Staff Reporter
NAMIBIA should make its fisheries quota and fishing-right allocation processes more transparent so that applicants, industry and the public can understand how access to the country’s marine resources is determined, according to independent Fisheries Management Scientist Dr Carola Kirchner.
Writing in an opinion article titled “Transparency Should Work Both Ways in Namibia’s Fisheries”, Kirchner argues that while fishing-right and quota holders are required to provide the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources with extensive information about their businesses, there is less visibility on how that information is ultimately used to determine allocations.
Kirchner earned a Bachelor of Science (BSc) from the University of Southern California in the United States, a Bachelor of Science Honours (BSc Honours) from the University of Cape Town (UCT), a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from UCT and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) from Nelson Mandela University (NMMU).
Her argument follows the release by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) of the second edition of Rotten Fish: A Guide on Addressing Corruption in the Fisheries Sector.
Namibia contributed to the development of the guide through Graham Hopwood, Executive Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research, drawing on the country’s experience of fisheries governance and corruption.
Kirchner said one of the guide’s central messages is that transparency is an important safeguard against corruption because it makes fisheries governance processes visible, understandable and open to scrutiny.
The guide recommends clear information on the criteria used to determine quotas and issue fishing licences, accessible registers of licences, quotas and vessels, greater transparency around beneficial ownership, and decision-making processes that are open and understandable.
Kirchner said these principles are particularly relevant to Namibia’s fisheries sector.
She noted that the country has previously had a system in which Ministry scientists, industry representatives and independent consultants participated in scientific working-group meetings to discuss information used to assess fish stocks and recommend Total Allowable Catches (TACs).
According to Kirchner, while this did not constitute public transparency in the modern open-data sense, it created a culture of scrutiny in which information could be questioned, assumptions challenged and different interpretations debated.
She said there is, however, an important distinction between determining how much fish can sustainably be harvested and deciding who receives the right to harvest it.
“The first determines the size of the cake. The second determines how the cake is divided,” she said.
Kirchner argues that the second process requires greater transparency because fishing-right and quota holders are required to provide the Ministry with extensive information about their businesses.
This can include ownership and control, vessels, employment, investment, processing capacity, operational partnerships, catch arrangements, procurement, value addition and financial information.
She said there are valid reasons for requiring this information, as fishing quotas provide access to a valuable public resource and government needs to establish who benefits from that resource, what they contribute to the economy, how many people they employ and whether they meet the objectives under which fishing rights were granted.
However, she argues that the process appears largely one-way, with industry providing extensive information to the Ministry while the process through which that information is converted into a quota allocation remains less visible.
“Disclosure on its own does not make an allocation system transparent,” Kirchner said.
She questioned how factors such as employment, investment, vessel ownership, processing capacity, value addition, regional development and operational partnerships are weighted when applications are assessed.
Without a clearly published methodology, she said, it can be difficult to understand how the final allocation follows from the information submitted by applicants.
Kirchner also raised questions about arrangements in which established fishing companies with vessels, processing infrastructure and employees seek partnerships with quota or fishing-right holders.
She referred to a recent advertisement seeking quota or right holders interested in forming a partnership with an established fishing operation that already had vessels and processing infrastructure.
She stressed that there is nothing inherently improper about such partnerships, which can be legitimate and commercially sensible.
However, she questioned whether the situation raises broader questions about the allocation system if established fishing companies must seek access to quota held by entities that may not themselves have the infrastructure required to catch or process fish.
“What contribution was being rewarded by the allocation?” she asked, adding that questions should also be asked about the role of the quota holder in the fishery and how the outcome relates to the economic and development objectives used to assess applicants.
Kirchner emphasised that these questions are not accusations of wrongdoing, but relate to whether the allocation system is sufficiently transparent for its outcomes to be understood.
She said the Rotten Fish guide’s recommendations for accessible licence and quota registers, vessel registers and beneficial ownership information could help identify unusual allocations, changes in licence holders and relationships between companies, vessels and individuals.
At the same time, she acknowledged that not all commercially sensitive information submitted to the Ministry should necessarily be made public.
However, she said confidentiality should not prevent the publication of the rules used to allocate a public resource.
“At a minimum, stakeholders should be able to understand the criteria used, how those criteria are weighted, who receives access to the resource and who ultimately benefits from that access,” Kirchner said.
She argued that greater transparency would benefit established companies, new entrants, quota holders and the public by providing a clearer understanding of how applications are assessed and ensuring competitors are evaluated on the same basis.
Kirchner said Namibia already has experience with scrutiny in fisheries management, referring to the previous practice of scientists, consultants and industry representatives collectively examining the evidence used to recommend TACs.
“The system was not perfect, but the principle was sound: important fisheries decisions should be capable of being questioned, explained and defended,” she said.
She argues that the same principle should apply when a TAC is divided among those seeking access to it.
“The fishing industry is already required to be highly transparent with the Ministry. It is reasonable to expect greater transparency in return. Transparency should work both ways,” Kirchner said.
Photos: File/UNODC
