Advertisement

Ambio

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 214–226 | Cite as

Rehabilitating mussel beds in Coffee Bay, South Africa: Towards fostering cooperative small-scale fisheries governance and enabling community upliftment

  • Gurutze Calvo-Ugarteburu
  • Serge Raemaekers
  • Christina Halling
Report

Abstract

Along the coast of South Africa, marine resources play a significant role in supporting livelihoods and contributing to food security in impoverished rural communities. Post-apartheid fisheries laws and policies have begun to address traditional fishing rights and development needs, and new management arrangements are being implemented. One such initiative has been the Mussel Rehabilitation Project in Coffee Bay, which piloted a resource rehabilitation technique at several over-exploited fishing sites. Mussel stocks in these exploited areas had dropped to under 1 % mussel cover, and during the project period, stocks increased to >80 % cover, supporting a sustainable harvest well above national daily bag limits. This stock enhancement was achieved only after the project had started to address social challenges such as the lack of local management institutions and the need to enhance food security. The project embarked on training and institution-building; it formed a robust community mussel management committee; and developed a local resource management plan, facilitating increased community participation in the day-to-day management of the resource. The project also saw the initiation of various ancillary projects aimed at improving food security and stimulating the local economy and hence alleviating pressure on the marine resources. Here we review this 10-year project’s outcomes, and present lessons for small-scale fisheries governance in South Africa and internationally. We show, through empirical experience, that balancing stock rebuilding needs in a context of widespread poverty and dependency on natural resources by a local fisher community can only be addressed through an integrated approach to development. Participation of resource users and a thorough understanding of the local context are imperative to negotiating appropriate small-scale fisheries governance approaches. We recommend that the implementation of South Africa’s newly minted Small-Scale Fisheries Policy should begin with bottom-up, demonstrative resource management measures such as mussel rehabilitation. This type of initiative can deliver short-term food security benefits and foster social learning towards sustainable and cooperative fisheries governance.

Keywords

Community upliftment Fisheries governance Mussel rehabilitation Perna perna Small-scale fisheries 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge support from the Swedish Research Council, the National Research Foundation, the International Foundation for Science, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the SIDA and WWF South Africa.

References

  1. Allison, E.H., B.D. Ratner, B. Åsgård, R. Willmann, R. Pomeroy, and J. Kurien. 2011. Right-based fisheries governance: From fishing rights to human rights. Fish and Fisheries 13: 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Béné, C. 2006. Small-scale fisheries: Assessing their contribution to rural livelihoods in developing countries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1008, Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  3. Branch, G.M., M. Hauck, N. Siqwana-Ndulo, and A.H. Dye. 2002. Defining fishers in the South African context: Subsistence, artisanal and small-scale commercial sectors. South African Journal of Marine Science 24: 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carney, D., M. Drinkwater, T. Rusinow, K. Neesjes, S. Wanmali and N. Singh. 1999. Livelihoods approaches compared. A brief comparison of the livelihoods approaches of the UK Department for International Development (DfID), CARE, Oxfam and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). London: Department for International Development.Google Scholar
  5. De Young, C., A. Charles, and A. Hjort. 2008. Human dimensions of the ecosystems approach to fisheries: an overview of context, tools and methods. Fisheries Technical Paper No. 489. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  6. Dye, A.H., and N. Dyantyi. 2002. Reseeding of mussels on denuded rocky shores: preliminary studies with the brown mussel Perna perna. South African Journal of Marine Science 24: 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erlandsson, J., and C.D. McQuaid. 2004. Spatial structure of recruitment in the mussel Perna perna at local scales: effects of adults, algae and recruit size. Marine Ecology Progress Series 267: 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erlandsson, J., C.D. McQuaid, and S. Stanczak. 2011. Recruit/algal interaction prevents recovery of overexploited mussel beds: indirect evidence that post-settlement mortality structures mussel populations. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 92: 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fielding, P.J. 2005. Management plan for subsistence harvesting of rocky shore invertebrates in the Eastern Cape. Report prepared for Marine and Coastal Management, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa.Google Scholar
  10. Garcia, S.M., E.H. Allison, N.J. Andrew, C. Béné, G. Bianchi, G.J. de Graaf, D. Kalikoski, R. Mahon et al. 2008. Towards integrated assessment and advice in small-scale fisheries: Principles and processes. Fisheries Technical Paper No. 515. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, J., G. Branch, S.C. Sibiya and C. Bill. 2003. The Sokhulu subsistence mussel-harvesting project: Co-management in action. In: Waves of change: Coastal Fisheries Management in South Africa, ed. M. Hauck and M, Sowman, 61–98. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hockey, P.A.R., A.L. Bosmanand, and W.R. Siegfried. 1988. Patterns and correlates of shellfish exploitation by coastal people in Transkei: An enigma of protein production. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jentoft, S. 1989. Fisheries co-management: Delegating government responsibility to fishermen’s organisations. Marine Policy 13(2): 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kooiman, J., M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft, and R. Pullin (eds.). 2005. Fish for life: Interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lasiak, T. 1991. The susceptibility and/or resilience of rocky littoral molluscs to stock depletion by the indigenous coastal people of Transkei, Southern Africa. Biological Conservation 56: 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lasiak, T. 1992. Contemporary shellfish gathering practices of indigenous coastal people in Transkei: Some implications for interpretation of the archaeological record. South African Journal of Science 88: 19–28.Google Scholar
  17. Lasiak, T., and A.H. Dye. 1989. The ecology of the brown mussel Perna perna in Transkei, Southern Africa: Implications for the management of a traditional food resource. Biological Conservation 47: 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ludford, A., V.J. Cole, F. Porri, C.D. McQuaid, M.D.V. Nakinand, and J. Erlandsson. 2012. Testing source- sink theory: The spill-over of mussel recruits beyond marine protected areas. Landscape Ecology 27: 859–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahon, R., P. McConney, and R. Roy. 2008. Governing fisheries as complex adaptive systems. Marine Policy 32: 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McQuaid, C.D., J.R. Lindsay, and T.L. Lindsay. 2000. Interactive effects of wave exposure and tidal height on population structure of the mussel Perna perna. Marine Biology 137: 925–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pelc, R.A., M.L. Baskett, T. Tanci, S.D. Gaines, and R.R. Warner. 2009. Quantifying larval export from South African marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 394: 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pomeroy, R.S., B.M. Katon, and I. Harkes. 2001. Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: Lessons from Asia. Marine Policy 25(3): 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pomeroy, R.S., and F. Berkes. 1997. Two to tango: The role of government in fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 21(5): 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pomeroy, R.S., and R. Rivera-Guieb. 2006. Fishery co-management: A practical handbook. Oxfordshire: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Raemaekers, S. 2009. Rethinking South Africa’s Small-scale Fisheries Management Paradigm and Governance Approach: Evidence from the Eastern Cape. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rhodes University.Google Scholar
  26. Reaugh-Flower, K., G.M. Branch, J.M. Harris, C.D. McQuaid, B. Currie, A. Dye, and B. Robertson. 2011. Scale-dependent patterns and processes of intertidal mussel recruitment around southern Africa. Marine Ecology Progress Series 434: 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sowman, M. 2006. Subsistence and small-scale fisheries in South Africa: A 10 year review. Marine Policy 30: 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sowman, M. 2011. New perspectives in small-scale fisheries management: Challenges and prospects for implementation in South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 33: 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sowman, M., J. Sunde, S. Raemaekers, and O. Shultz. 2014. Fishing for equality: Policy for poverty alleviation for South Africa’s small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy 46: 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Erkom Schurink, C., and C.L. Griffiths. 1990. Marine mussels of Southern Africa—Their distribution patterns, standing stocks, exploitation and culture. Journal of Shellfish Research 9: 75–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyWalter Sisulu UniversityMthathaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of Environmental and Geographical SciencesUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  3. 3.Department of Ecology, Environment and Plant SciencesStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations