As a member of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries I was surprised to witness Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tina Joemat-Pettersson make pronouncements on abalone and quotas - as if she has now become the minister responsible for that portfolio. While we support the conditional lifting of the abalone ban as a measure that can help to curb poaching and alleviate poverty in our coastal communities - something my colleague Gareth Morgan has elaborated upon earlier today - it is concerning that the respective roles of the agriculture and environmental ministries continue to be blurred.

Put simply, minister Joemat-Pettersson does not have executive authority, in terms of the Marine Living Resources Act, to manage fisheries. As it currently stands, despite "fisheries" appearing in the title of her portfolio, she is officially responsible for nothing more than aquaculture, including mariculture, which contributes only 0.3% of the fish produced or landed in South Africa. She is not responsible for the setting of Total Allowable Catches, nor for enforcement and compliance in the fisheries, and nor for the granting of permits. In fact, she has practically nothing to do with fisheries and hence nothing to do with abalone.

So we have a Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in which only aquaculture, representing a tiny fraction of the annual marine production, falls within its jurisdiction. I therefore did the following in an attempt to either have the name of the Department changed to more accurately reflect its functions, or to transfer the remainder of the fisheries component to the Department:

made an oral statement on the matter in Parliament (copy below)
raised the matter in the portfolio committee on more than one occasion
submitted a written question to President Zuma (copy of question and reply below)

In all cases the response was that the status quo would remain. What transpired since then for the government to change its mind is unclear. The chairperson of the portfolio committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Lulu Johnston, today also confirmed to me that he was aware of changes that will be made to the portfolio, which will be promulgated soon. It is unsatisfactory that Parliament has not been informed.

At this stage we do not know exactly what functions have been or will be transferred and whether the conservation component will remain with Environment Affairs. Parliament deserves an answer on this. Apart from wanting to know exactly which functions are to be transferred, we would, for instance, want detailed information on the transfer of budgets, personnel and implementation of time-frames.

Government must play open cards at this time. Who is running what? And who do the fishermen talk to at this time? Minister Sonjica or Minister Joemat-Petersen?


PARLIAMENTARY REPLY:
QUESTION FOR WRITTEN REPLY
QUESTION NO. 759
DATE PUBLISHED: 14 August 2009
DATE SUBMITTED: 19 October 2009

759. Mr P.J.C. Pretorius (DA) to ask the President:

Whether he will consider changing the name of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in view of the fact that only aquaculture, responsible for a mere 0.3% of the total national marine production, falls under the jurisdiction of this Department, and that the bulk, 99.7% of the total national marine production therefore does not fall under jurisdiction of this Department but under the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs? NW886E

REPLY:
No, I have no reason to consider changing the name of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

We announced a new cabinet structure on the 10th of May 2009 to achieve better alignment between the structure, our electoral mandate as per our election Manifesto and the developmental challenges that need to receive immediate attention from government.

We explained in the Presidency Budget Vote on 3 June 2009 that the fisheries sector is a critical part of the limited natural resources base of the country and that it is critical for food security and economic development. It requires our utmost attention.
Should there be overlaps in functions or any other matters that require our attention, these will be attended to by the Departments concerned.

MEMBER'S STATEMENT:

The reorganization and renaming of government departments have not been a smooth process thus far and some confusion still exists, notably in the portfolios of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and Water and Environmental Affairs.

The name of the Department or the portfolio name Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries clearly implies that Fisheries is a substantive component of that portfolio. There can be no other interpretation. The reality is though that only a tiny part of fisheries, namely aquaculture - ie fish farming - falls under the portfolio. Aquaculture production represents a mere 0,6 % of all fish production. 99, 4% of fish related matters - including Marine and Coastal management, permits, quotas, resource management etc - therefore fall outside the brief of the department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

The Department responsible for this 99,6% of fisheries affairs is indeed the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs, and nothing in the name of that department or portfolio suggests that Fisheries is part of it. This is an utterly confusing and unsatisfactory situation which should be corrected.

We call on the President and his advisers to have a fresh look at the names and/or reorganization of the two departments.