EVALUATION OF THE SUBSISTENCE FISHERY IN

THE KNYSNA ESTUARY, SOUTH AFRICA

VICTORIA ROSE NAPIER

Percy FitzPartick Institute of African Ornithology

University of Cape Town

Rondebosch 7701

SUPERVISORS

Dr. Jane Turpie' and Dr. Barry Clark2

1 Percy FitzPartick Institute of African Ornithology, Universityof Cape Town, South Africa.

2 Anchor Environmental Consultants, University of CapeTown, South Africa

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

masters in Conservation Biology, Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African

Ornithology, University of Cape Town

February 2005

The copyright of this thesis rests with the University of Cape Town. No

quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published

without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used

for private study or non-commercial research purposes only.

Univers

ity of

Cap

e Tow

n

ABSTRACT

Subsistence fisheries have recently been formally recognised in South Africa, through the

Marine Living Resources Act of 1998, however many are still unknown and inappropriately

managed. The 'subsistence' fishery in the Knysna Estuary was evaluated by conducting daily

and nightly interviews over four hours of low tide during off-peak (October 2004) and peak

(December and January 2004/5) seasons. An estimated 230 bait collectors and fishers were

identified as truly subsistence fishers. Mud prawns (Upogebia africana) constituted 95% of

bait catches by subsistence fishers, with an estimated 600 000 prawns removed annually.

Accounting for indirect effects of harvesting, subsistence fishers affect <1.0% of the total mud

prawn stocks. Other bait species (e.g. polychaete worms and cracker shrimps) were harvested

largely at night using illegal implements. Hand line catches dominated by juvenile cape

stumpnose (Rhabdosargus holubi) went towards subsistence. Lines planted in the mud catch

mostly spotted grunter and white steenbras, of which 44% were sold for between R40-R80 per

fish. Effort and catch fluctuate through the year and are unevenly distributed throughout the

estuary. The subsistence fishery (bait and fish catches) is valued between RO.75-R1.2 million

per annum. Fishers viewed current and suggested management strategies as inappropriate,

insisting on the legalisation of bait and fish sales and reduced permit prices. Co-management is

recommended as the most appropriate management strategy. Cheaper subsistence permits

allowing the sale of mud prawns should be issued, as mud prawn harvests appear sustainable at

current collecting levels. The sale and purchase of high value bait species such as bloukoppies

and tape worms should be prohibited due to highly destructive collecting methods.

Key words: subsistence fisheries; economic value; co-management

1

INTRODUCTION

Forests, wildlife, water and fisheries are, in most instances, common-property resources (Feeny

et al. 1990) and are thus vulnerable to overexploitation. Controlling access to these resources

may be complex, costly or virtually impossible given their nature and the problems associated

with management and regulating access (Feeny et al. 1990). Uncontrolled exploitation of these

resources would lead to the Tragedy of the Commons, (Hardin 1968) as each user maximises

his/her own gain to the inevitable degradation of the resource through their cumulative

exploitation.

Overexploitation, particularly of fisheries, takes years to detect and is exacerbated by the lack

of control and monitoring (Lauck et al. 1998). Fisheries management in South Africa, prior to

the democratic elections in 1994, was exactly that - uncoordinated, ineffective and

discriminatory. Laws and policies governing marine resources focused on recreational and

commercial fishing sectors, and provided no protection to the poor who relied on marine

resources to meet their basic livelihood needs (Hersoug & Holm 2000, Napier et al. 2005).

Unable to afford recreational fishing permits, the activities of subsistence fishers were deemed

illegal, resulting in conflict with authorities (Harris et al. 2002a). Exclusion of this fishery,

effectively discounted its effects on the exploitation of fishery resources. The Marine Living

Resources Act (MLRA) of 1998 formally recognised subsistence fishers as a fishing sector in

(Branch 2002). Marine and Coastal Management (MCM), the national authority responsible for

marine resources (including estuaries), appointed a Subsistence Fisheries Task Group to

investigate the subsistence fishery and provide management recommendations (Harris et al.

2002a). The Task Group defined a subsistence fisher (Branch et al. 2002), identified where in

South Africa subsistence fishers occurred (Clark et al. 2002) and recommended that resource

users be involved in management decisions (Harris et al. 2002b).

2

Six years since the implementation of the MLRA, the majority of subsistence fishing

communities are still unmanaged. These fisheries, located on or near inshore marine and

estuarine environments, have not all been formally recognised and identified by MeM. This

lack of recognition and implementation of co-management strategies are the main problems

hindering successful and effective management of subsistence fisheries.

This lack of management of subsistence fisheries situated on estuaries is of particular concern

as these ecosystems are known for their distinct biodiversity and high productivity, while

simultaneously performing numerous ecological functions (McLusky 1971, Turpie et al. 2002),

including the provision of nursery grounds for fish (Baird et al. 1996, Whitfield 1999, Blaber et

al. 2000, Turpie et al. 2002); conduits for fish migrating between marine and freshwater

ecosystems (McLusky 1971, Marias 1999, Turpie et al. 2002); and feeding and breeding

grounds for many resident and migratory birds (Hockey and Turpie 1999, Turpie et al. 2002).

These ecosystems are amongst the most threatened in the world (Branch et al. 1985 cited in

Allanson 1999, Blaber et al. 2000, Turpie et al. 2002). Due to a lack of understanding, and

implementation of inappropriate management strategies, estuaries have been subject to

increasing measures of direct and indirect pressures. The exploitation of fisheries,

development, industrialisation, recreational activities and utilisation of estuarine catchments

destroy sensitive estuarine habitat, change both the physical and chemical structure of the

estuary, all facilitating the loss of species abundance and diversity (Allanson et al. 1999,

Morant and Quinn 1999, Turpie et al. 2002).

The Knysna estuary is a popular tourist destination and settlement area (Maree 2000). The

estuary supports numerous commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries, with the latter

two fisheries expanding hugely during the holiday periods. Management of the estuary in terms

of fisheries, development and recreation is essential to maintaining its integrity. Management

3

strategies exist for development, recreational activities, commercial and recreational fisheries.

However, the subsistence fishery has no tailored management plan, and is currently managed as

part of the recreational fishery. Subsistence fishers have different needs to recreational fishers

and to avoid conflict between the two require a different management strategy. In order to

understand and evaluate this fishery with the aim of developing appropriate management

recommendations, the following questions were addressed. (1) Do subsistence fishers exist in

the Knysna estuary according to the definition by Branch et al. (2002)? (2) How many fishers

participate in the fishery? (3) What species and quantities of invertebrates and fish are fishers

exploiting? (4) What is the economic value of the fishery? (5) What do subsistence fishers

regard as problems with the current management strategy? (6) What are fishers' reactions to a

range of suggested management strategies?

4

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Knysna estuary (34.1°S, 23.00E) is a unique S-shaped estuarine bay (Whitfield 1992)

approximately 19 km long and up to 3.2 km wide (Day 1981) (Fig. 1). The tidal reach extends

the full 19 km of the estuary to the Charlesford Weir, and the tidal rise ranges between 0.4 and

2.0m (Largier et al. 1999). The estuary contains two islands, Thesen Island and Leisure Isle,

both connected to the mainland. Day et al. (1952) surmised that the Knysna estuary probably

has the richest fauna in the country. Some 42.7% of South Africa's estuarine species are

represented in the Knysna estuary (Turpie 2000 cited in Allanson 1999)

Subdivision of the study area

Bait collecting and fishing occur throughout the Knysna Estuary, throughout the year. In order

to maximise coverage, the estuary was divided into five areas (Fig. 1): Leisure Isle area (sties

A, B and C), Ashmead area (sites D, E and F), Thesen Island area (sites G, H, I, J and K), the

Railway area (sties Land M) and The Point area (sites N, 0, P and Q). The western side of the

estuary (Belvidere, Brenton and the Featherbed Nature Reserve) was excluded from this study,

in terms of physically visiting the area. The main reasons being that travelling time to and from

these areas would decrease actual observation time and according to the local conservation

authority (South African National Parks - SANParks) bait collection and fishing are minimal

compared to the eastern side.

5

DurbanoKNYSNA

CapeTown

1000 1500m500o

o Navigable channelSand bank (flooded at spring high)Sand bank (flooded at high tide)

___ Invertebrate Reserve

Thesen Island: Leisure Isle sideThesen Islnad: Ashmead sideKADARailway BridgeThe Point: LeftThe PointThe Block HouseCrabs Creek

Key:

A Bollard Bay JB Kingfisher KC Leisure Isle North LD Ashmead Airfield ME Lourie Park NF Cathy Park 0G Costa Sarda PH Thesen Island Bridge QI Thesen Island Jetty

Figure 1: Position of sites monitored, in and around the Knysna estuary, for subsistence fishing and bait

collecting. Leisure Isle area (sites A, B & C), Ashmead area (sites D, E & F), Thesen Island area

(site G, H, I, J & K), Railway area (sites L & M) and The Point area (sites N, 0, P & Q).

6

Data collection

Field work was conducted over a two and a half week period during October 2004 (off-peak

season) and for a period of one and a half weeks during both December 2004 and January 2005

(peak season). All five areas were monitored during daylight and night time low tide periods,

however, the nightly low tide periods during January 2005 were not monitored for safety

reasons. Monitoring spanned four hours, commencing two hours before low tide. The time of

low tide for each area was adjusted to match the tidal lag. The Thesen Island area was

estimated to be about half an hour later, the railway area about 40 minutes and The Point area

around 45 minutes later. The sequence in which areas were visited was randomised (with

replacement) in such a way that each area was visited as frequently as the next. Within each

area, there were a number of sites monitored at roughly half-hour intervals.

At each site the number of subsistence fishers and bait collectors was noted, including the type

of equipment being used. Where possible the time spent bait collecting and fishing was

recorded for each individual. Activity within other areas visible from the area being monitored,

including areas on the western side of the estuary, was also noted and incorporated into

estimates.

Interviewing of fishers

Only subsistence fishers and bait collectors were interviewed, identified as those persons using

low technology gear (hand lines for fishing, tins for bait collecting and rowing boats without

engines), living at the waters edge or in surrounding townships and who rely on fishing and bait

collecting as a means of food security and income (Branch et al. 2002). Interviews took

approximately 45 minutes to complete. Questionnaires (Appendix 1) gained information

7

regarding fish and bait catches, effort (time spent fishing or bait collecting), socio-economic

circumstances, demographic details of fishers and their views on specific management issues.

Fishers previously interviewed (either within the same or previous field work period) were

asked a simpler questionnaire (Appendix 2) to quantify their efforts and catches within the last

few days since the detailed interview.

Focus group discussions

To obtain more generalised information regarding the subsistence fishery, two focus group

discussions with five fishers each were held. Discussions focused on species utilised, types of

equipment used and their durability, seasonality of resource use, return on effort, prices and

management of the fishery. The seasonality of resource use was established using Participatory

Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods with beans. A calendar was drawn up and participants were

asked to portion out 100 beans to represent the relative catches for each month of the year

(Conroy 2002).

Effort and catch estimates

Effort and CPUE for bait collecting was not significantly different between spring and neap

tides (prawn collecting: effort: p > 0.4, Mann-Whitney V-test; CPUE: p> 0.6, Students T-test

and for other bait species: effort: p > 0.7, Students T-test; CPUE: p > 0.3, Students T-test)

neither was it between off-peak and peak seasons (prawn collecting: effort: p > 0.9, Mann-

Whitney V-test; CPUE: p > 0.3, Mann-Whitney U'-test and for other bait species: effort: p >

0.7, Students T-test; CPVE: p> 0.7 Students T-test). Effort and CPVE for fishing was also not

significantly different between tides (effort: p > 0.1, Mann-Whitney U'-test; CPUE: p > 0.1,

Mann-Whitney U'-test), neither was it between off-peak and peak seasons (effort: p > 0.3,

8

Mann-Whitney U-test; CPVE: p> 0.5, Mann-Whitney U-test), Therefore, data was combined

across seasons and tides to estimate total effort and catch during spring-summer.

Daily effort and catch estimates for mud prawns (Upogebia africana) were calculated

separately for each area, however, nightly estimates were averaged across all areas as sample

sizes within each were too small. Only a small proportion of subsistence fishers collected other

bait species, thus day and night observations were combined to estimate effort and catch for all

other bait species within each area. Fishing effort and catch (all species) was estimated for each

area (combining day and night observations); the same was done for the most commonly caught

fish species in the estuary, the cape stumpnose (Rhabdosargus holubi).

Instantaneous counts of fishers and bait collectors were performed at the start and end of each

observation period (approximately half an hour) at each site. Counts were then averaged and

multiplied by the length of the fishing or bait collecting period (four hours in the bait collecting

day or night and 12 hours in the fishing day or night) to estimate fishing and bait collecting

effort (angler- or bait collector- hours) for each site, within each area. Fishing and bait

collecting effort was then averaged across all sites to yield an estimation of daily and/or nightly

effort for each area. Where daily and nightly observations were combined, effort was estimated

by averaging across all observations.

The estimator used for catch rate (Cr), recommended by D.S. Robson and colleagues

(unpublished manuscript, cited in Pollock et al. 1994), was the mean of the ratios.

n

LCi/LiCr = ...:..i=....:.I _

n

Where Ci represents the total catch for the ith fishing or bait collecting trip, Li the length of the

ith trip, and n the total number of fishing or bait collecting trips. Very short incomplete fishing

9

trips « 30 minutes) were excluded from calculations to avoid influencing the variance of the

catch rate estimator by extreme catch rates that may happen by chance during short fishing trips

(Pollock et al. 1994). The average catch rates for both fishing and bait collecting were

estimated for each area. Assumptions that underlie this method of catch rate estimation is that

the catch rate at the time of the interview is equal to the catch rate for the entire trip, and that

the catch rate of interviewed fishers is equal to that of noninterviewed fishers.

Total daily and/or nightly catch for fishing and bait collecting, for each area, was obtained by

multiplying the average daily or nightly effort with the respective catch rates. Bait collecting

effort estimates for the western side of the estuary were multiplied by the average catch rate for

the Railway area, as all bait collecting activity was restricted to the Brenton area. Fishing effort

for the western side was multiplied by the average catch-per-unit-effort for all data collected

over all areas on the eastern side. Annual estimates for catches were extrapolated from spring­

summer data using ratios calculated from focus group discussions.

Data analyses

All statistical data analyses were performed using STATISTICA 7. T-tests and ANOVAs were

carried out to test for significant differences (p < 0.05) when data was normally distributed and

variances were similar. Non-normal data and/or unequal variances required non-parametric

tests such as the Mann-Whitney V-test (comparing two independent groups) and Kruskal­

Wallis ANOVA (comparing multiple independent groups).

10

RESULTS

A total of 90 subsistence fishers were interviewed during the course of the study. The majority

of interviews took place within the Railway and Ashmead areas (30 and 25 interviews

respectively), whereas interviews within The Point, Thesen Island and Leisure Isle areas

numbered 15, 14 and 6 respectively (see Fig. 1 for areas). A total of 25 follow up interviews

were done, representing a relatively low 'recapture' rate.

Socio-economic circumstances of fishers

Nearly all fishers interviewed were coloured, with black and white fishers in the minority

(Table I). The fishery is predominantly male aged between 20-55 years (Table I). The average

household size was 4.9 with only 0.3 additional household members participating within the

fishery.

Table I: Summary of demographic details of

subsistence fishers. Results expressed as

percentages of the 90 fishers interviewed

Percentage of fishersRACE

BlackColouredWhiteGENDER

MaleFemaleAGE GROUP

YouthAdultElderly

11

1.196.72.2

76.723.3

5.678.915.6

A little more than half (53%) the subsistence fishing population has lived within the Knysna

area for 21-50 years (x:::::: 35 years). Figure 2 shows where fishers live and the number of

fishers within each area surrounding Knysna. The average number of years that fishers have

been active within the fishery was 18.6 years (approximately equal to the average within the

2003 preliminary valuation of the Knysna subsistence fishery (Potter and Khumalo 2003)), with

7% of the population having participated in fishing and bait collecting for 50 years or more.

60

l!! 50Q)

-; 40li=....o 30...Q)

.c 20E::sZ 10

oa>a>cL-oI

roEoocoo

ro"'CCa>c::::la>.c0:::

L-a>.c+-'o

Figure 2: Number of fishers living within areas surrounding Knysna. Areas

included within the 'other' category are: Gongolia, Bongani, Bona, Greenfields,

the forestry station and Knysna central.

Unemployment was high among fishers, with 47% and 13% of fishers holding full-time and

part-time jobs respectively (Fig. 3 for job types). Full-time employed fishers earned on average

::::: R96 day" (n = 42, range: R4-590, average excluded the outlier incomes of R4, R300 and

R590 day"), whereas part-time employees earned on average > R75 day" (n = 11, range: R50­

700 day", average excluded the outlier of R700 day"). Of the unemployed fishers, 38%

12

admitted to selling bait and/or fish in order to provide for themselves or their families, whereas

23% of employed fishers admitted to selling bait and/or fish to supplement their income.

Other33%

Deepseafishing

4%Forestry

15%

Builder22%

Carpenter6%

Figure 3: Percentage of subsistence fishers employed (either full or

part-time) in various job categories. Forestry includes those jobs

related to saw mills and wood companies.

When fishers were asked whether they regarded themselves as full-time or part-time

subsistence fishers or rather as recreational fishers, 61% replied that they regarded themselves

as part-time subsistence fishers. Only 18% and 21% of fishers interviewed considered

themselves to be full-time subsistence and recreational fishers respectively.

Number of subsistence fishers

Discussion groups estimated the total number of full-time subsistence fishers to be in the range

of 25-30 people, whereas the number of part-time subsistence fishers was estimated to be

approximately 20-50 (however, one group seemed to indicate that the number of part-time

13

subsistence fishers was "too many to count"). SANParks estimated approximately 30 full-time

and part-time subsistence fishers (pers. Comm., P. Joubert). In this study, 16 full-time and 74

part-time (those 19 "recreational" are in fact subsistence fishers according to the definition by

Branch et al. (2000)) subsistence fishers were interviewed. Given that the majority of fishers

stated that they very rarely collect bait and fish during winter, we estimate approximately 30

full-time subsistence fishers, based on the discussion group fishers being able to name all those

they regarded as full-time. An estimated 100-200 part-time fishers participate in the fishery,

not all the women fishing from the jetty were interviewed (about 5 out of an estimated 30

women (personal observation, V. Napier)) and many fishers mentioned that some fishers only

collect bait and fish every now and again when money or food is low. Thus, the subsistence

fishery is estimated to support approximately 230 fishers and their families, approximately 1

200 people.

Composition, collection and sale of bait catches

The most popular and preferred bait organism collected by subsistence fishers was the mud

prawn (Upogebia africana). 73% of fishers were primarily targeting mud prawns whereas

blood worms (Arenicola loveni) and bloukoppies (Marphysa spp), were targeted secondarily by

10% and 7% of fishers respectively. The highly praised tape worm (Polybrachiorhynchus

dayi), described as a "deadly bait" for spotted grunter (Pomadasys commersonnii), was only

rated as the preferred bait by 6% of fishers. Bought pilchards (Sardinops ocellata) were

regarded as the second best type of bait by 9% of fishers (predominantly women). For a

comprehensive list of all bait species harvested in this fishery, see Appendix 3.

The bulk of bait catches (94%) were made up of mud prawns (average daily catch > 92 prawns

per fisher collected within > 32 minutes). Of the remaining 6%, bloukoppies predominated;14

with sand prawns, cracker shrimps and blood worms representing the second, third and fourth

largest proportions respectively (Fig. 4). Equipment used ranged from the simplistic and

inexpensive tin can for pushing mud prawns to expensive stainless steel pumps, typically used

for blood worms. Bloukoppies and tape worm are collected by turning over large quantities of

lagoon sediment with garden forks, an illegal practice in terms of the National Lakes Areas Act

(pers. com., P. Joubert). Other polychete worms (e.g. moonshine (Diopatra spp.) and pencil

bait (Solen capensis) are collected using a steel wire. Sand prawns (Callianassa kraussi) and

cracker shrimps (Alpheus crassimanus) are collectable with prawn pumps. However, the

easiest and most effective way in which to collect Cracker shrimps is through trampling.

Fishers tramp an area of mud repeatedly, forcing shrimps to the surface.

bloukoppies40%

tapeworm1%

sand prawn19%

crackershrimps

15%

other5%

Figure 4: Composition of the remaining 5.6% of bait catches collected

by subsistence fishers (combined data from October, December and

January). Mud prawns take up 95% of the total catch.

15

Mud prawns are usually sold by the 250g jam tin (holds > 80 prawns), whereas blood worms,

cracker shrimps, tape worms, moonshine worms and bloukoppies are sold individually (see

Table II for prices). Average weekly income from bait sales was approximately R170 (n = 18,

range: RlO-R600 week", with 61% of fishers earning between RI0-R150 week"). Some

fishers sell Knysna Crabs (Scylla serrata) to restaurants and are able to earn approximately

R220 week! by catching only three crabs.

Table II: Prices for various bait species during off-peak and peak seasons, as

discussed during focus group discussions. Mud prawns are sold by the tin, which

can hold approximately 60-80 prawns depending on their size.

Off-peak season Peak season

Mud prawns RI0-20 / jam tin R20 / jam tin

Tapeworms RI00 for 5-6 worms RI00 for 5-6 worms

Bloukoppies R20 for 10-15 worms R20 for 10-15 worms

Blood worms R3/worm R5-10 / worm, depends on size

Cracker shrimps R20 / 10 shrimps R20 / 10 shrimps

Moonshine worms R2/worm R2/worm

Composition and sale of fish catches

Of the fishers interviewed 46% named the spotted grunter as their main targeted species,

whereas the white steenbras (Lithognathus lithognathus) was targetted secondarily by 42% of

fishers. The abundant cape stumpnose (R. holubi) was the third most targeted species, although

many stated that this fish was the best eating fish in the lagoon. A total of 16 fish species are

caught by subsistence fishers (Appendix 3).

16

Two fishing methods exist within the estuary: hand lines and set lines. Hand lines typically

consist of two hooks and a sinker (usually an old spark plug) and are thrown, by hand, into the

water. Set lines are similar in composition, however, they may consist of more than two hooks

and, instead of being thrown into the water, they are placed and anchored during low tide with

baited hooks (predominantly with mud prawns) buried in the mud. Fish are collected during the

next low tide. Set lines usually only catch grunter (during summer) and steenbras (during

winter) as both species feed benthically on mud prawns. Indeed, of the 33 observations of fish

caught by means of set lines, during this study, only one was a white steenbras, all the rest were

spotted grunter! Fisherman are legally allowed to use two hand lines and two set lines (each

with two hooks), having to tend them at all times. However, the average number of hand lines

and set lines per fisherman was 1.6 and 4. 7, respectively (average excludes one fisher who

consistently sets 10 lines or more).

The contribution of each fish species to the total hand line .catch is illustrated in Figure 5. The

average number of fish caught per fisher was 4 fish per day (equal to that found within the

preliminary valuation of the Knysna subsistence fishery (Potter and Khumalo 2003». The cape

stumpnose makes up the majority of fish catches, followed by strepies (Spondyliosoma

emarginatum). Strepies are predominantly caught off the Thesen Island jetty by the women in

the fishery.

17

WhiteSteenbras

3%SpottedGrunter

4%

Black-tail7%

Other10%

CapeStumpnose

61%

Figure 5: Composition of fish catches by subsistence fishers (combined data

from October, December and January) . The 'other' category was made up

of a few Zebra fish (Diplodus cervinus hottentotus), Santers (Cheimerius

nufar), Kabeljou (Argyrosomus hololepidotus) and Varkies (Pomadasys

olivaceum).

Only large individuals, .predominantly spotted grunter, white steenbras and kabeljou

(Argyrosomus hololepidotus), are sold to the public and/or restaurants. Avearge weekly income

from fish sales was w R250 (n = 19, range: R20-600 week-I). The price per fish depends largely

on size; however, the typical price range for spotted grunter is R30-50 during off-peak seasons

and R40-80 in season. White steenbras fetches higher prices at R40-80 and R40-120 during

off-peak and peak seasons respectively. Kabeljou and garrick (Lichia amia), when caught,

fetch between R40-150 in and out of season.

18

Fishing and bait collecting sites

Fishers were asked to name all of their fishing and bait collecting sites (Figure 6). The railway,

Brenton and Lourie Park areas are visited by greater numbers of subsistence fishermen than all

other sites. The Featherbed Nature Reserve, main channel and Belvidere are accessed by those

fishermen who have rowing boats.

(J2) [:--Bait-~~-ii-;~ting site~ ]

l~~~\*~ ~\ ..S.ItR'v.r

\

p RJ-=_~1'.............. NV''''- • «~\ L Knyma QUQ)I$

t10' ·o? ~'t" 11 M'rlna.....-y.i\.· <,

Belvidere .... •• :. jC.- »> \•••••• • I ~\i ••M •• ...,..~...--r .I!F"0· •• :. • ~!:!r/ (.:~.

• ~£Theee n "';1nd '~~:'E'\. .~~_..<, :!.u I fl"

j~""~~- -t:!::~~ B.-::..:0 .~~lr'J

/ / \'" c;: \C_,"- ..'\ ~

(' (~[:~:~-iSh}_~!!~ '~A. ~l~~,~'~

~/hj"'l Bridgfr The Featherbed • /;J:

(

r.'\. Nature Reserve .,;jKey: _r~ Z., fhe Head.

ABC Leisure Isle North ~~~M'"M Y' ~~

D AshmeadAirfield Belvidere ,~o ji;~:/il~ "VE Lourie Park ~ ~...,F Cathy Park ,~The.eJn '.'and ''f:G Costa Sarda ~ ......~ ~

H Thesen Island Bridge /"""~_~ t.J'~"t ~~ '\'i "..~~r(I Thesen Island Jetty :;J 'rJ Thesen Island: Leisure Isle side Brenton ._, ~ D

K Thesen Island: Ashmead side '\.,. \.." \L KADA ' ~ c~

A 1Leisure

M Railway Bridge ~~e,,/~-.7N The Point: Left "-o The Point: St. JamesP The Block House ~~':u~:aR~:~~ ~ J

Q Crabs Creek The HeadsR Salt River5 Main channelT Ashmead channel

Figure 6: Sites visited by subsistence fishers for bait collecting and fishing.

Symbols represent individual fishers, thus highlighting those sites preferred by

fishers. Combined data from October, December and January.

19

Total effort and catch for the estuary

Effort and catch estimates were based on current fishing and/or bait collecting trips, trips

undertaken the day before and within the last two weeks. Thus, data could be subject to a recall

bias, where fishers fail to recall catches and time spent fishing or bait collecting accurately.

Generally, catches are recalled more favourably (i.e. larger) the further back in time one goes,

whereas time spent shortens. However, CPUE based on current fishing (catch hour-I line") and

bait collecting (catch minute") trips (fishing: x= 1.60 ± 2.61(n = 53); bait: x = 3.60 ± 3.52 (n =

77» and those based on trips the day before (fishing: x= 1.09 ± 1.12 (n = 14); bait: x=2.03 ±

1.91 (n = 10» and within the last two weeks (fishing: x= 3.10 ± 6.45 (n = 11); bait: x= 3.29 ±

4.07 (n=23) were not significantly different (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA: p> 0.6 and p > 0.2 for

fishing and bait collecting trips respectively). Thus, data based on current and recollection was

combined for all effort and catch calculations.

Bait and fish catches fluctuate throughout the year (Fig. 7). Discussion groups revealed that

bait catches increased substantially during the summer holidays (October - January). Bait

catches for personal use were greater than those for sale during off-peak periods (February and

August-September); however, the opposite is true during peak periods (March (Easter Holiday),

June/July (winter school holiday) and October-January (summer school holiday» (Fig. 7a).

Greater bait catches for personal use during August and September coincide with dramatically

higher fish catches (Fig. 7). Bait catches for sale during October-March are 2.4 times greater

than those during April-September. Fish catches during August-January are 3.7 times greater

than those during February-July.

20

1 Personal Use _._~._... Sale I

b)

181614

.c 12~ 10o.c 8III 6u::

420

C .0 .c 'E >- Q) >- OJ a.o > oro Q) t? 0- ro c "5 ::J 0 Q)-, LL « ~::J -, « Q) 0 z 0ro -, (f)

~

181614

~ 12u 10

~ ~420+----,----,-----,----,---,-.----.------,----,-----,---,---,

a)

Figure 7: Monthly trends in bait and fish catches, expressed as the percentage of the total

annual catch. The values obtained from focus group discussions were average to obtain a

general trend in catches.

Annual trends in fish and bait catches (Fig. 7) are supported by the distribution of when fishers

are most active during the year (Fig. 8). The majority of fishers are active during summer and

over holidays and week-ends, with the majority of the latter occurring during the summer

months.

50

e 40a>J:II)

l+= 30....0L-a> 20

.Q

E::s 10Z

0

£ 06 II) l- I- I-Q) .$ co

C (1)"0 E Q)::J >-c C >-t:: co Q) E ~ Q)0 "O~ ::J (5.- Q)o, - Q) (J)o, ~ ~

.c0 $

Figure 8: Times of the year when fishers are most active with regards to bait

collecting and fishing. Only one interviewee did not respond with an

answer.

21

CPUE for mud prawn collecting was the highest in The Point area and lowest within the Thesen

Island area. However, effort and thus daily catch was greatest in the Ashmead and Railway

areas (Table III). The daily annual catch of U africana for the entire estuary, by subsistence

fishers only, was estimated at 584 000. By contrast, 13 200 mud prawns are removed annually

at night (Table III). Therefore, fewer than 600 000 mud prawns are harvested annually,

throughout the estuary, by subsistence fishers. The most efficient implement used for

collecting mud prawns (used in 91% of trips) was jam tins (CPUE = 2.94 prawns minute", n =

81). By contrast the prawn pusher and pump yielded CPUEs of 2.10 (n = 4) and 0.30 (n = 3)

prawns per minute, respectively. In addition to the annual mud prawn harvest, ca. 13 200

individuals of other bait species are collected annually by subsistence fishers (Table III).

22

Table III: Distribution of effort and catch within the Knysna estuary. Figures in bold indicate total

annual catches for the entire estuary.

Daily effort Catch rateTotal daily catch Estimated

Area (Effort x catch annual(Fisher-hours) (individuals/hour)rate) catch

The Point 0.5 284.8 131 33900Railway 3.2 264.7 842 217700

A) Mud prawns Thesen Island 1.9 162.3 307 79400(day) Ashmead 3.7 229.9 848 219200

Leisure Isle 0.1 180.0 13 3400Brenton 0.4 264.7* 118 30500

584100

All areasB) Mud prawns excluding Leisure

0.2 212.9 51 13 200(night) Isle & Western

Side

The Point 0.2 131.5 32 8300

C) All other baitRailway 0.2 42.8 10 2600Thesen Island 0.7 10.9 8 2000

species (day & night)AshmeadLeisure Island 0.1 12.7 300

13 200

The Point 4.5 0.9 4 900Railway 11.1 1.0 II 2600

D) All fish speciesThesen Island 9.0 1.5 13 3000Ashmead 4.6 4.1 18 4200

(day & night) Leisure IsleFeatherbed NR 47.0 2.1** 97 22500Brenton 36.0 2.1** 74 17200

50400

The Point 4.5 0.9 4 900Railway 11.1 0.7 8 1900

E) Cape StumpnoseThesen Island 9.0 0.2 1 200Ashmead 4.6 3.6 16 3700

(day & night) *** Leisure IsleFeatherbed NR 47.0 1.6** 73 16900Brenton 36.0 1.6** 56 13 000

36600

* Catch rate for Brenton was assumed to be equal to that of the Railway area. ** To obtain a

minimum estimate of catch from the western side of the estuary, the average catch rate for the entire

eastern side was used. *** Effort used to estimate total catches of the cape stumpnose were the same

as those used for all fish species, thus estimating how much of the total fish catch can be attributed to

the cape stumpnose.

23

Subsistence fishers removed, annually, an estimated 50 000 fish from the estuary with hand

lines. The cape stumpnose contributed about 73% to the annual hand line fish catches (Table

III). Subsistence fishers were found to set lines within the Leisure Isle (Kingfisher), Ashmead

and Thesen Island (Leisure Isle side) areas. CPUE for set lines was very low at 0.03 and 0.05

fish hour" line" for Ashmead and Thesen Island areas respectively. Therefore, CPUE over a

single high tide period would on average be approximately 1.53 and 2.25 for Ashmead and

Thesen Island, respectively (CPUE multiplied by the average number of set lines (4.67) and the

average time for which lines stayed out (lOA)).

Value of the subsistence fishery

Approximately 44% of prawn catches observed during this study were sold. With a selling

price of R20 per 60-80 prawns (Table I), an estimated R66 - R88 000 per annum is generated

from direct cash sales (assuming that 44% is representative throughout the year). The

remainder of the annual prawn catch goes towards subsistence fishing as is valued at

approximately R99 - R132 000. Therefore, the total value of the fishery with regards to prawn

harvesting is estimated to be between R165 - R220 000 per annum. A preliminary valuation of

the Knsyna estuary conducted in 2003, and based on a smaller sample size of approximately 25

interviews, estimated the total annual value of the subsistence prawn fishery to be between

R104 - R375 000 (Potter and Khumalo 2003).

Assuming that full-time subsistence fishers are the majority selling bait and fish (81% within

this study admitted to selling bait and/or fish), prawn catches and their values suggest that an

individual fisher earns approximately R2 200 - R2 900 per annum.

24

Due to insufficient data collected on the catch and sale of other bait species, we are unable to

estimate the economic value of these species to the subsistence fishery. More detailed studies

are require to estimate, more accurately, the annual catch of each bait species, determine the

proportion sold and the proportion used personally for fishing.

10 out of 90 fishers interviewed admitted to setting lines, thus an estimated 25.6 fishers set lines

within a fishery of 230 individuals. Therefore, with a CPUE of 1.89; and if lines are set, on

average, two-three times a week; then > 5000 - 7500 spotted grunter would be caught annually.

However, the white steenbras replaces the spotted grunter during winter. Thus, the annual

catch attributed to subsistence fishers setting lines ranges between 10 000 - 15 000 fish

(assuming that CPUE for white steenbras is equal to that of spotted grunter). Of fish caught off

set lines, 44% were sold for on average R60 per fish. Therefore, an estimated R264000 - R396

000 cash is generated per annum from set line catches, with approximately R396 000 - R594

000 going towards subsistence.

Based on the fact that the majority of the annual fish catch was cape stumpnose and juvenile

fish, it would not be unreasonable to assume that all hand line catches go towards subsistence.

Using the price per kilogram of hake (;::;; R30, retail price) as a replacement value and that the

average mass of fish caught ranges between 80 - 1909 (based on the weight/length regression

for cape stumpnose (Van del' Elst and Adkin 1991) and an average observed size of 15-20cm),

the fishery is estimated to generate between R130 000 - R290 000 per annum towards

subsistence livelihoods.

The total direct economic value of the subsistence fishery is estimated to be between R955 000

- Rl 500 000 per annum. Input costs such as equipment for bait collecting and fishing are

marginal as the majority use old tin cans to collect bait and simple fishing gear. Prawn pumps

25

and pushers are often given to subsistence fishers by regular buyers, thus the cost is not

incurred through the fishery.

Current views on management

A large portion (76%) of the subsistence fishers stated that they were familiar with the

restrictions imposed on fish and bait catches. Figure 9 summarises their responses to current

regulations and restrictions with regard to permits, the bag limit of prawns, size restrictions on

fish and protected areas (e.g. the Invertebrate Reserve, see Fig. 1). Subsistence fishers without

permits accounted for 54% of those interviewed. Of these, 67% gave the reason that permits

were too expensive (Fig. 8a). A few fishers were of the opinion that permits should not exist at

all, and that God has allotted the time of each animal's death.

26

a) Permits

56%

Good. Bad 0 Too expensive I

c) Fish size limits3%

b) Prawn daily bag limit

Good. Bad 0 Insufficient I

d) Protected areas5%

43%

Good. Bad 0 Too large 0 Too small I

44%51%

Figure 9: Views of90 subsistence fishers towards current catch restrictions and

management strategies.

When asked what they would be willing to pay for a combined bait collecting and fishing

permit, the majority (70%) responded with a price of:5RlOO. The modal willingness to pay was

:5R50 (Fig. 10).

27

50

~ 40Q)J:(J)

30It=....0...Q) 20.cE::s

10Z

0

0-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 ~ 300

Willingness to pay (Rands)

Figure 10: Subsistence fishers' willingness to pay for both a

fishing AND bait collecting permit. One fisher stated that he

was prepared to pay any price (even R1000) the state decided

upon.

Subsistence fishers were divided as to their overall views regarding protected areas where bait

collecting is prohibited (Fig. 9d). Those in agreement understood the increased recruiting

potential of bait organisms within these areas. Those against it would prefer open access to the

entire estuary. These fishers believe that mud prawn stocks are unlimited and impossible to

deplete.

As a result of not agreeing with the daily bag limit of prawns, the size limits of fish and not

being able to afford permits, SANParks has fined and/or arrested numerous fishers. However,

only 25% of fishers interviewed admitted to being fined, compared to eight fishers having been

arrested. While conversing with fishers it became clear that the men in the fishery view

SANParks as prejudiced. They think it unfair that the women fishing on Thesen Island jetty

(next to SANParks offices) do not get fined or arrested (as often) as often as they do. Through

personal observations and interactions with both women and men in the fishery, SANParks

28

seem to be more lenient towards women as most only get warnings, whereas the men seldom

get warnings but fines instead:

Management scenarios suggested

Three management scenarios (Table IV) were presented in discussion groups, as well as certain

key elements, from each, posed in individual questionnaires in the form of management

statements.

Table IV: Details of management scenarios posed in discussion groups. TURFS (Territorial

User Rights in Fisheries) are where fishers receive access to specific areas only.

Scenarios Access Selling

1Original fishers Only bait speciesReduced permit priceOriginal fishers Only bait species

2 Reduced permit price Central salespoint

TURFS Only bait species3 Original fishers Many sale points

Reduced permit price

Catch Other conditionsrestrictions

Yes

Yes Only subsistencefishers allowed toharvest bait

Yes Effort and catchrestrictions.

Fishers were strongly opposed to limiting access into the fishery (Table IV and Fig.ll),

qualifying it with "there are too many unemployed people living in Knysna to limit access to a

livelihood needed for survival". Many fishers initially dismissed catch restrictions as

unnecessary until they thought it through and then replied that restrictions are in fact necessary

but have to be more lenient to subsistence fishers (Fig. 11). Responses to the statements

regarding the legalization of bait and fish sales were tainted with caution (Fig. 11). Many

indicated that the selling of fish would be more acceptable than the sale of bait, as fishers

should "use their bait and make an effort to catch their own food". However, those in the

29

business of selling bait insisted that sales become legal and stated that the fish caught are the

property of the fisher and thathe/she could decide whether or not to sell it. Scenario 2 specified

that only subsistence fishers would be allowed to collect bait (Table IV). Fishers completely

disagreed with this condition (Fig. 11) qualifying it with statements such as "it is unfair" and

"not right". Scenario 3 designated specific areas to subsistence fishing and bait collecting

(Table IV and Fig. 11). This was not well received during individual interviews (Fig. 11) as

fishers were convinced war would ensue as a result. Focus group discussions, however, saw

this scenario as a business opportunity. A group of fishers are responsible for managing their

areas with regards to individual catches (remaining within the boundaries of the total allowable

catch for their area) and bait sales.

30

60

55

50

45

l!! 40Q)

~ 35lI=

15 30...Q)

..Q 25E:lZ 20

15

10

5

oLimited access Catch Legalised selling Legalised selling Exclusive bait

restrictions of bait of fish collectors

Management statements posed in individual questionnaires

Designatedareas

• Strongly disagree 121 Disagree EJ Cannot answer EJAgree 121 Strongly agree

Figure 11: The responses of subsistence fishers to the management statements posed to

them during individual interviews. The 'cannot answer' category contains all those fishers

who did not know how to respond to the statement and those who did not want to comment

on it. Questions were worded as follows, in the order of appearance: I) Subsistence fishers

should be limited in numbers (people), 2) Subsistence fishers should be subject to catch

restrictions, 3) Subsistence fishers should be allowed to sell bait at legalised selling points,

4) Subsistence fishers should be allowed to sell fish at legalised selling points, 5)I

Subsistence fishers should be the only ones allowed to collect bait and 6) Subsistence

fishers should have their own designated areas for bait collecting and fishing.

31

DISCUSSION

Identification of subsistence fishers

Subsistence fishers are often considered to be all of those who are unemployed and who rely,

even partially, on fishing and/or bait collecting for survival or to earn a modest income.

Compared to a more precise definition, this broad definition overestimates the number of

"subsistence fishers" and is inadequate on which to base management decisions. Therefore,

Branch et al. (2002) proposed nine criteria that should be used to identify subsistence fishers:

1) Fishers must personally fish or collect bait; 2) Resources must be characterised for their

suitability for use by subsistence fishers; 3) Use of only low technology gear; 4) Fishing

restricted to estuaries or the nearshore; 5) Fishers must live within 20km of the resource; 6)

Fishing should be a long-standing cultural or traditional activity; 7) Fishers should be poor and

not have an income exceeding that necessary to meet basic food requirements; 8) Fishers may

personally barter or sell excess catches, within legal catch limits; and 9) Sale of the resource

should be local, within 20km.

The "subsistence fishers" of the Knysna estuary meet many of these criteria. Fishers personally

fish and collect bait for their own use and sale. Fish and bait species harvested are not suitable

for commercial use; however, the collection of mud and sand prawns may be able to sustain

small-scale commercial businesses (Cockcroft et al. 2002). Fishers use low technology gear

such as hand lines for fishing, some have rowing boats (no engines), and tin cans for mud

prawn collection, a few fishers have prawn pumps -given to them by regular bait buyers

(personal observation). Fishing and bait collecting is restricted to the estuary, although some do

collect rocky-shore species from the Knysna Heads (Fig. 6). All fishers live within 20 km of

the estuary (majority living in Hornlee < 5km from the estuary, Fig. 2) and the sale of bait and

32

fish occur on the estuary banks or in town. Although only 6.67% of fishers interviewed have

been fishing and/or bait collecting for more than 50 years, many stated that their fathers and

grandfathers came fishing, thus this community seems to have a long-standing culture of fishing

and bait collecting within the estuary. The majority of fishers are unemployed and poor. Those

employed earned meagre annual incomes, ranging between ~ R18 000 - R23 000 (this assumes

that fishers work a five day week, which in the majority of cases is not true as many have part-

time or contractual work such as gardening, painting and building (Fig. 3)). Therefore, fishers

working a three day week earn between Rl 000 - R 1 200 per month, just above the national

household Minimum Living Level (MLL) ofR970 per month (Presidential Commission 1996).

Therefore, in terms of the definition of Branch et al. (2002) bait collectors and fishers on the

Knysna estuary are in fact truly subsistence fishers and should be managed accordingly.

Valuating and managing the fishery requires a fairly accurate estimate of the total number of

fishers active within the fishery. The number of full-time fishers (25-30) was easily obtained as

all knew each other personally. The difficulty comes in estimating the number of part-time

subsistence fishers. People who are unemployed or earn modest incomes often come down to

the estuary to catch fish and/or collect bait to supplement their incomes or provide food for their

households, while others go fishing when they have spare time. Thus, the number of part-time

subsistence fishers fluctuates greatly throughout the year, depending on whether they have

sufficient food or money to support themselves and/or their families.

Exploitation of bait species

Compared to the 580 000 mud prawns (U africana) harvested annually during the day,

subsistence fishers remove an additional 2.3% of the daily annual catch by night. Both daily

and nightly estimates are underestimates of the true annual removal, as not all fishers are33

entirely honest when answering questionnaires for fear of being fined or arrested. However,

these estimates do provide a minimum catch for the fishery on which to base management

decisions. Based on observations (V. Napier) recreational fishermen also exceed the daily limit

of 50 prawns person" day'. This fishery is far larger than the subsistence fishery and studies

into the effects of the recreational fishery on the exploitation of bait species are needed for the

Knysna estuary. Recreational bait collecting at night occurs less often than during the day and

that attributed to subsistence fishers (personal observation, V. Napier).

CPUE was not evenly distributed throughout the estuary. This was due to the differences in

prawn densities between areas and the ease with which tins can be pushed into the mud to

propel prawns out of their burrows. Hodgson et al. (2000a) estimated the standing stock of U

africana in the Knysna estuary. They found that the density and biomass of U africana varied

throughout the lagoon. The oyster banks (within what this study referred to as the Railway area

- Brenton) had the highest prawn densities, followed by Leisure Isle, Ashmead, Thesen Island,

the Invertebrate Reserve and the Red Bridge (upriver of the White Bridge). The variation in

CPUE in our study follows a similar trend, with The Point area exhibiting the highest CPUE,

followed by the Railway (first in the Hodgson et al. (2000a) study), Ahsmead, Thesen Island

and Leisure Isle (Table III). The discrepancy with Leisure Isle could be related to the fact that

those fishers who used to live at the waters edge on Leisure Isle (Kingfisher) were forced to

move away, thus our estimates of CPUE are more representative of the present situation. Those

fishers now live under trees at Lourie Park, Ashmead.

Hodgson et al. (2000a), through sampling six sites distributed throughout the estuary, that an

estimated 2.19 x 108 mud prawns inhabited the estuary. Thus, subsistence fishers alone,

harvested ca. 0.3% of the standing stock of U. africana every year, approximately 16% of that

harvested in the Swartskop estuary (Daniel 1992). In addition to this, subsistence fishers

34

harvest ca. 13 000 individuals of other bait species. The annual catch of other bait organisms

was greatest within The Point area (Table II), due to high numbers of bloukoppies and cracker

shrimps harvested. The Railway and Thesen Island areas had high catches of blood worms and

bloukoppies, respectively. Four to five fishers are known to go out to Thesen Island at least

twice a week at night (during the peak season), by boat, to collect bloukoppies and tape worms

by digging up sediment (personal communication with fishers and those involved). Thus, the

estimate of annual catch for other bait species is considered to be a gross underestimate of what

is actually harvested. The entire estuary looks like a "moonscape" with circular patches where

the eelgrass (Zostera spp) has been removed and the sediment disturbed through digging

(personal observation, V. Napier). The hardest hit places are Kingfisher (Leisure Isle), the

Airfield (Ashmead), Leisure Isle side of Thesen Island, all the mudbanks accessible via the

railway, and the St. James site within The Point area.

Investigations into the effects of bait collecting on target and non-target species have been

performed for many species. Contessa and Bird (2004) demonstrated that bait-pumping for

ghost shrimps decreased populations directly by 10% and indirectly by a further 20%. In

addition, populations did not recover to predisturbance levels after three months as surface

porosity remained lower than control sites. Ghost shrimps are important bioturbators,

oxygenating sediments below the surface. Thus, with the removal and disturbance of these

organisms, the sediments biogeochemical nature will be altered, only recovering once the area

has been repopulated with its original density of shrimps (Contessa and Bird 2004). A similar

study by Wynberg and Branch (1994) suggested that sediment compaction and disturbance may

have greater effects on sand and mud prawn populations than the removal of individuals per se,

as populations of both species showed exacerbated depressions of density than expected.

35

Non-target effects have been demonstrated in numerous studies. Wynberg and Branch (1991)

showed that macrofaunal organisms were disturbed through bait collecting activities. Targeted

and non-targeted individuals were exposed to increased predation by gulls and other

carnivorous benthic organisms. Disturbance, as a result of bait collection, has been shown to

depress macrofauna, in terms of species richness, biomass and number for more than 18 months

hence (Wynberg and Branch 1994). Another study demonstrated that digging for lugworms in

the Dutch Wadden Sea significantly reduced populations of mud snail by 80-100% and a

bivalve (Macoma baltica) by ca. 100% (Van den Heiligenberg 1987).

McLusky et al. (1983) demonstrated that digging resulted in the formation of mound and basin

habitats with differing recovery rates. Recovery rates of Arenicola remained low in mound

environments, being only 50% of the undisturbed populations, whereas recovery within basin

environments exceeded that of control populations as a result of increased organic matter and

softer sediments facilitating burrowing (McLusky et al. 1983). Digging for bait in the Knysna

estuary also results in basin and mound formations. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume

that populations of bait species would take longer to recover in mound areas than in basin

environments, as shown by McLusky et al. (1983). Daniel (1992) demonstrated that the

recovery rate of mud prawn populations disturbed through digging with garden forks took

approximately twice as long as those disturbed by prawn pumps.

All mud flats, accessible by foot or boat, show evidence of digging. In some areas (e.g. the

inner banks of the Railway area) the Zostera beds have all but disappeared due to bait digging

(pers. comm., P. Joubert). The disappearance of eelgrass beds may cause a decrease in overall

species diversity and abundance. These beds support more diverse and abundant invertebrate

and fish species than bare soft-bottomed stratum and marshes and provide numerous

invertebrate species with energy-rich food such as diatoms, detritus and filamentous algae

36

which get trapped in the beds (Adams et al. 1999). Once the rhizome root system of eelgrass is

damaged, it can take years for bare areas to recover to predisturbance levels (Day 1981).

Another concern is the endemic and endangered Knysna seahorse (Hippocampus capensis).

Bell et al. (2003) found that the Knysna seahorse was patchily distributed throughout the

Knysna estuary with a mean density of 0.0089 per m2. Endemic to only four South African

estuaries, habitat availability is critical to the survival of this species. Continued degradation of

Zostera beds through development and bait digging may severely jeopardise populations of the

Knysna seahorse.

The estimated harvest of 0.3% of mud prawn stock by subsistence fishers alone, accounts only

for the direct removal of prawns. The indirect effects, as mentioned in the above-mentioned

studies, can reduce mud prawn populations by up to double that caused by direct effects. Thus,

subsistence fishers affect (i.e. remove or destroy or depress) less than 1.0% of mud prawn

stocks in the estuary and approximately 4.0 x 104 individuals of other species. This excludes

the effects mud prawn collection may have on other bait species and vice versa.

Bait collecting also has indirect effects on other taxa such as fish and birds. The presence of

bait collectors on mudflats disturb feeding and breeding birds and may result in some near

shore areas becoming permanently unsuitable for some bird species 01an den Heiligenberg

1987). Fish species such as P. commersonnii and the cape moony (Monodactylus falciformis)

are the main predators of mud prawns, and observations by Hanekom et al. (1988) suggest that

populations of fish may be linked to mud prawn densities. However, this link is virtually

impossible to determine, if at all. Compositional changes in fish fauna due to the removal of

Zostera beds have been demonstrated. Van der Elst (referred to in Whitfield et al. 1989)

observed that following the loss of Zostera beds from Richards Bay (KwaZulu-Natal, South

37

Africa); numerous fish species disappeared from that system, one of them being the cape

stumpnose.

Exploitation of fish

The western side of the estuary (Featherbed Nature Reserve and Brenton) exhibited higher

effort values than areas on the eastern side (Table III) contrary to statement by SANParks that

fishing is minimal on the western side. SANParks very rarely patrols the western side of the

lagoon over low tide. Their patrols begin at Leisure Island and continue round to the White

Bridge. Boat patrols only commence after the eastern side patrols and are thus generally over

high tide, by which time fishers on the western side have ceased fishing, yielding a false

impression that fishing and bait collecting activities are minimal.

High effort values for the Railway area could be attributed to the railway providing easy access

to deeper channels and inner mudbanks. High catch rates within the Thesen Island and

Ashmead areas can also be attributed to ease of access in these areas. The Thesen Island jetty

provides a good vantage point from which to throw hand lines and is known for large catches of

small fish. The majority of women in the fishery, fish at the jetty because of its practicality and

its social environment. Whereas, the Ashmead area (particularly the airfield site) has a minor

channel accessible by mudbanks that remain exposed for longer periods of time (as compared to

those in other areas) during low tide (personal observation).

The annual fish catch of 50000 is considerably greater than the estimated annual catches of 16

000 and 4 000 for the Durban Harbour and Mgeni estuary linefish fisheries in KwaZulu-Natal

(Pradervand et al. 2003). The majority (73%) of this catch represented by a single species, the

cape stumpnose. The bulk of fish caught are juveniles below the legal size limits (personal38

observations). Fishers stressed that they keep all fish of edible sizes to take home to feed their

families and pets. The high proportion of juveniles is not surprising, as the functionality of

estuaries in the provision of nursery grounds for many fish species, is well known (Adams

1976, Kennish 1990 cited in Whitfield 1999; Baird et at. 1996, Blaber et at. 2000, Pradervand

and Baird 2002). Estuaries provide energy-rich food, shelter from harsh environmental

fluctuations and protection from predators (Adams et at. 1999; Marais 1999; Branch and

Grindley 1979). Fishing with hand lines off mudbanks is the dominant form of fishing by

subsistence fishers. Thus, the area into which baited hooks are thrown is the zone occupied by

Zostera beds. The relationship between Zostera beds and juvenile fish has been demonstrated

in numerous studies (Wallace and Van der Elst 1975, Adams 1976, Branch and Grindley 1979,

Weinstein and Heck 1979, Beckley 1983, Whitfield et at. 1989). In particular, Whitfield et at.

(1989) and Beckley (1983) showed that juveniles and, to a lesser extent, adults of the cape

stumpnose (Rhabdosargus hotubi) were one of the most abundant species found in the Zostera

beds of estuaries. Hence, large proportion of cape stumpnose and juvenile fish, in the annual

catch is to be expected. Studies are needed to assess whether fishing out juveniles and large

number of anyone species are effecting the sustainability of the resource, as removing species

with prominent roles could change the community structure (Allison et at. 1998).

Catches of spotted grunter (P. commersonnii) are unusually low. Spotted grunter contribute

approximately 43 and 3% to linefish catches in Eastern Cape estuaries, respectively

(Pradervand and Baird 2002). Fishers fishing in estuaries tend to target these highly sought

after fish (Baird et at. 1996), however, subsistence fishers may not have access to the most

efficient methods of catching these fish (such as motorized boats to get to prime fishing spots

and stronger line to land large individuals), compared to recreational fishers. Subsistence

fishers do, however, catch large numbers of P. commersonnii and L. lithognathus on set lines

(15-20% of total fish catch). The accuracy of the estimated annual catch of these two species

39

on set lines is inadequate on which to base management decisions. Detailed studies are

required to accurately quantify the number of 1) fishers using set lines, 2) lines set at each low

tide and 3) fish caught, which would allow for more reliable annual estimates of spotted grunter

and white steenbras catches.

Management recommendations

The majority of subsistence fishers are clearly not satisfied with restrictions and regulations

enforced through recreational permits (Fig. 9). Fishers depending on harvesting estuarine

resources for their livelihood cannot afford prices of permits targeting the recreational fishing

sector. Restrictions imposed by recreational permits such as the daily bag limit of prawns (Fig.

9b) and the prohibition of bait and fish sales were perceived as inappropriate for subsistence

fishers (Fig. 11). All three management scenarios (Table IV, 1) legalised bait sales only, 2)

legalised bait sales at central selling point and 3) TURFS with many selling points for bait)

were perceived as flawed in some way. Fishers did not agree with limited access to the fishery,

being singular harvesters of bait organisms in the estuary and the allocation of subsistence

fishing and bait collecting areas (Fig. 11). The only management tool fishers agreed with was

that of catch restrictions (Fig. 11).

A management strategy such as co-management is recommended for this subsistence fishery.

Co-management, defined as a partnership between all stakeholders involved, sharing the

authority and responsibility for the management of a set of resources, is viewed as a strategy to

reduce conflict between stakeholders, reduce illegal poaching of resources and quantitatively

assessing the sustainability of resource stocks through monitoring and evaluation projects

(Berkes 1994; Lim et aI. 1995; Pomeroy & Berkes 1997; Hara 2003; Napier et aI. 2005). Many

conditions have been suggested as essential to the success of co-management projects

40

(Pinkerton 1989 and 1994, Ostrom 1990 and 1992, Pinkerton and Weinstein 1995, Baland and

Platteau 1996, Berkes et al. 2001 and Pomeroy et al. 2001), however, Napier et al. (2005)

demonstrated that only nine of the 16 conditions suggested by a review of co-management

(Hauck and Sowman 2003) were in fact significantly correlated with the success of co­

management strategies implemented in seven fishing communities in KwaZulu-Natal, South

Africa.

An accountable and representative committee was found not to be significantly correlated with

success (Napier et al. 2005), however, a representative committee (fishers and SANParks) is

needed to act as a body through with official matters can be discussed and acted upon. A

representative from MCM (dedicated to the Knysna area) should be involved within initial

stages of the program to ensure that ground rules and regulations are in accordance with MCM

policy, and to be accountable for MCM's side of management. MCM does however need to

stay committed to the process and decentralise authority down to SANParks and the users

involved. Both long-term commitment by government and the decentralisation of authority

were considered essential for the successful implementation of co-management (Napier et al.

2005)

Top priority for the committee would be to apply for subsistence permits. The committee will

have to discuss and motivate who should qualify for subsistence permits, the number of permits

required, their price and the restrictions accompanying them. From the discussion groups it was

clear that fishers regarded those who are unemployed or earned inadequate monthly incomes,

and who depended on the sea to make a living as truly subsistence fishers (Fishers in a study by

Hauck et al. (2002) also highlighted that a poor or low income and dependence on fishing for a

livelihood are two criteria qualifying a fisher as a subsistence fisher). Explaining and

implementing the criteria and definition developed by Branch et al. (2002) would essentially

41

restrict numbers to those true subsistence fishers. We suggest that permit prices be reduced to

R50, as the majority of fishers were willing to pay this (Fig. 10).

Permit restrictions should be carefully discussed, with SANParks and MCM motivating and

explaining exactly why certain restrictions are in place (many fishers did not fully understand

the reasons for bag and size limits). We suggest that for subsistence permits the daily bag limit

of prawns be raised to 100 prawns. Fishers are currently collecting approximately 92 prawns

and, based on this study, mortality of prawns attributed to their actions constitute < 1.0% of the

stock, annually. Thus, increasing the bag limit to what is actually being harvested will give the

fishers hope and increase their support of co-management. Collection should be restricted to tin

cans, as Cretchley (1996 cited in De Villiers and Hodgson 1999) concluded that this method

causes less disturbance to other macrobenthic organisms than do other collecting methods.

Restrictions on other bait species and fish catches should remain unchanged, pending studies

investigating the effects of exploitation and sustainable levels of these species. We do suggest

that each fisherman, together with his/her permit, be given one fishing stick (fishers secure their

lines on sticks anchored in the mud) with the size limits of fish engraved onto it, using

indigenous names. Permit restrictions and prices have to demonstrate to fishers that the

benefits of participating outweigh the costs; the most important condition necessary for the

success of co-management (Napier et al. 2005).

The timeous allocation of permits is also an important issue. Napier et al. (2005) found that

delays in issuing permits in some of the co-management projects resulted in users losing faith

and trust with authorities and the program itself.

The issue of legalising the sale of bait and fish catches will have to be addressed with caution.

Based on the insignificant effect subsistence fishers have on mud prawn stocks we recommend

42

that the sale of mud prawns be legalised. The sale of other bait species, especially those high

cash value species such as bloukoppies and tape worm, should not be legalised. The extensive

damage caused by digging for these species will only be exacerbated leading to the potential

demise of numerous species and a break down in ecological functions provided by estuaries.

Rather than emphasising the ban on selling other bait species, we recommend that authorities

place a ban on buying these bait species as well, thus targeting buyers, who are more likely to

actually have to pay their fines, and less likely to take risks.

We recommend that monitoring and valuation of bait and fish catches and the effects of

harvesting be implemented to assess long-term effects and guide future management decisions.

These projects, together with research into the maximum sustainable yield of bait and fish

species would educate fishers and the public regarding the sustainability of current harvesting

levels, efficiency of implements used and direct and indirect effects of harvesting. Education is

key to increasing the effectiveness of conservation measures in all ecosystems.

Enforcing catch restrictions is difficult when budgets are insufficient, man power is lacking and

fishers generally disregard fines. However, there are practical, inexpensive methods that can be

implemented to increase compliance. SANParks patrols are very predictable. Patrols need to

be more random in their times, order and dates. Spot checks on fishers and potential buyers

should be performed randomly and more often, and at night when the majority of illegal

digging occurs. Enforcement can also be increased indirectly through incentives. Incentives

are described as "motivational, voluntary, financial, property rights and regulatory

mechanisms" by Greiner et al. (2000). Incentives such as providing tin cans, fishing sticks and

formal recognition for compliance could be implemented within this subsistence fishery.

43

CONCLUSION

Hodgson et al. (2002) and this study demonstrate that the exploitation of mud prawns by

subsistence fishers in the Knysna estuary appears to be sustainable. Fishers' historical

knowledge of mud prawn stocks indirectly supports sustainable harvesting. Current catches are

said to be similar to historical catches with fishers still collecting large individuals and

believing it impossible to overexploit the Knysna mud prawn population. However, some

fishers reported that certain areas, due to higher numbers of bait collectors, required more effort

than usual to collect smaller than usual prawns, indicating a decrease in population density in

these areas. Legalising prawn sales will secure modest incomes for subsistence fishers enabling

them to provide for themselves and their families. Fishers perceived fishing and bait collecting

to be the preferred alternative to crime.

The dominance of spotted grunter and white steenbras in estuaries and their greater catchability

(Marais 1999), especially on set lines, renders both vulnerable to over-exploitation. Fish caught

on set lines tend to be large (personal observation, V. Napier), thus it is essential to quantify

whether or not catches are sustainable in terms of recruitment and population structure, as

studies have demonstrated declines in catches for both species (Gilchrist 1918 cited in Marais

1999, Baird et al. 1996). Hand line catches of juvenile fish, mostly cape stumpnose, are also

perceived as sustainable by fishers, based on historical knowledge and experience. Studies are

needed to verify the perceptions of fishers to ensure sustainable harvesting and conservation of

species diversity and abundance.

The main threat to the Knysna estuary, ranked number one in terms of conservation importance

(Turpie et al. 2002), is digging for bait. Legalising the sale of these high value species

Ibloukoppies and tape worm) is not recommended, as it would only increase the intensity of

44

digging. Management funds should be directed towards reducing the rate at which the estuary

is being dug up, since digging impacts negatively on important habitat and populations of

targeted and non-targeted species. A concerted effort should be made to find alternative

harvesting methods, and/or controlling the demand for these species rather than the diggers

themselves may be the only solution to reducing the damage cause by digging.

45

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank all the interviewees who provided information for their cooperation and assistance.

The South African National Parks Rangers are thanked for their assistance during night-time

interviews. A special thanks to Mr Peet Joubert for all his assistance and guidance as well as

providing access to computers, photocopiers and a telephone while at Knysna. Funding for this

project was supplied by the South African Research Foundation (NRF) and Marine and Coastal

Management.

46

LITERATURE CITED

ADAMS, S.M. 1976 - The ecology of eelgrass, Zostera marina (L.), fish communities. 1.

Structuaral analysis. J. expo mar. Biol. Ecol. 22: 269-291.

ADAMS, J., BATE, G. and o 'CALLAGHAN, M. 1999 - Primary producers: estuarine

macrophytes. In Estuaries of South Africa. Allanson, B.R. and D. Baird (Eds). Cambridge;

University Press: 91-117.

ALLANSON, B.R., BAIRD, D and HEYDORN, A. 1999 - Perspectives. In Estuaries of

South Africa. Allanson, B.R. and D. Baird (Eds). Cambridge; University Press: 321-327.

ALLISON, G.W., LUBCHENCO, J. and CARR, M.H. 1998 - Marine reserves are necessary

but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecol. Appl. 8 (1 - supplement): S79-S92.

BAIRD, D., MARAIS, J.F.K. and DANIEL, C. 1996 - Exploitation and conservation of

angling fish in two South African estuaries. Aquat. Conserv. 6: 319-330.

BALAND, J.M. and PLATTEAU, J.P. 1996 - Halting Degradation ofNatural Resources: is

there a role for rural communities? Oxford; Clarendon Press. 423 pp.

BECKLEY, L.B. 1983 - The ichthyofauna associated with Zostera capensis Setchell in the

Swartkops estuary, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Zool. 18 (1): 15-24.

47

BELL, E.M., LOCKYEAR, J.F., McPHERSON, J.M., MARSDEN, A.D. and VINCENT,

A.C.J. 2003 - First field studies of an endangered South African seahorse, Hippocampus

capensis. Environ. biol.fish. 67 (1): 35-46.

BERKES, F., 1994 - Co-management: bridging the two solitudes. Northern Perspectives 22 (2­

3): 18-20.

BERKES, F., MAHON, R., MCCONNEY, P., POLLNAC, R. and POMEROY, R. 2001 ­

Managing Small-scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods. Ottawa: International

Development Research Centre: 308 pp.

BLABER, S.J.M., CYRUS, D.P., ALBARET, J.-J., CHONG VING CHING, DAY, J.W.,

ELLIOTT, M., FONSECA, M.S., HOSS, D.E., ORENSANZ, J., POTTER, I.C. and SILVERT,

W. 2000 - Effects of fishing on the structure and functioning of estuarine and nearshore

ecosystems. ICES Journal ofMarine Science 57: 590-602.

BRANCH, G.M. 2002. Subsistence fisheries in South Africa: A preface. S. Afr. J. mar. Sci.

24: 403-404.

BRANCH, G.M. and GRINDLEY, J.R. 1979 - Ecology of southern African estuaries. Part XI.

Mngazana: a mangrove estuary in Transkei. S. Afr. J. Zool.14 (3): 149-170.

BRANCH, G. M., HAUCK, M., SIQWANA-NDULO, N. and DYE, A. 2002 - Defining fishers

in the South African context: subsistence, artisanal and small-scale commercial sectors. S. Afr.

J. mar. Sci. 24: 475-487.

48

CLARK, B.M., HAUCK, M., HARRIS, lM., SALO, K. and RUSSELL, E. 2002 ­

Identification of subsistence fishers, fishing areas, resource use and activities along the South

African coast. S. Afr. J mar. Sci. 24: 425-437.

COCKCROFT, A.C., SAUER, W.H.H., BRANCH, G.M., CLARK, B.M., DYE, AH. and

RUSSELL, E. 2002 - Assessment of resource availability and suitability for subsistence fishers

in South Africa, with a review of resource management procedures. S. Afr. J mar. Sci. 24: 489­

501.

CONROY, C. 2002. PRA tools used for research into common pool resources. University of

Greenwich; Natural Resource Institute: 18 pp.

CONTESSA, L. and BIRD, F.L. 2004 - The impact of bait-pumping on populations of the

ghost shrimp Trypaea australiensis Dana (Decapoda: Callianassidae) and the sediment

environment. J expo mar. BioI. Ecol. 304: 75-97.

DANIEL, C. 1992 - The use of garden forks vs prawn pumps to extract bait organisms from

estuarine mudflats. The Naturalist 36 (3): 22-24.

DAY, lH. 1981 - Estuarine ecology with particular reference to southern Africa. Cape

Town; A A Balkema: 411 pp.

DAY, lH., MILLARD, N.AH. and HARRISON, AD. 1952 - The ecology of South African

Estuaries. Part III. Knysna: A clear open estuary. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 33: 367-413.

49

DE VILLIERS, C. and HODGSON, A. 1999 - Studies on estuarine macroinvertebrates: The

macrobenthos. In Estuaries ofSouth Africa. Allanson, B.R. and D. Baird (Eds). Cambridge;

University Press: 167-191.

FEENY, D. BERKES, F., McCAY, B.l and ACHESON, lM. 1990 - The tragedy of the

commons: twenty-two years later. Hum. Ecol. 18 (1): 1-19.

GREINER, R., YOUNG, M.D., McDONALD, A.D. and BROOKS, M. 2000 - Incentive

instruments for the sustainable use of marine resources. Ocean Coast. Manage. 43: 29-50.

HARA, M. 2003 - Co-management of natural resources: theory and the attendant assumptions.

In: Waves of Change: Coastal and Fisheries Co-management in South Africa. Hauck, M. and

Sowman, M. (Eds). Cape Town; University of Cape Town Press: 13-36.

HANEKOM, N., BAIRD, D. and ERASMUS, T. 1988 - A quantitative study to assess

standing biomasses of macrobenthos in soft substrata of the Swartkops estuary, South- Africa.

S. Afr. J. mar. Sci. 6: 163-174.

HARDIN, G. 1968 - The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.

HARRIS, lM., SOWMAN, M., BRANCH, G.M., CLARK, B.M., COCKCROFT, A.C.,

COETZEE, C., DYE, A.H., HAUCK, M., JOHNSTON, A., KATI-KATI, L., MASEKO, Z.,

SALO, K., SAUER, W.H.H., SIQWANA-NDULO, N. and BEAUMONT, l 2002a - The

process of developing a management system for subsistence fisheries in South Africa:

recognising and formalizing a marginalized fishing sector in South Africa. S. Afr. J. mar. Sci.

24: 405-424.

50

HARRIS, J.M., BRANCH, G.M., CLARK, B.M., COCKCROFT, A.C., COETZEE, C., DYE,

A.H., HAUCK, M., JOHNSTON, A., KATI-KATI, L., MASEKO, Z., SALO, K, SAUER,

W.H.H., SIQWANA-NDULO, N. and SOWMAN, M. 2002b - Recommendations for the

management of subsistence fisheries in South Africa. S. Afr. J mar. Sci. 24: 503-523.

HAUCK, M. and SOWMAN, M. (Eds) 2003 - Waves of Change: Coastal and Fisheries Co­

management in South Africa. Cape Town; University of Cape Town Press. 358 pp.

HAUCK, M., SOWMAN, M., RUSSELL, E., CLARK, B.M., HARRIS, lM., VENTER, A.,

BEAUMONT, land MASEKO, Z. 2002 - Perceptions of subsistence and informal fishers in

South Africa regarding the management of living marine resources. S. Afr. J mar. Sci. 24: 463­

474.

HERSOUG, B. and HOLM, P. 2000 - Change without redistribution: an institutional

perspective on South Africa's new fisheries policy. Mar. Policy 24: 221-231.

HODGSON, A. N., ALLANSON, B.R. and CRETCHLEY, R. 2000a - An estimation of the

standing stock and population structure of Upogebia Africana (Crustacea: Thalassinidae) in the

Knysna Estuary. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 55 (2): 187-196.

HODGSON, A. N., ALLANSON, B.R. and CRETCHLEY, R. 2000b - The exploitation of

Upogebia Africana (Crustacea: Thalassinidae) for bait in the Knysna Estuary. Trans. R. Soc. S.

Afr. 55 (2): 197-204.

HOCKEY, P. and TURPIE, lK 1999 - Estuarine birds in South Africa. In Estuaries ofSouth

Africa. Allanson, B.R. and D. Baird (Eds). Cambridge; University Press: 235-268.

51

LARGIER, J.L., ATTWOOD, C. and HARCOURT-BALDWIN, J-L. 1999 - The

hydrographic character of the Knysna Estuary. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 55 (2): 107-122.

LAUCK, T., CLARK, C.W., MANGEL, M. and MUNRO, G.R. 1998 - Implementing the

precautionary principle in fisheries management through marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 8 (1 ­

supplement): S72-S78.

LIM, C. P., MATSUDA, Y. and SHIGEMI, Y. 1995 - Co-management in marine fisheries: The

Japanese experience. Coast. Manage. 23: 195-221.

MAREE, B. 2000 - Structure and status of the intertidal wetlands of the Knysna Estuary.

Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 55 (2): 163-176.

MARIAS, H. 1999 - The ichthyofauna: The estuarine ichthyofauna. In Estuaries of South

Africa. Allanson, B.R. and D. Baird (Eds). Cambridge; University Press: 218-233.

MCLUSKY, D.S. 1971 - Ecology ofestuaries. London; Heinemann Educational Books Ltd:

144 pp.

MCLUSKY, D.S., ANDERSON, F.E. and WOLFE-MURPHY, S. 1983 - Distribution and

population recovery ofArenicola marina and other benthic fauna after bait digging. Mar. Ecol.

Prog. Ser. 11: 173-179.

MORANT, P. and QUINN, N. 1999 - Influence of man and management of South African

estuaries. In Estuaries of South Africa. Allanson, B.R. and D. Baird (Eds). Cambridge;

University Press: 289-320.

52

NAPIER, V.R., BRANCH, G.M and HARRIS, J.M. 2005 - Evaluating conditions for

successful co-management' of subsistence fisheries in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

(Submitted to Environmental Conservation)

OSTROM, E. 1990 - Governing the commons: evolution of institutions for collective action.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 280 pp.

OSTROM, E. 1992 - Crafting institutions for self-governing irrigation systems. San Francisco,

USA: Institute for Contemporary Studies. 128 pp.

PINKERTON. E.W. (1989) Introduction: attaining better fisheries management through co­

management - prospects, problems, and propositions. In: Co-operative Management ofLocal

Fisheries: New Directions for Improving Management and Community Development.

Pinkerton, E. (Ed). Vancouver; University of British Columbia Press: 3-33.

PINKERTON, E. W. 1994 - Local fisheries co-management: a review of international

experiences and their implications for salmon management in British Columbia. Can. J Fish.

Aquat. Sci. 51 (10): 2363-2378.

PINKERTON, E. and WEINSTEIN, M. 1995 - Fisheries That Work: Sustainability through

Community-based Management. Vancouver: The David Suzuki Foundation: 199 pp.

POLLOCK, KH., JONES, C.M. and BROWN, T.L. 1994 - Angler survey methods and their

applications in fisheries management. United States of America; American Fisheries Society:

371.

53

POMEROY, RS. and BERKES, F. 1997 - Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co­

management. Mar. Policy 21 (5): 464-480.

POMEROY, RS., KATON, B.M. and HARKES, 1. 2001 - Conditions affecting the success of

fisheries co-management: lessons from Asia. Mar. Policy 25: 197-208.

POTTER, L. and KHUMALO, C. 2003 - Value of the subsistence fishery. In The economic

valuation ofestuaries: a case study ofthe Knysna estuary, South Africa. Turpie, J., Joubert, A,

Clark, B. and Savy, C. (Eds). Report on a preliminary valuation exercise conducted as part of a

Resource economics education and training course. 39-43.

PRADERVAND, P and BAIRD, D. 2002 - Assessment of the recreational linefishery in

selected Eastern Cape estuaries: Trends in catches and effort. S. Afr. J. mar. Sci. 24: 87-101.

PRADERVAND, P., BECKLEY, L.E., MANN, B.Q. and RADEBE, P.V. 2003 - Assessment

of the linefishery in two urban estuarine systems in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Afr. J. mar.

Sci. 25: 111-130.

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION. 1996 - Restructuring the South African Labour Market.

Report of the Presidential Commission to investigate the Labour Market policy.

www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/commissions/fintoc.html. Date accessed: 14February 2005.

54

TURPIE, J.K., ADAMS, J.B., JOUBERT, A, HARRISON, T.D., COLLOTY, B.M., MAREE,

RC., WHITFIELD, AK., WDOOLDRIDGE, TH., LAMBERTH, S.J., TALJAARD, S. and

VAN NElKERK, L. 2002 - Assessment of the conservation priority status of South African

estuaries for use in management and water allocation. Water SA 28 (2): 191-206.

VAN DEN HEILENGENBERG, T. 1987 - Effects of mechanical and manual harvesting of

lugworms A. marina L. on the benthic fauna oftidal flats in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Biological

Conservation 39: 165-177.

VAN DER ELST, RP. and ADKIN, F. 1991 - Marine linejish: Priority species and research

objectives in southern Africa. Durban; Oceanographic research institute: 132 pp.

WALLACE, J.H. and VAN DER ELST, RP. 1975 - The estuarine fishes of the east coast of

South Africa. IV. Occurrence of juveniles in estuaries. V. Ecology, estuarine dependence and

status. Investl Rep. oceanogr. Res. Inst. 42: 1-63.

WEINSTEIN, M.P. and HECK, K.L. 1979 - Ichthyofauna of seagrass meadows along the

Caribbean coast of Panama and in the Gulf of Mexico: composition, structure and community

ecology. Mar. BioI. 50: 97-107.

WHITFIELD, AK. 1989 - The benthic invertebrate community of a southern Cape estuary:

structure and possible food sources. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 47 (2): 159-179.

WHITFIELD, AK. 1992 - A characterization of southern African estuarine systems. S. Afr. 1.

aquat. Sci. 18 (1/2): 89-103.

55

WHITFIELD, A.K. 1999 - The ichthyofauna: Ichthyop1ankton diversity, recruitment and

dynamics. In Estuaries of South Africa. Allanson, B.R and D. Baird (Eds). Cambridge;

University Press: 209-218.

WHITFIELD, AX., BECKLEY, L.B., BENNETT, B.A., BRANCH, G.M., KOK, H.M.,

POTTER, I.C. and VAN DER ELST, RP. 1989 - Composition, species richness and similarity

of ichthyofaunas in eelgrass Zostera capensis beds of southern Africa. S. Afr. J mar. Sci. 8:

251-259.

WYNBERG, RP. and BRANCH, G.M. 1991 - An assessment of bait-collecting for

Callianassa kraussi Stebbing in Langebaan lagoon, Western Cape, and of associated avian

predation. S. Afr. J mar. Sci. 11: 141-152.

WYNBERG, RP. and BRANCH, G.M. 1994 - Disturbance associated with bait-collection for

sandprawns (Callianassa kraussi) and mudprawns (Upogebia Africana): Long-term effects on

the biota of intertidal sandflats. J Mar.Res. 52: 523-558.

56

Appendix 1: Individual questionnaire for subsistence bait collectors and fishermen

Date: Time: Place:-------- -------- --------

What bait species did you collect today, last night, yesterday and in the last twoweeks? How much of each species did you collect?

What bait species do you collect in a typical two week time period in the middle ofwinter? How much ofeach species do you typically collect?

Bait collectedTime Mud Sand Blood Tape Other Otherspent Prawns Prawns Worms Worms Worms

Today

Last night

Yesterday

Last 2weeks2 weeks inwinter

How many days have you collected bait in the last two weeks? _

On how many of those days did you go out on the:Day time low-tide and the night time low-tide _

Ranking: What bait do you target the most, second, third, etc?D Mud Prawns D Sand Prawns D Blood Worms D Tape Worms D Other WormsD Other _

What do you use to collect your bait? _

*********************************************************************

57

What fish species did you catch with hand-lines today, last night, yesterday and in thelast two weeks? How mariy of each species did you catch?

What fish species do you catch in a typical two week time period in the middle ofwinter? How many of each species do you typically catch?

FISH CAUGHTGrunter Steembras Stumpnose Blacktail Strepies Kob Other

Today

Last night

Yesterday

Last 2weeks2 weeks inwinter

Of the fish that you caught, what did you sell, take home, give away or throw back?

How many days have you come fishing in the last 2 weeks? _

On how many of those days did you go fishing on the:day time low-tide night time low-tide _

Please can you rank the top 5 fish targeted in order of preference.1) 2) 3) 4) 5) _

How many fishing lines are you using / do you use? _

*********************************************************************

What fish species did you catch with set lines today, last night, yesterday and in thelast two weeks? How many of each species did you catch?

What fish species do you catch in a typical two week time period in the middle ofwinter? How many of each species do you typically catch?

FISH CAUGHTGrunter Steembras Stumpnose Blacktail Strepies Kob Other

Today

Last night

Yesterday

Last 2weeks2 weeks inwinter

58

Ofthe fish that you caught, what did you sell, take home, give away or throw back?

How many days have you come fishing in the last 2 weeks? _

On how many of those days did you go fishing on the:day time low-tide night time low-tide _

How many lines do you set every time? _

*********************************************************************

How long have you lived in the area? where? _

How long have you been bait collecting and fishing in the estuary? _

Do you collect bait / fish throughout the year? DYes D No

What time of the year are you most active? _

Would you regard yourself as a:D Full-time subsistence fisher D Part-time subsistencefisher DRecreational fisher

Do you have any other kind ofwork at this time of the year? DYes D No

What is the other work that you do? Part-time / full-time Income (per day)

How much money do you earn per week at this time of the year from bait collecting________ and fishing ?

Do you receive a government grant or pension? DYes D No _

How many people are there in your household (incl children)? _

How many other people collect bait / fish in your household? _

*********************************************************************

Are you familiar with the bait collecting & fishing restrictions? DYes D No

Are there any restrictions on bait collecting & fishing that you agree or disagree with?Permits -----------------------------Bag limits _Size limits ----------------------------Restricted areas --------------------------

59

Do you have a bait-collecting permit? DYes D No

Ifno, why not? _

If yes, are you carrying it on you? DYes D No

Do you have a fishing permit? DYes D No

If not, why not? _

If yes, are you carrying it on you? D Yes D No

What is the most you would be willing to pay for a bait collecting permit &fishing permit _

Have you ever been arrested or fined for bait collecting and/or fishing? D YesD No

(Arrested) If yes, when? and how many times? _

(Fined) If yes, when? and how much? _

*********************************************************************

Please could you rank how strongly you agree or disagree with the followingstatements.

Subsistence fishers should be limited in numbers (people).

D Strongly disagree D Disagree D Neutral D Agree D Strongly agree

Subsistence fishers should be subject to catch restrictions.

D Strongly disagree D Disagree D Neutral D Agree D Strongly agree

Subsistence fishers should be allowed to sell bait at legalised selling points.

D Strongly disagree D Disagree D Neutral D Agree D Strongly agree

Subsistence fishers should be allowed to sell fish at legalised selling points.

D Strongly disagree D Disagree D Neutral D Agree D Strongly agree

Subsistence fishers should be the only ones allowed to collect bait.

D Strongly disagree D Disagree D Neutral D Agree D Strongly agree

Subsistence fishers should have their own designated areas for bait collecting andfishing.

D Strongly disagree D Disagree D Neutral D Agree D Strongly agree

*********************************************************************

60

Please show me on this map where you go fishing and bait collecting most often.

*********************************************************************

Gender: D Male D Female Ethnic group: DBlack D Coloured D White

Age category? D <20yrs (youth) D 20-55yrs (Adult) D => 55yrs (Elderly)

*********************************************************************

61

Appendix 2: Recapture questionnaire for subsistence bait collectors and fishermen

Date: Time: Place:--------- -------- ----------

************************************************************************

For how long have you been collecting bait (min)? How much of each speciesdid you collect?

Mud Prawns Sand Prawns Blood Worms Tape Worms Other Worms Other

What are you going to do with your bait? Own use Sell Take home Throwaway

Did you collect bait last night / during the day?

How much of each species did you collect?

Yes No

Mud Prawns Sand Prawns Blood Worms Tape Worms Other worms Other

How long did it take you to collect this bait? _

What did you do with the bait you collected? Own use Sell Take home Throwaway

What equipment do you use to collect bait? _

************************************************************************

For how long have you been fishing? (min)? How many of each fish speciesdid you catch?

Stumpnose Other fish

What are you going to do with your fish? Own use Sell Take home Throwaway

Did you go fishing last night / during the day? Yes No

How many of each species did you catch?

Stumpnose Other fish

What did you do with your fish? Own use Sell Take home Throwaway

When fishing, how many hand-lines do you use? __~ _

62

************************************************************************

Did you set lines during the previous low-tide? Yes No

How many lines did you set? -------------------------

How many of each fish species did you catch?

Stumpnose Other fish

What did you do with your fish? Own use Sell Take home Throwaway

************************************************************************

63

Appendix 3: Bait and fish species harvested by subsistence fishers in the Knysna estuary

Common naines

A) BAIT SPECIESMud prawnsSand prawnsCracker shrimpBlood wormsMussel wormsSand wormsMoonshine worms (Case worm)Tape worms (Ribbon worms)Bloukoppies (Estuarine Wonder-worm)Pencil baitOctopusChokkaPilchardsRed baitWhite musselBlack musselsMediterranean mussel

Scientific names

Upogebia AfricanaCallianassa kraussiSunalpheus anisocheirArenicola loveniPseudonereis variegata?Diopatra sppPolybrachiorhynchus dayiMarphysa sppSolen capensisOctopus vulgarisLoligo vulgaris reynaudiiSardinops sagaxPyura stoloniferaDonax serraChoromytilus meridionalisMytilus galloprovincialis

Collected for sale not bait: Mud (Knysna) Scylla serrataCrab

B) FISH SPECIESSpotted GrunterWhite SteenbrasCape StumpnoseBlacktailMusselcrackerStrepieKabeljouSpringersGarrickShadlElfMulletSkip JackVarkie (Pinky)Kapse nooi (Cape Moony)SanterZebraEvileye blaasop

Pomadasys commersonniiLithognathus lithognathusRhabdosargus holubiDiplodus sargus capensisSparodon durbanensisSpondyliosoma emarginatumArgyrosomus hololepidotusElops machnataLichia amiaPomatomus saltatrixLiza spp?Pomadasys olivaceumMomodactylus falciform isCheimerius nufarDiplodus cervinus hottentotusAmblyrhynchotes honckenii

? Unable to correctly identify species. Fishers were not sure of the common namesand unable to collect a specimen for identification.

64