I am an attorney in my professional life and a trout angler in my real one. The two have come together in dealing with attempts by environmental authorities to list trout as an invasive species.
I don’t actually formally represent any organisation, though I do consult to both Trout SA, which is an agricultural commodity group registered with DAFF and FOSAF, which represents recreational fly fishers.
The tone of the quoted Department of Environmental Affairs’ release is most unfortunate.
Both Trout South Africa and FOSAF have been working closely with the director generals of DAFF and DEA to find a win-win solution that would see the growth of the trout value chain (including both recreational angling and its spin off trout tourism sector and trout based aquaculture) in areas outside certain nature reserves where trout already occur.
Trout will not be declared invasive in these areas, but it would be structured in a way that the trout value chain will self-regulate, so as to sustain growth of the value chain and discourage the introduction of trout into waters where they do not presently occur.
Trout will be declared as invasive under category 2 where they do not but could occur and in the above mentioned nature reserves.
There is agreement on this level and at a political level both nationally and provincially. Unfortunately this commitment has not carried through to officials in the various environmental and conservation departments who still insist, despite what is stated above, that trout are dangerous invasive aliens. This conviction which misaligns with the legal definition of alien as well as the environmental right, as it is framed in the constitution, is having a negative impact on attempts to grow not only the trout value chain but the strategically important fresh water aquaculture sector as well.
The problem is worse in some provinces than others. There is no real problem in Limpopo for example, where officials and trout anglers reached agreement on where trout occur over a year ago. There is a very serious problem in Mpumalanga where officials have tried to prosecute and/or close down two of the provinces largest trout hatcheries. Attempts to farm the indigenous Tilapia Mozambiqus have also been frustrated because they call the selectively bred fisheries’ variety of this species a mutant fish. In other provinces there is talk of poisoning trout in many streams where trout presently occur.
The trout value chain is working closely with government to address this problem. It is one that arises largely as a result of differing perspectives, around what the environmental right means and how the right should be protected. Environmental officials who deal with trout mostly come from a conservationist background and thus tend to view the right as a command and control based conservationist charter, aimed at protecting indigenous species from human beings and alien species that were introduced by human beings. This approach is discouraging of development and encourages a high degree of control orientated regulation backed by heavy criminal sections and based on the incontrovertible assumption that trout are dangerous.
A constitutional or legal approach sees things very differently. The environmental right is a human right aimed at giving human beings an environment that sustains our health and well being. The overriding legal principle is that the needs of people and their well being must be placed uppermost in environmental; planning and management. Trout are beneficial if one adopts this perspective because the value chain has brought a great deal of investment and thus employment to areas where this would not otherwise happen. It has also contributed to an investment in rehabilitating rivers and ecosystems so as to promote trout that would not have taken place if trout are regulated on the basis that they are dangerous.
Officials with a strong conservationist background, who see indigenous species as having inherently superior right to existence, struggle to understand the constitutional shift that must take place in environmental thinking after 1994.
The desire to penalise the trout value chain, even to the point of threatening its destruction, is one consequence of this. Proper consultation on matters concerning the environment is another. The rhino horn moratorium judgement demonstrates vividly what is a widespread problem.
There is another form of transformation under way that is proving hard for conservation obsessed environmental officials to understand. Fresh water fisheries management is now an exclusive national mandate that falls under DAFF. Prior to 1994 it was a provincial mandate that fell under the provincial environmental authorities. Indeed many of the provincial environmental agencies had fisheries and especially trout based fishery beginnings. DAFF has a sustainable development growth orientated strategy that is very different to the conservationist strategy, that DEA and the provincial environmental departments have been pursuing. Thus the one sees trout as a benefit and the other as a dangerous species that must be discouraged.
The trout value chain is aware of the difficulties in harmonising these two differing belief systems. We are working with government to address it, so as to speedily implement the win-win that has been arrived at. However disharmony still abounds. Part of the problem is that environmental officials still see trout as invasive, hence the reference to trout having fully invaded areas. Trout are not in fact invasive as the term is defined in law. A species must cause or threaten harm to the economy or human health and well being in order to be invasive. Trout are beneficial to the economy and human health and well being.
This disharmony means that there are no new regulations at present. Officials in the DEA suggest regulations that will regulate trout in areas where they occur as if they are alien, but in truth on the basis that they are invasive. This is contrary to the win-win agreement that has been reached, as well as being incompatible with existing legislation and indeed our constitutional rights. I was part of the team that pointed this out to officials in the DEA as far back as November 2014. We suggested an alternative way of creating a regulatory win-win that could fit within the existing regulatory regime. They have thus far refused to engage on the issue. The fact is that proper consultation on what regulation is necessary, given the win-win agreement that is described above, has still to commence.
It is hoped that the intervention of the DAFF and DEA director generals will create space for a win-win to be found. The legal position is not an easy one as South Africa lacks a fresh water fishery policy, that addresses these issues and the confused mess of provincial an national laws, that presently apply. DAFF is working on a fresh water fishery policy and the trout value chain is keen to make its contribution. Ideally these issues should be dealt with in terms of that policy, rather than by trying to stretch to try and fit what are essentially land based environmental policies, that are the responsibility of DEA.
I am confident that the people first approach to sustainable development that is our constitutional right and responsibility, will prevail over what are in effect old order beliefs, based on prejudicial notions of alienness. I am also confident that the trout value chain once freed from its present regulatory uncertainty will play a significant role in improving the health and well being of South Africans, living in areas where trout occur as well as contributing significantly to ecosystem services in those areas.
