1- d l i s t benguela（1 - d l i s t本格拉）.docVIP

REPORT ON THE BIOLOGICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RIGHTS ALLOCATIONS IN THE BCLME REGION BCLME Project LMR/SE/03/03 PRESENTED TO: BCLME Activity Centre for Living Marine Resources PRESENTED BY: ON BEHALF OF: 27 October 2006  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Through the allocation of fishing rights, Angola, Namibia and South Africa have necessarily had to restrict the number of rights or quotas allocated. 2. The decisions taken by each of the three governments to restrict the number of quotas allocated must have been tough ones. All three governments have rightly also viewed access to fisheries as an important economic activity as well as an important source of food, particularly protein. 3. None of the three countries has undertaken a socio-economic study of the impact of fishing rights allocations. However, it is common cause that fishing allocations has impacted negatively on the fishing industry in that it has limited the number of quotas or rights available for allocation. For some small-scale or artisanal fishers it has meant being unemployed. For large-scale industrial right holders, it has meant liquidation or significantly reduced profits or even significant losses. 4. However, rights allocation processes or regulated access to fisheries are a necessity. Unregulated or open access fisheries are invitations to overexploitation and collapsed fisheries. 5. South Africa and Namibia have regulated every facet of their commercial and artisanal fisheries sectors. No fishing may take place with authorisation. Rights allocation processes have taken place within stated policy frameworks premised on the often contradicting needs of ensuring economic and social success while also ensuring resource sustainability. Angola has a less regulated policy with respect to access to fisheries. Although its industrial fleets are required to have a right before they can fish, the artisanal fishery, which comprises more than 4000 boats, does not h