. Since Independence the number of processing plants has in-Hake Management Plan Page 22

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resourcescreased from none to sixteen. The result is increased employment and higher valueproducts. However, the processing capacity of these factories, above 200 000 tonnesannually, is now excessive given the size of the hake resource itself.The fleet largely consists of old and inefficient vessels. This has a number of undesirableeffects. For instance, the safety of crews may be compromised. From an environmentalperspective, old vessels use more fuel than newer vessels, resulting in alarger carbon footprint of the industry on the environment. In general, older vesselsare more costly to run than newer vessels, resulting in considerable inefficiencies infisheries operations. Renewal of the fishing fleet has become a pressing issue. In spiteof this, few companies have invested in new vessels in recent years.Another important issue worth considering is that the Namibian fleet consists of toomany vessels (Kirchner 2010); the current fleet could easily catch well over 200 000tonnes annually. It is likely that the current policy of a right holder needing to own ashare in a vessel is maintaining the number of vessels higher than is efficient given thelevel of TAC.It is important to look at the incentives of the current policies of the government andanalyse how investment efforts can be diverted from processing plants to new fishingvessels, while also promoting decommissioning of old vessels. Fishing vessels arehighly specialised investments, with a long lifetime and require considerable funds. Ifa right holder has less than 10 years remaining of a fishing right, then investing inequipment costing tens of millions of Namibian dollars, with a lifespan of more than30 years is likely to be considered excessively risky. Longer term quota allocations,such as discussed in the previous objective, and amendments in the durability of fishingrights are likely to improve the incentive to invest in new fishing vessels. Hannesson(2004, p. 57) states that if quotas “are valid for the long term, they also provideincentives for quota holders to invest optimally in fishing vessels.”For MFMR to establish appropriate investment policies it needs to have access to reliableinformation on investments in the industry. MFMR will continue collecting suchinformation as part of the annual Income and Expenditure Survey. The hake industrymust provide accurate and timeous information.Using the terms of the financial sector, the hake industry has over-capitalised in processingplants and under-capitalised in fishing vessels. If efficiency is to be attained,this needs to be corrected. In order to address this, the Ministry will lead a study analysingthe current investment incentives in the hake industry and provide recommendationsaimed to encourage investments in new vessels. It is important to include thefinancial sector in this work, both the commercial banks and the Development Bankof Namibia. In the past, the idea of a special development bank for the fishing sectorhas been raised. The viability of such a bank will be investigated thoroughly. Thestudy will incorporate issues raised as part of Objective 3.3.Table 14: Strategies for Objective 3.2: Appropriate investments are undertaken by the industry(a)(b)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo collect and analyse investment data as part ofthe Income and Expenditure surveyTo analyse the impact of current managementpolicies on investmentTimely submission of dataAnnual reportingAnalysis with recommendationscompletedAnnuallyJune 2012Hake Management Plan Page 23

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesObjective 3.3: Promote increased level of value addition by hake fishing and processingcompanies.Adding value to products in order to receive higher prices can increase profits. However,value addition invariably means higher costs, implying that those cost increasesneed to be compared to the price increase. Larger companies are in a better position toadd value as they are able to benefit from economies of scale that smaller companiesmay not be able to do. Value addition usually means a higher level of employment.In recent years the issue of eco-labelling has become prominent (BCLME 2005; Russell2009). The Ministry will continue following such developments and consider thepotential impact on Namibian fisheries as required.In the hake fishery, good success has been achieved in adding value as demonstratedby the number of fish processing plants and the increased number of products producedfrom Namibian hake. The structure of the quota fees gives incentives to companiesto process fish on-shore and this will continue. In order to fully understand thechanges taking place in the industry, the Ministry collects various statistics on catchutilisation and exports. This has provided valuable information. However, collectionand processing of this data needs to improve in order to allow better reporting.Table 15: Strategies for Objective 3.4: Promote increased level of value addition by hake fishing andprocessing companies(a)(b)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo encourage on-shore processing through thestructure of quota feesTo collect information on catch utilisation andexports and publish a regular summary reportShare of quota feesachieve full rebateTimely submission ofdataPublishing of informationAnnuallyMonthlyQuarterlyHake Management Plan Page 24

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesGoal 4: Hake fishery benefits a large number of Namibians, directly and indirectlyPrior to the Independence of Namibia, very limited benefits from the hake resourceaccrued to Namibians. Most fishing vessels belonged to foreigners, virtually all employeeswere foreign and no processing of hake was done in Namibia. Since Independencethis has changed significantly. Article 2 of the Marine Resources Act, 2000,states that “The Minister may from time to time determine the general policy with regardto the conservation and utilization of marine resources in order to realize thegreatest benefit for all Namibians both present and future.”Benefits to Namibian can accrue in a number of different ways:• Government collects fees and taxes from users of the resource and redistributesthrough government programmes.• The hake industry is a considerable service provider for other industries resultingin a major multiplier effect.• The hake industry brings foreign currency earnings to Namibia through exportsof fish products.• The industry is a significant employer of Namibian labour.• Through ownership many Namibians receive dividends from fishing companies.• The industry provides support to many social initiatives.Four objectives have been identified for this goal.Objective 4.1: Quota fees provide revenue to governmentRevenue from quota fees goes to the Ministry of Finance and forms part of generalgovernment expenditure. This is in effect the rent that right holders pay for access tothe resource, sometimes referred to as resource rent. In the Marine Resources Policy itis indicated that the basic level should be between 5 and 15 percent of the first-handvalue of catches. In reality the level of quota fees for the hake fishery is somewhatbelow 3%, which indicates lost revenue to government to the tune of tens of millionsNamibian dollars each year. The quota fees will be reviewed regularly.Another serious problem with quota fees is the fact that many companies tend to paythe fees late or not at all; during 2000-2008 less that 20% of quota fees in the hakefishery were paid on time, with a similar amount not paid at all. This is indeed seriousand needs to be addressed urgently. In the review of quota related fees, recommendationswill be included on how compliance can be improved. The government will actquickly when companies do not pay, rather than wait until the amounts are insurmountable.Table 16: Strategies for Objective 4.1: Quota fees provide revenue to governmentStrategy Indicators / Outputs Time frame(a) To ensure timely payment of quota related fees % paid on time Every quarter(b) To regularly review the level of fees Quota fee 5-15% offirst-hand valueFirst reviewby mid-year2011Hake Management Plan Page 25

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesObjective 4.2: Hake industry provides sustainable and quality employment to NamibiansAs stated above around 7 000 people are employed in the hake industry; 98% are Namibiansof which only five percent are hired on temporary basis. Given the currentnational level of unemployment of more than 50% according to the latest labour forcesurvey, the Namibian government will continue pursuing a policy of employmentcreation in the fishing industry as in other industries. The increase in the number ofon-shore fish processing plants is one result of this policy.Collecting reliable information on employment in the fishing sector has been problematic.The Ministry has developed a data collection system for employment and willactively pursue it. Once accurate employment data are available, the Ministry will beable to provide quarterly summaries of employment in the hake fishery, which increasestransparency of the sector, not least towards labour unions. For successful collectionof employment statistics, the cooperation of the industry is vital.As already indicated, there has been a significant increase in on-shore processing anda corresponding reduction in catches processed at sea. The Ministry has pursued anactive policy of only allowing a certain share of the hake quota to be processed at sea,currently allocating 30% of the hake quotas for at-sea processing. As with any otherpolicy, this will be reviewed from time to time. It is sensible to include this issue inthe review of quota allocations.On-shore processing is also promoted through the structure of quota fees. While thequota related fees are under review, the fees will continue promoting such processingdue to employment considerations.While the number of Namibians employed in the hake industry is high, the fact remainsthat many of the highest paying jobs are held by foreigners. This highlights theissue of quality of employment. With better quality of employment the periodic labourunrest experienced in the sector will undoubtedly subside. NAMFI continues to trainNamibian to become officers on board Namibian vessels. The Ministry and the industrywill continue providing support to NAMFI, both financial and assisting in thetraining and provision of sea-time.Table 17: Strategies for Objective 4.2: Hake industry provides sustainable employment to Namibians(a)(b)(c)(d)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo collect employment statistics and publishregular summary reportsTo encourage on-shore processing by restrictionson catch processed at seaTo encourages on-shore processing through thestructure of quota feesMFMR and hake industry provide support toNAMFISubmission of dataEmployment statisticspublished< 30% of quota processedat seaShare of quota feesachieving rebateReported in MFMR AnnualReportMonthlyQuarterlyAnnuallyReview by midyear2011Annual reportingObjective 4.3: Increased Namibian ownership in the hake industrySince Independence, the government’s policy when allocating exploitation rights hasgiven preference to Namibian citizens and to ventures that are beneficially controlledby Namibian citizens. This stems from the belief that Namibians should first andHake Management Plan Page 26

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resourcesforemost benefit from the utilisation of Namibia’s marine resources. This policy willnot change.While the government gives preference to Namibians, it also acknowledges the benefitsfrom foreign investment and expertise in the industry. The Ministry appreciatesthe interest of foreign investors and will accommodate them expecting that those investorsrespect Namibian legislation and policies. Apart from allocation of fishingrights, the main tool to promote the participation of Namibians in the hake fishery isthe structure of quota fees. While quota fees will be reviewed on regular basis, theywill still be used for the promotion of Namibian participation in the hake fishery.Table 18: Strategies for Objective 4.3: Increased Namibian ownership in the hake industry(a)(b)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo give preference to Namibians when rightsare allocatedTo encourage Namibian ownership throughthe structure of quota fees% Nam. ownership When rights allocated% Nam. ownership BienniallyObjective 4.4: Support to community initiatives encouraged.While the marine resources are owned by the people of Namibia, only a few are ableto receive direct benefits through employment and ownership of fishing companies. Itis well known that the hake industry contributes in many meaningful ways to thecommunity at large. This will continue to be encouraged.The Marine Resources Act, 2000, states that the Minister may keep socio-economicconcerns in mind when allocating rights and quotas. The Ministry will keep track ofsocio-economic contributions, for instance through the Income and Expenditure Survey.Orphans and vulnerable children should, in particular, benefit from the industrysupport.Given the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in Namibia, the Ministry and hake industrywill continue their efforts against the epidemic. This will be done mostly throughtraining and support to those carrying the disease.Through the Fish Consumption Promotion Trust, the Namibian government continuesits efforts to encourage Namibians to consume more fish. The Trust has been supportedby the hake industry in the past and will continue to do so.Table 19: Strategies for Objective 4.4: Support to community initiatives encouraged.Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time framea. To keep socio-economic concerns in mind whenallocating rights and quotasb. MFMR and industry provide training onHIV/AIDSc. Hake industry gives support to the Fish ConsumptionPromotion TrustData published ineconomic reportNumber of right holderswith an activeHIV/AIDS policyAnnual report ofFCPTAnnuallyAnnuallyAnnuallyHake Management Plan Page 27

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesGoal 5: Efficient, cost‐effective and participatory management of the hake fisheryMFMR is charged with the responsibility of managing the nation’s marine resources.For proper management of the hake resource the Ministry must undertake various activitiesrelating to scientific research and compliance. Both activities require expensiveequipment and highly skilled people. The Ministry carries the responsibility toprovide these services at the lowest cost possible without compromising quality.MFMR has shown success in this in the past. For instance, Wiium and Uulenga(2003) show that between 1994 and 1999, management costs were lower than feescollected from industry; a situation which few countries can claim.Good management forms the foundation of a profitable industry. Therefore, it is in theindustry’s interest that quality research and compliance be undertaken, and the industryshould participate and contribute to these activities when possible.Four objectives have been identified.Objective 5.1: MFMR provides the required management services cost‐effectively.The various tasks of the Ministry require substantial resources, both human and financial.The Ministry needs to undertake fisheries management in a cost-effective manner.Every five years the Ministry creates a Strategic Plan that governs its operationsfor the following five years by setting long-term goals. In addition, the Minister mustpresent to Parliament the annual budget for the Ministry. In these two documents, theStrategic Plan and the annual budget, the Ministry sets goals aiming to provide theappropriate management services as cost-effectively as possible.Table 20: Strategies for Objective 5.1: MFMR provides required management services costeffectively(a)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo seek ways to reduce management costs while maintainingthe appropriate level of management and publishindicators in the Strategic Plan of MFMRAnnual goals set inannual budgetLonger term goals setin Strategic PlanAnnual5 yearsObjective 5.2: Consultations with stakeholders and wider community.MFMR aims to increase transparency of its decisions (e.g., MFMR 2009a) due to theimpact that its decisions may have on various stakeholders in the fishing industry, includingthe hake industry. Working groups on scientific research have been operationalfor many years.The marine resources belong to the Namibian nation and therefore the wider communityshould also have the opportunity to express its views on fisheries management.This requires the Ministry to actively inform the general public about issues relatingto the management of marine resources.Hake Management Plan Page 28

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesTable 21: Strategies for Objective 5.2: Consultations with stakeholders and wider community(a)(b)(c)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo ensure active cooperation between industry andMFMR, in particular in matters relating to biological,economic and social researchTo seek stakeholders’ input when preparing managementplans and undertaking policy reviewTo communicate management arrangements to stakeholdersand the wider communityRegular workinggroups meetings heldMeetings and workshopsPress releases andstatistical bulletinsContinuousOngoingQuarterlyObjective 5.3: Industry contributes to research and compliance.The hake industry is the main beneficiary of the fisheries research and the complianceof laws and regulations governing the management of the hake resource. As a result,the industry has in the past contributed to research and compliance and will continue,both through levies for the Marine Resources Fund and the Fisheries Observers Fund,as well as participating in scientific surveys and various data collections.Table 22: Strategies for Objective 5.3: Industry contributes to research and compliance(a)(b)(c)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameIndustry to pay levies into the Marine Resources Timely payments QuarterlyFund and the Fisheries Observers FundFishing industry to supply fishing vessel for scientificSurvey completed Annualsurveys noting that this may in future be takenover by the planned MFMR research vesselTo provide timely accurate biological, economicand social dataData received byMFMRMonthly orannual asrequiredObjective 5.4: Management measures are complied with.Management measures are restrictive and therefore it is necessary to have in place acomprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system to ensure compliance.Difficulties have been experienced in operating the vessel monitoring system (VMS)and it is currently not functional. MFMR will ensure that the situation is rectified asquickly as possible.Table 23: Strategies and performance indicators for Goal 5 objectives(a)Strategy Indicators / Outputs Time frameTo have a comprehensive MCS system in place,including an operational vessel monitoring system.Various MCS statisticsavailableAnnualVMS operationalAs soon aspossible(b)To have appropriate penalties are in place and enforcedDegree of complianceOngoingHake Management Plan Page 29

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesSummary of research and reviewsThe following table is a summary of research and reviews needing to begin during thelifespan of the management plan. These will be instrumental for effective future reviewof the management plan.Table 24: List of research and reviewsSubjectDevelopment of separate species assessments, using the most recent availabledata and development of target and limit reference points.Development of protocols to enable separate species managementResearch into the transboundary shared stock issue with South Africa.Development of multispecies, bio-economic and social models.Review legal, policy and strategic changes to management of hake for theapplication of EAF.Research into the processes and consequences of any altered ecosystem functioning.Assessment of the funding and the human resource requirements, training andretention of staff to conduct the researched required for good management.Research into minimising bycatch.Research into the effect of trawling on the substrate and benthic communities.Review of quota allocations.Analyse the impact of current policies on investment and structure of therights and transferability of quotas.Review of quota related fees to be finalised.Review of the recent failings of the vessel monitoring system to ensure that itis operational.ResponsibilityDRM and BCCDPPE and BCCDRM and BCCDRM and DPPEDRM, DPPE andBCCDRM and BCCDPPEDRM, FOA and NHADRM and NHADPPEDPPEDPPEDOPHake Management Plan Page 30

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources4 Summary of management measuresThe following outlines the main management measures used in the hake fishery.4.1 Total allowable catchEach year a TAC is set, first and foremost to ensure the long-term sustainability of thehake stocks. As stipulated in the Marine Resources Act, 2000, the TAC will continueto be based on the best available scientific assessments of the stocks.In order to promote the recovery of the stocks the TAC will continue to be set wellbelow the average biological yield.To promote stability for the fishing industry, the TAC will not be changed by morethan 10% from one year to the next.The TAC will not be changed within a fishing season, except in extraordinary circumstances,such as adverse environmental conditions when the precautionary approachmay be applied.4.2 Limited entry into fisheryAs in many other fisheries in the world, entry into the hake fishery is limited throughrights of exploitation. MFMR will continue limiting the number of rights.4.3 Quota systemIn order to promote economic efficiency, the Minister allocates the TAC as individualquotas to right holders. These quotas are for the relevant fishing season and cannot betransferred. When allocating quotas, the Minister keeps in mind criteria from the MarineResources Act, 2000, and other policies as appropriate.No more than 30% of the allocated quotas may be harvested by freezer vessels. Whenquotas are allocated to the individual companies, it is specified whether they may beused for this purpose.4.4 FeesThe various fees used in the hake fishery forms an important management tool, assistingthe government in achieving a number of its objectives.Fees will continue to be charged as outlined in the Marine Resource Act, 2000, andthe associated regulations.MFMR will increase its efforts to ensure that fees are paid fully and on time.4.5 Technical measuresMFMR closes certain areas for fishing in order to protect juvenile hake. This will continueand MFMR may, on short notice, close further areas, or indeed the entire fishery,if the need arises, for example if the number of juvenile fish becomes a significantpart of catches.The closure of the hake fishery during the month of October each year will continue,but will be reviewed if deemed necessary.Hake Management Plan Page 31

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesVarious restrictions on fishing gear are in place, as outlined in the Marine ResourcesRegulations.4.6 Management capacityIt is of paramount importance to have sufficient skilled staff in the Ministry.Timely and accurate data collection is imperative for good fisheries management.MFMR will continue collecting the necessary information needed.Hake Management Plan Page 32

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources5 Response of managementIf indicators in the tables in section 3 of this management plan suggest that strategiesare not having the required impact, the following action will be taken:1. Any stakeholder should notify the Minister and Permanent Secretary ofMFMR as well as relevant participants in the hake fishery.2. Permanent Secretary undertakes a detailed review of causes and implicationsof not achieving the planned performance. A part of the review is consultingwith relevant stakeholders.3. Permanent Secretary provides a report to the Minister within three months ofthe initial notification. The report should include recommendations and managementstrategies to rectify the problem.4. Minister considers recommendations, seeking input from the Marine ResourcesAdvisory Council, and makes a decision.Hake Management Plan Page 33

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources6 Review of the management planThe management plan is a living document that will regularly need to be adapted tothe realities on the ground. The plan should be formally revised every three to fiveyears. Because this is the first management plan, it will be reviewed after three yearswith a revised plan ready for the 2014/2015 fishing season. As knowledge advancesperiodic reviews and improvements may need to be made. All reviews should be donein consultation with stakeholders.Any changes in legislation or international agreements may require a review of themanagement plan.One year before the plan ends, consultations with all stakeholders will begin in preparationfor a new plan. A revised plan should be finalised several months before theend the fishing season. Current suggestions to change the hake fishing season to begin1 November each year and end 30 September may be enacted during the lifetime ofthis plan (Esau 2011). Table 27 provides precise dates based on the current fishingseason and the proposed new dates.Table 25: Important milestones regarding reviewMilestone May to April season November to September seasonStart of plan 1 May 2011 1 November 2011Review begins May 2013 November 2013New plan approved January 2014 July 2014End of first plan 30 April 2014 30 September 2014New plan begins 1 May 2014 1 November 2014Hake Management Plan Page 34

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources7 BibliographyBCC. 2010. Development of ecological sustainable fisheries practices in the BenguelaLarge Marine Ecosystem – ECOFISH. Project proposal DCI/ENV/2009/8/66.BCLME. 2005. Assessing the Role and Impact of Eco-Labelling in the Three BCLMECountries. BCLME Project LMR/SE/03/02. 1 December.BCLME. 2006. Report on the Biological, Social and Economic Impact of RightsAllocations in the BCLME Region. BCLME Project LMR/SE/03/03. 27October.BCLME. 2007. An Analysis of Revenue Raising Instruments for the ImportantCommercial Fisheries in the BCLME Countries. Final Report. BCLMEProject LMR/SE/03/05. March.Cochrane K L, Augustyn C J, Bianchi G, de Barros P, Fairweather T,Iitembu J, JappD, Kanandjembo A, Kilongo K, Moroff N, Nel D, Roux J-P, Shannon L J, vanZyl B, Vaz Velho F , 2007. Results and conclusions of the project “Ecosystemapproaches for fisheries management in the Benguela Current Large MarineEcosystem”. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 1026. Rome, FAO.167p.Cury P and Shannon L J. 2004. Regional shifts in upwelling ecosystems: Observedchanges and possible mechanisms in the northern and southern Benguela.Progress in Ocenaography. Vol. 60 2-4. p. 223-243.Esau B. 2011. Annual address to the fishing and aquaculture industry and relatedstakeholders, by Honourable Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources.Walvis Bay, 17 February.FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome: Food and AgriculturalOrganization of the UN.FAO. 1998. International Fisheries Instruments with Index. United NationsFAO. 2003. The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Issues, terminology, principles,institutional foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper. No. 443. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of theUN.FAO. 2010. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. FAO Fisheries andAquaculture Department. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of theUN.Field J G, Moloney C L, du Buisson L, Jarre A, Stroemme T, Lipinski M R andKainge P. 2008. Exploring the BOFFFF hypothesis using a model of SouthernAfrican deepwater Hake (Merluccius paradoxus). K. Tsukamoto, T.Kawamura, T. Takeuchi, T. D. Beard, Jr. and M. J. Kaiser, eds. Fisheries forGlobal Welfare and Environment, 5th World Fisheries Congress 2008, pp. 17–26.Hannesson. R., 2004. The privatization of the oceans. Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.Kainge P, Kjesbu O S, Thorsen A and Salvanes A G. 2007. Merluccius capensisspawn in Namibian waters, but do M. paradoxus? African Journal of MarineScience 29 (3): 379–392.Hake Management Plan Page 35

Ministry of Fisheries and Marine ResourcesKirchner C. and Ianelli J. 2010. An assessment and management of Namibian hake(M. capensis and paradoxus) using an age-structured model. DWG, HK, Doc4b.Kirchner C. 2010. Determinants of resource rents in the Namibian hake industry.Unpublished MBA research report presented to the Graduate School ofBusiness, University of Cape Town.Mafila S. In prep. Ecosystem effects of bottom-trawling in the Benguela system:experimental and retrospective data analysis. Unpublished PhD researchreport. University of Namibia.Marine Resources Act. 2000. Act no 27 of 2000. Government Gazette, no. 2458, 27December.MFMR. 2001. Regulations relating to the exploitation of marine resources.Government Gazette of the Republic of Namibia. Government notice No. 214.7 December.MFMR. 2004. Namibia’s Marine Resource Policy: Towards ResponsibleDevelopment and Management of the Marine Resources Sector. Governmentof Namibia.MFMR. 2008. The History, Current and Future Perspectives. Outcome of Fisheriesand Aquaculture Conference held in Swakopmund, 24-26 September.MFMR. 2009a. MFMR Strategic Plan 2009-2014. Government of Namibia.MFMR. 2009b. Employment Verification Report. Prepared by PPE. August.MFMR. 2009c. Policy statement (guidelines) for the granting of rights to harvestmarine resources and the allocation of fishing quotas. July.MFMR. 2010. Hake State of Stock Report. NatMIRC: Demersal Section,Swakopmund.MFMR. various years. Annual Report. Government of Namibia.Nel N, Cochrane K and Petersen S.. 2005. Report on the Ecological Risk Assessment(ERA). Workshop for the Namibian Hake fishery. Swakopmund. April.Office of the President. 2004. Prosperity, Harmony, Peace and Political Stability:Namibia Vision 2030. Policy Framework for Long-Term NationalDevelopment. Government of Namibia.Paterson B, Petersen S L, Okes N and P Kainge. 2010. Ecological Risk AssessmentReview for theNamibian Hake Fishery. In Petersen S, Paterson B, Basson J,Moroff N, Roux J-P, Augustyn J and D’Almeida G (eds). Tracking theImplementation of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries in Southern Africa.WWF South Africa Report Series – 2010/Marine/001.Russell D. 2009. Certification of the hake industry in Namibia. United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP) to the Institute for Security Studies (ISS).United Nations. 1997. The Law of the Sea.Wiium V. and Uulenga A. 2003. Fishery Management Costs and Rent Extraction: TheCase of Namibia. In Schrank W E, Hannesson R and Arnason R (eds.). Thecosts of fisheries management. pp. 173-186. Aldershot: Ashgate PublishingCompany.Hake Management Plan Page 36

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ Namibia7.5 Consulatative meeting 15 December 2010 – PresentationThe following pages contain the PowerPoint presentation from the Consultative meeting held inWalvis Bay.Project Funded by the European Union Page 15 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

31/03/2011IntroductionManagement Plan for theNamibian Hake FisheryConsultative MeetingPelican Bay Hotel15 December 2010• Who are we?– Villi Wiium– Dave Boyer– ACP Fish 2– NFDS Africa –Botswana based consultingfirm• Aim: Develop a Management Plan forHake Fishery before end of February• Today: Your input and advicePurpose with MP• Long term vision• MP aims to reach vision• Sets specific goals, objectives andstrategies• Defines performance indicators• Formal document setting out harveststrategy• Based on current legislation and policiesCode of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Article 7.3.3)“Long-term management objectivesshould be translated into managementactions, formulated as a fisheriesmanagement plan or othermanagement framework.”Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Article 7.3.3)HAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN“Long-term management objectives should be translated intomanagement actions, formulated as a fisheries managementplan or other management framework.”FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries (Fisheries Management)“…. the process of agreeing on a MP for a fishery, including the need forconsultation and, where appropriate, cooperative decision‐making. The needfor periodic review of MPs is stressed.” (Abstract)”“….MPs should be drawn up for all fisheries. These MPs will then serve as areference and information source for the management authority and allinterested groups, summarizing the current state of knowledge on theresource, its environment and the fishery, and reflecting all decisions andactions agreed upon during the course of consultations ….” (Section 4.1 (ii))…1

31/03/2011HAKE MANAGEMENT PLANPreparation for developing the HMPIIIIIIIVPreparation for developing the HMPWhere are you now?Deciding on appropriate management goalsWhere do you want to be?Developing the HMPHow are you going to get there?Planning to implement, evaluate and reviewthe HMPHow will you know you are there?1 PurposeAgree the overall purpose of FMP2 DefineDefine the hake fishery3 Management approach4Describe the management approachStakeholder analysisCarry out a stakeholder analysis and decide howstakeholders are going to involvedDeciding on appropriate managementgoals5Situation analysisCarry out a situation analysis and list the problems faced bythe hake fishery6 GoalsDecide on the biological, ecological, social and economicgoals needed to achieve this purpose7 ObjectivesDefine objectives for each goal8 Management standardsAgree the management standards – the reference pointsand indicators for each objective – how these are going tobe measured to show objectives are being achieved9Developing the HMPManagement measuresDecide the management measures – the actions that needto be taken to achieve the objectives10 Control rulesAgree a set of decision control rules stating whichmeasures and which levels of measures will be applieddepending on the status of the fishery11 ResourcesDecide what resources that will be needed to put the FMPinto actionPlanning to implement, evaluate andreview the HMP12 ImplementationMake an action plan to implement the FMP13 MonitoringMonitor regularly how the FMP is achieving the objectives14 ReviewingReview the FMP every few yearsDeciding on appropriate managementgoals5Situation analysisCarry out a situation analysis and list the problems faced bythe hake fishery6 GoalsDecide on the biological, ecological, social and economicgoals needed to achieve this purpose7 ObjectivesDefine objectives for each goal8 Management standardsAgree the management standards – the reference pointsand indicators for each objective – how these are going tobe measured to show objectives are being achieved2

31/03/2011GoalsGoal 1 ‐ Resource• Goal 1: Responsible and sustainable utilisationof the hake resource• Goal 2: Conducive business environment forthe hake industry established to promoteeconomic efficiency• Goal 3: Hake fishery benefits a large number ofNamibians, directly and indirectly• Goal 4: Cost effective and participatorymanagement of the hake fishery1. Biomass increasing (increasing survey catch rate)towards optimal levela. Set TACs in line with established target and limit referencepointsb. Use gear and area restrictions to avoid catches of juveniles2. Sufficient biological and environmental informationexistsa. Collect fisheries statistics through logbooksb. Maintain the annual hake surveyc. Collect appropriate environmental data for properassessment3. Minimise bycatchesa. Set the appropriate level of bycatch fees to encourageminimum bycatchesGoal 1 ‐ Resource4. Taking due account of transboundary natureof one hake stocka. Promote research within the Benguela CurrentCommissionb. Enter into discussions with the Government ofSouth Africa5. Meeting international obligationsa. Prepare the appropriate National Plans of Actionin accordance with the Code of Conduct6. Ecosystem approach7. Environmental changesGoal 2: Economic efficiency1. Appropriate fleet –type, size, age etc.2. Quota allocation3. Profitable industryGoal 3: Social dimension1. Quota fees provide revenue to governmenta. Timely payments of quota feesb. Regular review of the levels of quota fees2. Hake industry provides maximum employment to Namibiansa. Wet fish versus freezerb. Quota fee structure encourages on shore processingc. MFMR and hake industry provide support to NAMFI3. Increased Namibian ownership in the hake industrya. Preference given to Namibians when rights are allocatedb. Quota fee structure encourages Namibian ownership4. Corporate Social Responsibilitya. Hake industry supports community projects (in all regions?)b. MFMR and industry provide training on HIV/AIDSc. Hake industry gives support to the Fish Consumption PromotionTrust.Goal 4: Save money ‐ participation1. MFMR strives to minimise costs of providing the requiredmanagement servicesa. Determine the annual real cost of management, research andcompliance for the hake fisheryb. Seek ways to reduce management costs while maintaining theappropriate level of management2. Consultations with stakeholders and wider communitya. Seek stakeholders input when preparing management plansb. Communicate management arrangements to stakeholders andthe wider community3. Industry contributes to research and compliancea. Industry pays levies into the Marine Resources Fund and theFisheries Observers Fundb. Commercial surveys4. Management measures are complied witha. Fisheries Observers and Inspectors3

31/03/2011Further consultations• Would like to establish contact withthose interested in contributing• National workshop – likely 26‐27 January• Validation i workshop kh – likely l 17 February Fb4

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ Namibia7.6 Stakeholder meeting 25 to 26 January 2011 – PresentationThe following pages contain the PowerPoint presentation from the Stakholder meeting held inWalvis Bay.Project Funded by the European Union Page 16 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

2011/03/31IntroductionManagement Plan for theNamibian Hake FisheryStakeholders MeetingPelican Bay Hotel25‐26th January 2011• Who are we?– Villi Wiium– Dave Boyer– ACP Fish II– NFDS Africa – Botswana based consulting firm• Aim: Develop a Management Plan forHake Fishery before end February• Today and tomorrow:Your comments on 1 st draft of HMPPurpose with MPHAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN• Long term vision• MP aims to reach vision• Sets specific goals, objectives andstrategies• Defines performance indicators• Formal document setting out harveststrategy• Based on current legislation and policiesHAKE MANAGEMENT PLANFisheries Management Plans are“living” documentsThe Plan should be reviewed every 3‐5yearsGoals1. Responsible and sustainable utilisation of the hakeresource.2. Minimal impact on the ecosystem.3. Stable business environment exists conducive to thepromotion of economic efficiency.4. Benefits from the fishery accrue to a large number ofNamibians, both directly and indirectly5. Cost effective and participatory management of thefishery1

2011/03/31Goal 1 ‐ Responsible and sustainableutilisation of the hake resourceGoal 2 ‐ Minimal impact on theecosystem1. Responsible and precautionary management of thehake stocks2. Recovery of the hake stocks to 1990 level3. Recovery of the hake stocks to MSY level1. Maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functioning2. Minimize bycatches including incidental mortality ofnon‐commercial species3. Mitigate habitat and substrate damage4. Sufficient institutional capacity, skills, equipmentand fundingGoal 3 ‐ Stable business environmentestablished conducive to thepromotion of economic efficiencyGoal 4 ‐ Hake fishery benefits a largenumber of Namibians, directly andindirectly1. Hake industry operates in an environment that aimsto reduce risk2. Appropriate investments are undertaken by theindustry3. The industry has the capability to respond effectivelyto external changes4. Promote increased level of value addition1. Quota fees provide revenue to government2. Hake industry provides sustainable and qualityemployment to Namibians3. Increased Namibian ownership in the hake industry4. Support to social initiatives encouragedGoal 5 ‐ Cost effective andparticipatory management of the hakefishery1. MFMR strives to minimise costs of providing therequired management services2. Consultations with stakeholders and widercommunity3. Industry contributes to research and complianceFurther consultations• We would like comments during thisworkshop• Any further comments welcomed up10th February• Validation workshop –17 February• Final opportunity for comment –no laterthan 21 February4. Management measures are complied with2

Elaboration of the management plan for hake ‐ Namibia7.7 Validation workshop 17 February 2011– PresentationThe following pages contain the PowerPoint presentation from the Validation Workshop held inWalvis Bay.Project Funded by the European Union Page 17 A project implemented by NFDS Africa

31/03/2011Management plan for thehake fisheryValidation workshopWalvis Bay17 February 2011Villi Wiium and Dave BoyerNFDS AfricaFunded by ACP‐Fish IIProgramme• 14h00 Opening and welcome• 14h05 Purpose of management plans• 14h15 Goal 1• 14h45 Goal 2• 15h15 Coffee/tea• 15h30 Goal 3• 16h00 Goal 4• 16h30 Goal 5• 17h00 General discussion• 17h30 Man. plans –this and others• 18h00 ClosingPurpose of meeting ‐ next stepsManagement plans• Review draft management plan for hake• Culmination of consultations with stakeholders• This afternoon 14h00‐18h00• Tomorrow 9h00‐11h00 VW and DB availablefor further discussions• Comments by e‐mail by 21 February• Delivery of final draft 24 February• Comments from MFMR by 10 March• Final document submitted 24 March• MPs stem from FAO Code of Conduct• Long‐term objectives → management actions→ management plan• All fisheries should have a management plan• Source of reference and information• Current state of knowledge• Reflecting management decisions and actions• Important to review plans periodicallyOutline of hake man. plan1. Purpose2. Current situation3. Management goals and objectives4. Management measures, research andreview5. Response of management6. Review of management planPurpose• How will hake fishery contribute toVision 2030?• Goals, objectives, strategies for threefishing seasons• Sustainability over‐arching goal– Various other aspects taken into account inline with EAF1

31/03/2011Current statusGoals• Chapter gives current and pastinformation– Stocks– Industry– Management measures• Any comments –please e‐mail• Data difficulties1. Responsible and sustainable utilisation of thehake resource.2. Minimal impact on the ecosystem.3. Stable business environment conducive tothe promotion of economic efficiency.i4. Benefits from the fishery accrue to a largenumber of Namibians, both directly andindirectly.5. Efficient, cost‐effective and participatorymanagement of the fishery.Goal 1: Responsible and sustainableutilisation of the hake resource1 Recovery of the hake stocks to the MSY level2 Management measures based on bestavailable scientific evidence3 New assessment of the hake stocks4 Sufficient institutional capacity, skills,equipment and funding1.1: Recovery of the hake stocks to theMSY levelStrategy Indicator TimeTAC set at 80% of averagebiological yieldAlternative interimindicators definedManagement measures inStrategy (a) assessedSpawningbiomass above1990 levelAlternativeindicators usedNew measuresimplemented< 3 yearsImmediate< 3 years1.2: Management measures based on bestavailable scientific evidenceStrategy Indicator TimeTACs based on science Scientific adviceusedUnder exceptionalcircumstances scientificadvice may be over‐riddenReview changes tomanagement for EAFHMP changedEAFRare20141.3: New assessment of the hake stocksStrategy Indicator TimeSeparate speciesassessmentsAssessments assumeecosystem changedNew ageing researchusedResearch into sharedstock levelManage each speciesindependentlyReliable estimationreference pointsAssessments to bepeer‐reviewedSufficient info tonegotiate protocolswith S. Africa1 year1 year1 year2 years2

31/03/20111.3: New assessment of the hake stocks(cont.)Strategy Indicator TimeAgree transboundarymanagement protocolsTransboundary status ofCape hake with AngolaMultispecies and bioeconomicmodelsPrecautionary approachappliedImproved understandingof productivity of hakeImplementationof protocolsAgree jointmanagementprotocolsModel outputsusedTACs set belowMSYAssessmentsapply info3 years5 years5 years1.4: Sufficient institutional capacityStrategy Indicator TimeAssess human resource Report delivered 1 yearrequirementsResults implemented Sufficient research 5 yearsand technical staffAssess equipment andfundingSufficientequipment andfunding available2 years1.4: Sufficient institutional capacity (cont.)Strategy Indicator TimeSupport from stakeholders1 yearData collected including:Annual trawl survey–Landings by fleet–Commercial CPUEdata–Commercial lengthfrequency data–Catch‐at‐age dataSeal scat dataData collectedtimeously2 yearsGoal 2: Minimal impact on the ecosystem1 Maintain biodiversity and ecosystemfunctioning2 Minimise bycatches including incidentalmortality of non‐commercial species3 Mitigate habitat and substrate damage4 Sufficient institutional capacity, skills,equipment and funding2.1: Maintain biodiversity and ecosystemfunctioningStrategy Indicator TimeTrophic and diet-relatedstudiesIntroduce managementstrategiesInformationavailableRecovery ofsmall pelagicstocks3years8years2.2:Minimise bycatchesStrategy Indicator TimeCost‐effectiveness ofcurrent bycatch measuresResearch into minimisingbycatchResearch into bycatch ofhakeIntroductionappropriateimprovementsBycatch of monk

31/03/20113.4: Value‐addition promotedStrategy Indicator Time frameQuota fees encourageon‐shore processingCollection of data oncatch utilisation andexportsShare of quotafees achieve fullrebateTimelysubmission ofdataPublishing ofinformationAnnuallyMonthlyQuarterlyGoal 4: Hake fishery benefits manyNamibians, directly and indirectly1. Quota fees provide revenue togovernment2. Hake industry provides sustainableemployment to Namibians3. Increased Namibian ownership in thehake industry4. Support to community initiativesencouraged4.1: Quota fees provide revenueto governmentStrategy Indicator Time frameTimely payment of % paid on time Every quarterquota related feeRegular review of thelevel of feesQuota fees 5‐15% First reviewof first‐hand value by mid‐year20114.2: Hake industry providessustainable employment to NamibiansStrategy Indicator Time frameEmployment datacollected by MFMRSubmission of dataEmployment statspublishedMonthlyQuarterlyRestrictions on catch< 30% of quotaAnnuallyprocessed at sea processed at seaQuota fee structureencourages on‐shoreprocessingMFMR and industryprovide support toNAMFIShare of quota feesachieving rebateReports in MFMR’sannual reportAnnuallyAnnualreporting4.3: Increased Namibianownership in hake industryStrategy Indicator Time framePreference given toNamibians whenrights allocatedQuota fee structureencourages Namibianownership% Namibianownership% NamibianownershipWhen rightsallocatedBiennialquota feereview4.4: Support to communityinitiatives encouragedStrategy Indicator Time frameMinister keeps socioeconomicconcerns inmind when allocatingrights and quotasMFMR and industryprovide training onHIV/AIDSIndustry gives supportto FCPTData published ineconomic reportReported in MFMRAnnual ReportAnnual report ofFCPTAnnuallyAnnuallyAnnually5

31/03/2011Goal 5: Efficient, cost‐effective andparticipatory management1. MFMR provides the requiredmanagement services cost‐effectively2. Consultations with stakeholders andwider community3. Industry contributes to research andcompliance4. Management measures are compliedwith5.1: Management services costeffectiveStrategy Indicator Time frameMFMR seeks ways toreduce managementcosts, whilemaintaining theappropriate level ofmanagement.Indicators in StrategicPlanAnnual goals set Annualin annual budgetLonger term goalsset in StrategicPlan5.2: Consultations with stakeholdersand wider communityStrategy Indicator Time frameMFMR and industrycooperate actively inbiological andeconomic researchStakeholders inputsought –MPs andpolicy reviewsCommunicatemanagementarrangementsRegular workinggroup meetingsheldMeetings andworkshopsPress releases andstatistical bulletinsContinuousOngoingQuarterly5.3: Industry contributes toresearch and complianceStrategy Indicator Time frameIndustry pays levies intoMRF and FOFTimelypaymentsQuarterlyIndustry supplies vessels No. of surveys Annualfor scientific surveysTimely provision ofaccurate biological,economic and social dataData receivedby MFMRMonthly orannual asrequired5.4: Management measures arecomplied withStrategy Indicator Time frameComprehensive MCSsystem in place,including operatingVMSAppropriate penaltiesare in place andenforcedVarious MCSindicatorsDegree ofcomplianceAnnuallyOngoingResearch and reviewsrecommended• Development of separate species assessments• Research into the transboundary shared stockissue with S‐Africa• Review legal, policy and strategic changes tomanagement of hake for the application of EAF• Research into the processes and consequencesof any altered ecosystem functioning• Research into minimising bycatch6

31/03/2011Research and reviewsrecommended (cont.)• Assessment of the funding and the H.R.requirements, traing and retnetion ofstaff required to conduct the researchrequired• Research into mortalities of seabirds,sharks, seals and other protected species• Research into the effect of trawling onthe substrate and benthic communitiesResearch and reviewsrecommended (cont.)• Review of quota allocations• Analyse the impact of current policies oninvestment and structure of the rightsand transferability of quotas• Review of quota related fees to befinalised• Review of the recent failings of the VMSto ensure it is operationalResponse of management• Minister and PS notified and relevantstakeholders• PS undertakes review of causes andimplications• PS provides a report to Minister within 3months, including recommendations• Minister considers, with input fromMarine Resources Advisory Council, andmake a decisionReview of management plan• First plan –3 fishing seasons– 2011/12– 2012/132013/14 – 2013/14• Review begins early 2013• Consultations• Note: plan can be changed anytimeshould the need arise7

31/03/20112.2: Minimise bycatches (cont.)Strategy Indicator TimeImplement NPOA forseabirdsImplement NPOA forsharksAssess sealmortalities0.03 birds / 1000hooksReduce foragingaround vesselsIntroduce mitigatingmethodsIntroduceappropriatemanagementmeasuresImmediateImmediate3 years2.3: Mitigate habitat and substrate damageStrategy Indicator TimeResearch on effect oftrawling on substrateIntroduce mitigatingmeasuresProposemitigatingmeasuresDamage tosubstratereduced5 years10 yearsGoal 3: Stable businessenvironment…1. Hake industry operates in anenvironment that aims to reduce risk2. Appropriate investments undertakenby industry3. Industry has capacity to respondeffectively to external changes4. Promote increased level of valueadditionby hake fishing and processingcompanies3.1: Aim to reduce riskStrategy Indicator Time frameTAC keptrelatively stableTAC changes lessthan ±10%AnnualIQs allocatedAllocationAnnualtimeously topromoteefficiencycompleted well inadvance of fishingseasonReview of quotaallocationsReviewcompletedDuring 20113.2: Appropriate investmentsStrategy Indicator Time frameInvestment datacollected and analysed–part ofIncome/ExpendituresurveyAnalyse the impact ofcurrent policies oninvestmentTimelysubmission ofdataAnalysis withrecommendationscompletedAnnuallyJune 20123.3: Industry can respondeffectively to external changesStrategy Indicator Time frameIncome andexpenditure datacollectedReview of quotarelated fees to befinalisedStructure of rights andtransferability of quotainvestigatedTimely submission ofdataAnnual reportingChanges in quotafees approved andimplementedRecommendationsdelivered to MinisterAnnuallyMid‐year2011June 20124