THE FEDERATION OF SOUTHERN AFRICAN FLYFISHERS · 2009-02-12 · 8th Yellowfish Working Group Conference 2 PARTICIPANTS NAME ORGANISATION PHONE E-MAIL Angliss, Mick Limpopo Prov, Environ

FOSAF

THE FEDERATION OF SOUTHERN AFRICAN FLYFISHERS

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8TH YELLOWFISH WORKING GROUP

CONFERENCE

LE PARADISE RESORT, BADPLAAS 13 – 15 MAY 2004

Edited by Peter Arderne

PRINTING & DISTRIBUTION SPONSORED BY:

sappi

8th Yellowfish Working Group Conference 1

CONTENTS Page List of Participants 2 Press Release 4 Welcome address -Bill Mincher (presented by Peter Mills) 6 Fishing Strategies & Tactics for the Nine Yellowfish species – Turner Wilkinson 8 Keynote Address: Mpumalanga Parks Board – Andre Coetzee 10 South African Freshwater Resources: Rights, Duties & Remedies – Morne Viljoen 11 Towards the fomulation of a Waste Discharge Charge System for South Africa - Pieter Viljoen

24

Catchment Management Approach to Conservation: What does it mean? – Dr Wynand Vlok

34

Establishment of the Elands River Conservation Area (ERYCA)– Gordon O’Brien 38 The Effect of Alien Plant Species on the Riparian Zone Water Management – Hannes de Lange & Tony Poulter

43

Fish kills in the Olifants River: Any Solution? – Dr Thomas Gyedu-Ababio 45 Yellowfish Sport Fisheries: Opportunities & Responsibilities – Kobus Fourie 48 Conservancies – A tool for river conservation involving the landowner – Peter Mills 49 Proposed project: Radio Telemetry on Labeobarbus marequensis in the Crocodile River, Kruger National Park – Francois Roux

54

The yellowfish fishery on the upper Komati: A landowners perspective – John Clarke 56 River Health: Managing and Monitoring Rivers on Sappi Plantations – Douglas Macfarlane

60

Iscor Newcastle: Water Strategy – Martin Bezuidenhout 63 Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa – Pierre de Villiers 66 Field research update: Assessing the impact of smallmouth bass on the indigenous fish community of the Rondegat River, Western Cape – Darragh Woodford

67

Threatened fishes of Swaziland – Richard Boycott 70 Yellowfishes of Zambia & Mozambique – Roger Bills 76 Identification of conservation units of two yellowfish species: Labeobarbus kimberleyensis & L. aeneus - Paulette Bloomer, Hermann van der Bank & Roger Bills

78

Regional Reports Western Cape – Dean Impson (presented by Darragh Woodford) Free State – Pierre de Villiers Northern Cape – Ramogale Sekwele Gauteng – Piet Muller Mpumalanga – Francois Roux Limpopo – Mick Angliss

80 82 85 86 87 89

Summary of Comment & Discussion following each Presentation 91 Workshop Results 96 Main Resolutions 99

Printing & Distribution sponsored by:

sappi


PARTICIPANTS NAME ORGANISATION PHONE E-MAIL Angliss, Mick Limpopo Prov, Environ. Affairs 015 2959300 [email protected]

Arderne, Peter FOSAF Nothvaal & YWG secretary 083 4577478 [email protected]

Beeslaar, Fred Gauteng North, Freshwater Bank Angling

012 3300044 [email protected]

Bezuidenhout, Martin Iscor, Newcastle 083 3090334 Martin.Bezuidenhout.iscor.com

Bills, Roger SA Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity 046 6035800 [email protected]

Bloomer, Prof Paulette University of Pretoria 012 4203259 [email protected]

Botha, Francois RAU 082 8545263 [email protected]

Boycott, Richard Biologist, Swaziland 09268 4040211

[email protected]

Clarke, John Land owner 082 3398302

Coetzee, Andre Mpumalanga Parks Board 013 7595301 [email protected]

Cowie, Ian Tudor Estates, Land owner 012 3286161 [email protected]

De Jager, Rynier Manager, Badplaas Tourism 017 8441630

De Lange, Hannes Working for Water 082 9084801 [email protected]

De Villiers, Pierre Free State Tourism, Environ. & EconAffairs/Vaal River Conservancy


Filter, Horst Guide & Land owner 034 9950017

Fourie, Kobus Elgro Lodge & Windknot 082 5553121 [email protected]

Friese, Guido Land owner, Outdoor Heartbeat 017 8210894 [email protected]

Grobler, Johann Freshwater Bank Angling (Conservation)


Gyedu-Ababio, Dr Thomas

SA National Parks 072 5213317 [email protected]

Laubsher, Arno Guide 083 6575736 [email protected]

Lochner, George Landowner 082 8241531

Macfarlane, Douglas SAPPI 083 6314351 [email protected]

Malan, Pieter HEAL 013 7333073 [email protected]

McGinn, Andrew Land owner, Komati Gorge 017 8431497 [email protected]

Mills, Peter FOSAF & Gauteng Nature Conservation


Muller, Piet Gauteng Prov. Nature Conservation 011 3309100 [email protected]

Nolte, Schalk Author (refer Bernard Venter)

O’Brien, Gordon Zoology Dept. RAU 084 5804161 [email protected]

Parsons, Johnny AngloGold 082 4529962 [email protected]

Pieterse, Jan Land owner, Boshoek 017 8441254 [email protected]

Plank, Hester Chair of KZN chapter of YWG 083 8767487 [email protected]

Roux, Francois Mpumalanga Parks Board 013 2352395 [email protected]

Schroeder, Erwin Private 082 8767487 [email protected]

Sekwele, Ramogale Northern Cape Nature Conservation 082 5742234 [email protected]

Sinclair, Wayne Guide 011 3154503 [email protected]

Smit, Pieter Land owner 082 8051681

Steyn, Dr Gert Consultant ecologist, Exol Group 083 6334665 [email protected]


Todd, Colleen DWAF 084 5814309 [email protected]

Van Buynder, Domien iTAG Conservation Project 083 2738525 [email protected]

Van der Walt, Hennie Amersfoort Angling Club 017 7531380

Van Druten, Emile Private 082 7815430 [email protected]

Van Niekerk, Toby Doornkop Fish & Wildlife Reserve 011 3277620 [email protected]

Van Staden, Stephen Scientific Aquatic Services 083 4152356 [email protected]

Venter, Adv. Bernard Eko-Care Trust 083 4442790 [email protected]

Viljoen, Morne Environmental lawyer 082 3731502 [email protected]

Viljoen, Pieter DWAF 082 8080497 [email protected]

Vlok, Dr Wynand University of the North 082 2005312 [email protected]

Wallington, Keith Private 083 3254120 [email protected]

Wilkinson, Turner Guide 082 8850589 [email protected]

Williamson, Grant Private 073 1504688 [email protected]

Wolhuter, Dr Louis FOSAF 011 6784156 [email protected]

Woodford, Darragh Freshwater Research Unit, UCT 021 6503638 [email protected]


PRESS RELEASE: THE RIPARIAN OWNER – KEEPER OF THE RIVER (8TH ANNUAL YELLOWFISH WORKING GROUP CONFERENCE) This year’s Yellowfish Working Group Conference from 13th to 15 May 2004 was held at Badplaas, in close proximity to the lovely Komati River and its many tributaries. One of the objectives was to highlight the importance of the Mpumalanga region - home to five of the nine yellowfish species as well as the Inkomati chiselmouth. In addition it provided local landowners and other interested parties the opportunity to attend and participate in the forum and in so doing get a better idea of the opportunities yellowfish offer as a resource if properly managed. In the opening presentation Andre Coetzee, head of Conservation at Mpumalanga Parks Board informed the 50 odd delegates of the importance of finding solutions to our conservation problems that will be relevant in African rather than Eurocentric terms. Morne Viljoen, lawyer specializing in environmental law covered the key issue of existing legislation and the inter-relationships between the various acts. As expected his paper elicited considerable discussion. Pieter Viljoen of DWAF presented his department’s plans for curbing the very real problem of pollution and Dr Wynand Vlok spoke on the catchment management approach to conservation. At this stage in the programme it was interesting to note the very close linkage between the papers presented and talks by Gordon O’Brien (Elands River in Mpumalanga) and Piet Muller and Peter Mills of Gauteng Nature Conservation served to reinforce this. A presentation by Kobus Fourie of Elgro Lodge highlighted the opportunities in and responsibilities of the riparian owner, managing an eco-tourism based establishment on the

Vaal.

After lunch Francois Roux of Mpumalanga Parks Board gave a progress report on the tagging/telemetry project on tigerfish and yellows of the lower Inkomati system and this was followed by an interesting presentation by John Clarke, landowner on the Upper Komati river. The session ended with papers by Sappi, and Iscor (Newcastle) on the excellent progress they had made in conforming to the Water Act of 1998. The final session of the day comprised reports from six of the regions including a report by Richard Boycott of Swaziland. Pierre de Villiers also spoke on Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation and Darragh Woodford from UCT gave an update on the Rondegat River project. Saturday opened with Roger Bills of SAIAB speaking about the yellowfishes of Zambia and Mozambique and Prof. Paulette Bloomer fittingly delivered the last paper on progress made with the very comprehensive genetic study on the important two Orange/Vaal River species - funded by AngloGold. The programme ended with the traditional workshop run by Peter Mills. With input from the previous evening’s meeting of the Scientific Panel, clear guidelines could be formulated on the way forward. Amongst the resolutions passed was that special protection was required for the Witvis of the Western Cape, and there was a need to investigate the impact of wading on the spawning areas in the Vaal as well as an initiative whereby flyfishers will assist researchers


with a tagging project on the Small and Largemouth yellows of the Vaal. In conclusion of the business sessions it was agreed that next year’s conference will be held in April at Elgro River Lodge, close to Potchefstroom. In a relaxing close to the conference a number of enthusiasts were keen to test the yellowfish strategies presented by Turner Wilkinson on the first evening and numerous fish were caught and released. Worthy of note was the achievement of one of the younger members who managed to catch several largescale and smallscale yellows as well as an Inkomati chiselmouth as a bonus. The Proceedings should according to plan be available to delegates by July this year. Copies will be on sale to all interested parties from the FOSAF office (contact 011 4626687 or email [email protected].) Alternatively zipped copies can be emailed - order from ‘The YWG secretary’: [email protected]. .


WELCOME ADDRESS TO DELEGATES AT THE 8TH YWG CONFERENCE Welcome to the 8th YWG Conference. Looking back on the proceedings of earlier conferences it is evident that we have covered a lot of ground since we started, which is a tribute to delegates, many of whom have attended all the conferences. Our initial objective was to popularize yellowfish angling thus enhancing their commercial value and conservation status. The achievements of the YWG to date in this respect have exceeded our wildest expectations. The angling press must be commended with an outstanding contribution being made by Angler Publication’s Flyfishing magazine. A moratorium was placed on the moving of yellowfish pending the results of the pilot genetic study undertaken which has recently been completed. The YWG Scientific Panel will now make recommendations to the executive committee on the moratorium and need for further studies. Due to this process a general awareness has been created amongst anglers and riparian owners on the need to keep yellowfish in their natural catchments – an important achievement. The Working Group has discussed and motivated the need for uniform angling regulations and national aquatic conservation regulations, which could result in a single angling license. This process is now underway and will be a major step forward. A climate needs to be created where anglers will willingly purchase fishing licenses and buy into conservation ethics in the knowledge that the proceeds will be ploughed back into the wise management of the resource. The YWG has a loose structure involving academics, angling groups, nature conservation authorities, riparian owners and business organisations which places it in a unique position to debate issues and disseminate information. We have considered associating with other groups such as the EWT to assist our fund raising effort but feel that at this stage it would not be in our best interest. When we have clearly defined objectives we will develop a proposal and seek a major sponsor. This development will entail the employment of dedicated staff and continue to be managed by the YWG. We have been successful in raising project funds from AngloGold who will have contributed R130 000 when the current Orange/Vaal genetic studies have been completed and thank them all for their generosity and involvement. Project funding will always remain an important facet of our activities. It is prudent to acknowledge the contribution made by the Federation of Southern African Flyfishers (FOSAF) in both funding and executive time and to mention Nedbank who sponsor the Nedbank Guide to Southern African Flyfishing which provides essential funding to FOSAF. This Guide is an invaluable communication medium. Our first yellowfish advert appears in the new 5th Edition of the Guide which will be published in October 2004. I have been working on producing a brochure and a yellowfish map but still do not have a clear picture of the message that we need to get across and to whom. Is our main thrust in the future going to be towards the promotion and establishment of conservancies, involving riparian owners and in creating more local yellowfish chapters? Perhaps the Conference will shed more light on this subject.


A major study of the Breede River is being conducted by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) which can be viewed on their website. They will require specialist advice on aquatic biota in the system. The YWG must endeavour to become the experts on the subject of yellowfish by developing a data base of knowledge and compiling a list of research that need to be undertaken to understand and manage yellowfish. The Scientific Panel has been asked to address this matter. The theme chosen for the Conference is “The Riparian Owner – Keeper of the River”. Presentations today will highlight some of the challenges facing conservation of yellowfish. There is no doubt that the riparian owner has a dramatic influence on what happens in the river. I wish you a fruitful and rewarding conference and look forward to the results of the important workshop sessions. BILL MINCHER Chairman YWG


HUNTING THE YELLOWFISHES OF SOUTHERN AFRICA

Turner Wilkinson P.O.Box 531, Durban 4000. Email: [email protected]

1. Introduction: South Africa boasts 9 yellowfish species (6 true yellowfish and 3 related species). Historical belief - these fish cannot be caught on fly during murky and cold-water conditions.

2. In this presentation:

• Yellowfish can be targeted in winter

• Yellows can be caught in murky water

• Seasonal tactics for the 9 yellowfish species 3. Key discoveries in the quest to catch yellows:

• Understanding the influence of water temperature on fish distribution

• Understanding the role of the sensory system of the yellows when they feed 4. Water temperature and fish distribution:

• Summer o Water temp above 18 degrees Celsius o Distributed throughout the river o Spawning – well oxygenated ankle to knee deep riffles o Fry (< 1 year old fish) in very shallow (6 to 20 cm) water o Small fish (2 to 3 year old fish) mostly in the riffles o Large fish in deeper water (> 60cm) except when spawning. o Caddis primary food source o Tactics – Upstream dead drift in the riffles and glides

• Autumn o Water temperature 14 – 18 degrees Celsius o Fry and small fish leave the shallows to shelter fromt temperature fluctuations o Occasional migrations into riffles to feed (large hatches) o Caddis, Mayflies, Stoneflies (where present) and minnows are all important

sources of food o Tactics – Upstream dead drift in riffles and glides as well as streamer tactics in

the pools

• Winter o Water temperature < 14 degrees Celsius o All yellows concentrated in deeper pools o Shoaling strongly in evidence o Mayflies, midges and dragon flies are the primary food source o Drift and streamer tactics in pools

• Spring o Water temperature 14 – 18 degrees Celsius o Major migration into riffles in anticipation of spawning o Caddis, mayflies, dragon and damsel nymphs are all important sources of

food


o Tactics – Upstream dead drift in riffles and glides as well as streamer tactics in the pools

5. Yellowfish sensory behaviour:

• Yellows see well (even in murky water as result of the light background)

• Yellows have an acute sense of smell and taste – they evolved in murky water o Evident by many rejections before the angler can react

• Yellows hunt well by feeling (lateral line) and sound. o Evident by success in night fishing for them

6. Flies for Yellows:

• Nymphing tactics o Caddis (# 8 – 16) Olive, green, mustard, brown and black o Mayflies (# 14 – 16) Olive, tan and black o Stoneflies (# 10 – 12) Brown and yellow o Midges (# 12 - 18) Black o Scrimps (# 8 – 12) Tan, translucent and light green o Damsels (# 10 – 12) Olive and tan o Dragons (# 6 – 8) Olive and brown o Crabs (# 8) Olive o Minnows (# 4 – 8) Olive, yellow, gray and black

7. Conclusion:

• Yellows can be targeted 12 months of the year

• The key to success is to: Know the fish’s migration patterns Know what they eat Present the food (fly) to look and act like the natural

• Conservation – we all have a responsibility to ensure that our children have the same or better opportunities to fish for yellows.


KEYNOTE ADDRESS TO THE YELLOWFISH WORKING GROUP

Andre Coetzee General Manager Conservation and Acting CEO of Mpumalanga Parks Board, P/Bag X11338, Nelspruit 1200.

Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: A general overview of the MPB was given, with emphasis on the nine Strategic Objectives of the Parastatal. The Mandate, Vision, and Mission were explained with reference to Nature Conservation. Following an explanation of the top structure, reporting channels and budget of the Institution, some time was spent on the first four, pure conservation objectives. These objectives are reflected in the four Conservation Divisions, namely Protected Area Management, Wildlife Management, Wildlife Protection and Scientific Services. Insight was provided in some of the detailed activities of the four Divisions. With regard to Protected Areas a question was posed to the YWG on why protected areas are only considered on land and at sea. Why are river systems not managed as a whole and why are they not proclaimed as protected areas? Some discussion followed on fragmentation and different provincial fishing licenses With regard to Scientific Services another unique problem was highlighted. Not only does the Division consist of scientists who are all white, but also of ageing scientists with the youngest aged 42. The findings of the Department of Science and Technology, which indicated exactly the same trend nationally, were discussed. There exists both a race gap as well as an age gap in the natural sciences. The findings of the DST were that few school leavers were interested in maths and science as career subjects. The role of scientists is not glamorous enough and the career path does not pay competitive salaries, or allow for career advancement. The MPB and the country are heading for a crisis with regard to scientists. The YWG was shown to have a similar problem. Fly-fishing is by and large an “affluent, whites only” sport. It cannot simply be transformed by window dressing, it must be popularised and made financially accessible to the black elite. The YWG should make itself relevant in the new SA by expanding its sphere of influence. It should not only be concerned about yellowfish or research, but about tourism and job creation in more diverse fields of eco tourism, and above all about river conservation. YWG members are mostly business leaders with financial clout and influence. They should positively channel that influence to assist Government and to contribute to official conservation efforts to create opportunities for like-minded black colleagues. They enjoy the fruits of healthy rivers and must actively put something back, in support of a better life for all. The presentation concluded with some existing MPB projects and challenges. The YWG was congratulated on its progress and maturity and was assured of the MPB’s commitment in ensuring the increased conservation of life giving rivers. The YWG was thanked for allowing the MPB to deliver the keynote address and for choosing the Mpumalanga Province to host this important annual event.


SOUTH AFRICAN FRESH WATER RESOURCES: RIGHTS, DUTIES AND REMEDIES

Morne Viljoen

Box 73672, Fairland 2030. Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION We hear about water pollution or the illegal catching of fish with nets on a regular basis in the news. Usually, the interviewees (if it is a government spokesperson) state that they do not know who the perpetrators are, or the matter is being investigated, or they are working on a plan or there is nothing that they can do at the moment (e.g. they do not have the necessary resources). On the other hand, affected parties (such as individuals and land owners) are frustrated because either they are convinced that there is really nothing government can do or that the authorities do not appear to have the will or the resources to implement the law. The purpose of my discussion is to give you a broad overview of legislation pertaining to South African fresh water resources, the inter-relationship between these Acts and the rights and duty that both Government and individuals have. There is a vast amount of legislation in South Africa dealing with pollution and the protection of the environment (58 pieces of National Legislation at last count), but, because of the time restraints, I will focus on the Constitution, the National Environmental Management Act, the National Water Act, the Environment Conservation Act, relevant Provincial legislation and the Common Law.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION 1.1 The Constitution of South Africa

The Constitution is the supreme law of South Africa. All law, including environmental laws, must comply with the Constitution. The Constitution contains a Bill of Rights in Chapter 2 which enshrines or guarantees certain fundamental rights. Environmental rights are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in Section 24 of the Constitution. Section 24 of the Constitution, guarantees everyone the right to: “(a) an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and (b) have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that: (i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; (ii) promote conservation; and (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.”

It is an important feature that the rights enshrined in terms of Section 24 has a negative phrasing in that it refers to an environment that is not harmful. The effect is that the right enshrines a certain minimum standard (i.e. an environment that is not harmful) and not a right of indeterminable extent (i.e. a healthy environment).


The Constitution also places a positive duty on the State (i.e. Government at the national, provincial and municipal spheres) and on persons (such as companies), to take reasonable legislative and other measures to ensure that the issues listed in terms of Section 24(b) are attended to. Another important point of the Constitution is the principle of “Co-operative Government”. The Constitution, introduces the concept that Government is now structured as spheres (National, Provincial and Municipal), which are interrelated, interdependent yet distinctive. The Constitution attempts to ensure that the distinctive character of each sphere of government promotes government co-operation and not government competitiveness. The Constitution therefore requires that the three spheres of government do not operate in isolation from one another. All three spheres of government and all organs of state within each sphere of government are enjoined by Chapter 3 to co-operate with each other in mutual trust and good faith and are obliged to co-ordinate their actions and legislation with each other. They are also obliged to assist each other. Where provincial or municipal government cannot fulfil its functions, national or provincial government may step in to assist such government. Therefore it is not enough for a municipality to say that it does not have the funds to, for example, upgrade or fix faulty sewerage systems – the funds may (and should) be supplied by provincial or national government.

1.2 The National Environmental Management Act (“NEMA”) This Act is the most important piece of environmental legislation in South Africa. The Act identifies certain principles (e.g. sustainable development, integrated environmental management, environmental justice, the cradle to grave approach, the public trust approach and the polluted payer’s principle) which must be used for the interpretation, administration and implementation of any law in South Africa concerned with the protection or management of the environment. Therefore, environmental issues dealt with by, for example, the National Water Act or the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act must be interpreted using the principles set out in NEMA. Unfortunately, there is not enough time to discuss each and every principle set out in NEMA, but, for our purposes, it may be of value to look at the following principles:

• Anthropocentrism: Environmental management must place people and their need at the forefront of its concern and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably.

• Integrated environmental management: Environmental management must be integrated, acknowledging that all elements of the environment are linked and inter-related and it must take into account the effects of decisions on all the aspects of the environment and all people in the environment by pursuing the selection of the best practicable environmental option (i.e. most benefit/least damage at an acceptable cost).


• Cradle to grave: The responsibility for environmental health and safety consequences of a policy, programme, project, product, process, service or activity exists throughout its life cycle.

• Inter-governmental co-operation: There must be inter-governmental co-ordination and harmonisation of policy, legislation and actions relating to the environment. This refers to co-operation between the different spheres of government (i.e. national, provincial and municipal) and inter-departmental co-operation (e.g. co-operation between the Departments of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Water Affairs and Forestry).

• The public trust doctrine: The environment is held in public trust for the people, the beneficial use of environmental resources must serve the public interest and the environment must be protected as the people’s common heritage.

• The polluter payer’s principle: The costs of remedying pollution, environmental degradation and consequent adverse health effects of preventing, controlling or minimising further pollution, environmental damage or adverse health effects must be paid for by those responsible for harming the environment.

NEMA also deals with pollution and states in Section 28, NEMA that:

“every person who causes, has caused or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment must take reasonable measures to prevent such pollution or degradation from occurring, continuing or recurring, or, insofar as such harm to the environment is authorised by law or cannot be reasonably avoided or stopped, to minimise and rectify such pollution or degradation of the environment.

The person referred to above includes the owner of land, a person in control of land or premises or a person who has the right to use the land or premises on which any activity or process was performed or undertaken, or any other situation exists which causes, has caused or is likely to cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment. This is a clear indication that a current riparian owner can even be held liable for pollution or degradation caused by his predecessor in title. Similar provisions are in place with regards to emergency incidents. An emergency incident is an unexpected sudden occurrence, including a major omission, fire or explosion leading to serious danger to the public or potentially serious pollution of or detriment to the environment, whether immediate or delayed. The responsible person who must take reasonable measures in order to contain and minimise the effects of the incident, undertake clean-up operations, undertake rehabilitation, etc., falls on the person who is responsible for the incident, a person who owns any hazardous substance involving the incident or a person who was in control of any hazardous substance involved at the time of the incident.


1.3 The National Water Act

The National Water Act deals with the management and use of raw water, i.e. fresh water that has not been treated and which is found in its natural state. In the preamble of the National Water Act, Government recognises that the protection of a quality of water resources is necessary to ensure sustainability of the nation’s water resources in the interests of all water users. It also incorporates the public trust doctrine discussed above. Water use includes extracting water from a resource, storing water, impeding or diverting the flow of a water course and using the water for recreational purposes. The act also deals with water pollution. Water pollution is defined as:

“the direct or indirect alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of a water resource, so as to make it -

(a) less fit for any beneficial purpose for which it may reasonably be expected to be used;

(b) harmful or potentially harmful - (aa) to the welfare, health or safety of human beings; (bb) to any aquatic or non-aquatic organisms; (cc) to the resource quality; or (dd) to property.”

Resource quality is defined as -

“the quality of all the aspects of a water resource including –

(a) the quantity, pattern, timing, water level and assurance of in-stream flow; (b) the water quality, including the physical, chemical and biological characteristics

of the water; (c) the character and condition of the in-stream and riparian habitat; and (d) the characteristics, condition and distribution of the aquatic biota.”

In terms of Section 19 the owner of land, a person in control of land or a person who occupies or uses the land on which any activity or process is or was performed or undertaken; or any other situation exists which causes, has caused or is likely to cause pollution of a water resource, must take all reasonable measures to prevent any pollution from occurring, continuing or recurring. These measures may include –

• measures to cease, modify or control any act or process causing the pollution;

• comply with any prescribed waste standard or management practice;

• contain or prevent a movement of pollution;

• eliminate any source of the pollution;

• remedy the effects of the pollution; and

• remedy the effects of any disturbance to the bed and bank of a water course.


Similar provisions are applicable to emergency incidents. An emergency incident is any incident or accident in which a substance pollutes or has the potential to pollute a water resource or has or is likely to have a detrimental effect on the water resource.

In terms of Section 20 a responsible person or any other person involved in an emergency incident or any person with knowledge of the incident must take reasonable steps with regards to that incident. The responsible person includes any person who is responsible for the incident, the person who owns the substance involved in the incident or who was in control of the substance involved in the incident at the time of the incident. Reasonable steps to be taken may include:

• reporting the incident to the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, the SAPS or the relevant Catchment Management Agency;

• measures to contain and minimise the effects of the incident;

• the undertaking of clean-up operations;

• remedying the effects of the incidents;

• adherence to other measures that have been prescribed by the Catchment Management Agency or the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry must be adhered to.

1.4 Environment Conservation Act

This Act is slowly but surely phased out and will be replaced by NEMA, but is still of some relevance to the protection of South Africa’s fresh water resources. In terms of the Act, certain activities have been identified which may probably have a detrimental effect on the environment. The activities identified include:

• water use and disposal;

• resource removal, including national living resources;

• resource renewal;

• agricultural processes;

• industrial processes;

• transportation;

• energy generation and distribution;

• waste and sewerage disposal;

• chemical treatment;

• recreation;

• canals and channels, including structures causing disturbances to the flow of water in a river bed and water transfer schemes between water catchments and impoundments;

• dams, levies and weirs affecting the flow of a river;

• reservoirs for public water supply;

• schemes for the abstraction or utilisation of ground or surface water for bulk supply purposes;


• public and private resorts and associated infrastructure;

• the concentration of livestock, aquatic organisms, poultry and game, in a confined structure for the purpose of commercial production, including agriculture and mariculture;

• the intensive husbandry of, or importation of, any plant or animal that has been declared a reed or an invasive alien species;

• the reclamation of land, including wetlands, below the high-water mark of the sea, and inland waters.

In terms of Section 22 the abovementioned activities may not be undertaken without the written authorisation issued by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. This authorisation may only be issued after the necessary Environmental Impact Assessments (“EIA”) have been submitted to and studied by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The EIA must refer to the impact of the proposed activity and what the impact of alternative proposed activities will have on the environment.

1.5 Provincial legislation

Each province has provincial legislation pertaining to the conservation of the environment. Some provinces still use legislation that was promulgated prior to the establishment of the new South Africa, for example, Gauteng, the Limpopo province and the North West province still use the old Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance that was promulgated in 1983. Mpumalanga, however, is using legislation that was drafted and promulgated in 1998, although the wording is essentially the same as that of the old Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance.

Because of the lack of time all the provincial legislation pertaining to South Africa’s fresh water resources it will not be discussed in detail save to state that the provincial legislation of each province deals with, in respect of water resources and fishing, the following issues:

• obstructing the free passage of fish;

• pollution of water;

• the introduction of live fish or aquatic growths;

• the wilful killing of fish other than in the manner as allowed by the legislation/the destroying of spawn;

• the provision of closed seasons in which certain fish species may not be caught;

• the need to obtain a licence to catch fish with a net;

• the introduction of bag and size limit;

• prohibited ways of catching fish (e.g. using a net);

• selling fish; and

• import and export of live fish.

Because of the fact that we have already dealt with pollution in terms of national legislation I just briefly want to touch on the so-called “poaching” of fish in terms of the Mpumalanga Nature Conservation Act of 1998.


In terms of Section 55 of the said Act, no person may possess a net or trap (excluding landing and keep-nets), with which fish may be caught. Only the owner or occupier of land surrounding the waters which are to be fished, or a trader on the premises on which he or she conducts business or the holder of a permit issued by the provincial government may possess such a net or trap. Contravention of the above will mean that a person will be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or to both such a fine and imprisonment. The Ordinance goes further to state that no person may catch fish otherwise than by angling unless he or she is a holder of a permit authorising him or her to do so, contravention hereof is also an offence for the same penalties as stated above. The Act also states that the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the owner or occupier of land who catches fish; his relative who catches fish with the permission of such owner or occupier; or by an employee in full-time service of the owner or occupier who, on instructions of the owner or occupier catches fish otherwise than by angling, in waters surrounded by the land of such owner or occupier. The immediate question that now comes to mind is, “What if the abovementioned owner, through his practices, harms the environment by, for example, annihilating the fish resources?” The Act says that he is exempted from complying with this Act. May he now just do what he likes? The answer is no, such an owner may not just do what he wants to do. You will note that, in the discussion of the abovementioned legislation, I just touched on what the rights and obligations of various parties are. I will now go on to discuss the remedies available, should a person not comply with the legislation.

2. REMEDIES I am going to discuss the remedies available on an Act by Act basis. 2.1 The Constitution

Section 38 of the Constitution provides that anyone listed in the Section has the right to approach a competent court, if a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened. The persons who may approach a court are:

• anyone acting in their own interest;

• anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;

• anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;

• anyone acting in the public interest; and

• an association acting in the interest of its members.


2.2 The National Environmental Management Act

In terms of Section 28, Government may, in the case of pollution or emergency incidents, direct any person who fails to take reasonable measures with regards to remediation of environmental damage to undertake such reasonable measures. If such a person to whom a directive was issued fails to comply with such directive, Government may step in and undertake the reasonable measures to remedy the situation. Furthermore, Government may recover all costs incurred from the responsible persons. Something that is of cardinal importance to individuals is the provisions of Section 28(12). The effect of this section is that, if Government does not, in the case where a responsible person fails to take reasonable measures to remedy the effects of pollution, furnish such a person with a directive to undertake those reasonable measures, to apply to the Court for an order directing Government to use such directive against a responsible person. This basically boils down to the fact that an interested party, for example, a land owner, may obtain a Court Order, ordering the State to do its job. Any person or group of persons may go to Court in respect of any breach or threatened breach of any provision of NEMA or any other statutory provision concerned with the protection of the environment or use of natural resources:

• in that person’s or group of person’s own interest;

• on behalf of a person who is unable to institute such proceedings;

• in the interest or on behalf of a group or class of persons whose interests are affected;

• in the public interest;

• in the interest of protecting the environment.

The Act also states that the Court may decide not award to costs against a person who went to Court and failed to secure the relief sought. The general rule of thumb is that the person who loses a Court battle must pay his opponent’s legal fees. In terms of NEMA, if the Court is of the opinion that that person acted reasonably out of concern for the public interest or in the interest of protecting the environment and has made huge effort to use other means reasonably available (i.e. anything except going through Court), the Court may decide that that person will not have to pay his opponent’s costs. The Act goes even further and states that should a person be successful in obtaining relief against a, for example, polluter, the polluter must also pay the successful applicant in the Court case any reasonable costs incurred by such person with regards to the investigation of the matter and its preparation for the proceedings. The standard rule of litigation states that the winner of a legal battle can only be paid for the legal fees incurred by him. NEMA goes further and includes the investigation costs, etc. in order to encourage people to use the Act to protect the environment.


The Act also makes provision that any person may in the public interest or in the interest of the protection of the environment institute and conduct a prosecution in respect of any breach of any duty on any person (except the State) in respect of national, provincial or municipal legislation in the following circumstances:

• Where that duty is concerned with the protection of the environment;

• the breach of that duty is an offence;

• the State refuses to prosecute; and

• the plaintiff has a substantial or particular interest in the matter; and

• the interest arises out of an injury suffered by the plaintiff himself.

It must be borne in mind that these remedies set out in NEMA is applicable in respect of all legislation or sections of legislation pertaining to the protection of the environment and use of natural resources. Non-compliance with the act is a criminal offence.

2.3 National Water Act

In the case of a responsible person not taking reasonable measures as prescribed by the Act, in cases of pollution and emergency incidents, the State may, similar to NEMA, order the responsible person to take reasonable measures to remedy the effects of the pollution, failing which Government may undertake those measures itself and recover the costs from the responsible person. Non-compliance with the provisions of the National Water Act or directives issued by the Government, is an offence and such a contravener will be, on the first conviction, liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years or both. Such a contravener may also be ordered to pay, if another person has suffered harm or loss as a result of the non-compliance with the legislation or directive, pay such person for his loss. Furthermore, the contravener may also be ordered to pay, where damage has been caused to a water course, for the cost of any remedial measures, whether he undertakes those measures himself or it is done by any other party.

2.4 Environment Conservation Act

It is important to note that in terms of Section 29(4) of the Environment Conservation Act, any person who undertakes an activity which has been identified as one which may probably have a detrimental effect on the environment, without the written authorisation of the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R100 000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years or to both such fine and such imprisonment, and to a fine not exceeding three times the commercial value of anything in respect of which the offence was committed. The perpetrator may also be


ordered to stop with the unauthorised activity and to rehabilitate the area in order to return the state of the land to which it was prior to the undertaking of the unauthorised activity. Section 31A provides that if, in the opinion of the Minister or the competent local authority or government institution concerned, any person performs any activity or fails to perform any activity as a result of which the environment is or may be seriously damaged, endangered or detrimentally affected, the Minister, competent authority, local authority or government institution, as the case may be, may in writing direct such person: (a) to cease such activity; or (b) to take such steps as the Minister, competent authority, local authority

or government institution, as the case may be, may deem fit,

within a period specified in the directing, with a view to eliminating, reducing or preventing the damage, danger or detrimental effect.

The Minister or the competent authority, local authority or government institution concerned may direct the person referred to above to perform any activity or function at the expense of such person with a view to rehabilitating any damage caused to the satisfaction of the Minister, competent authority, local authority or government institution, as the case may be. If the person referred to above fails to perform the activity or function, the Minister, competent authority, local authority or government institution, depending on who or which issued the direction, may perform such activity or function as if he or it were that person and may authorise any person to take all steps required for that purpose.

Any expenditure incurred by the Minister, a competent authority, a local authority or a government institution in the performance of any function by virtue of the provisions above, may be recovered from the person concerned. In the event of a conviction in terms of the Environment Conservation Act, the Court is empowered to order that any damage to the environment resulting from the offence in question, be repaired by the offender to the satisfaction of the relevant administrative body.

2.5 Common Law Remedies I have now discussed rights and remedies pertaining to the environment as set out by statute. However, we also have certain common law remedies which may serve as effective tools to prevent environmental harm. Civil enforcement concerns a claim brought by one individual against another. Whereas the purpose of criminal proceedings is to punish those convicted of committing an offence, the purpose of civil enforcement is for the court to


make an order against one of the parties in favour of the other. This is dealt with below.

2.5.1 Interdict

An interdict is an order of court directing a respondent to refrain from doing something or compelling them to do something. In order to successfully apply for an interdict one has to show the court that you have a clear or definite right. In order to establish a clear right, the applicant has to prove, on a balance of probabilities, facts which in terms of substantive law give him a right.

The second requisite for the granting of a interdict is an actual harm committed or reasonably apprehended. The term "harm" should be understood to mean an infringement of the right which has been established and resultant prejudice. A reasonable apprehension of harm is one which a reasonable man might entertain upon being faced with the facts, and the applicant need not therefore establish, on a balance of probabilities, that injury will follow.

The third requisite for an interdict is the absence of an effective alternative remedy. The alternative remedy must –

1) be adequate in the circumstances; 2) be ordinary and reasonable; 3) be a legal remedy; and 4) grant similar protection.

In general, an applicant will not obtain an interdict if he can obtain adequate redress through an award of damages. Furthermore, the applicant must first exhaust other remedies at his disposal. The mere fact that an interdict would cause inconvenience and expense to the defendant is never itself a sufficient ground for refusing the interdict and confining the applicant to damages. The interdict remedy is also available to the spheres of government. Government, as an administrative body, acts as a representative of the public and can bring administrative illegalities before the Courts. Recently the High Court decided that government has the ability to take proactive steps to combat air pollution (e.g. by obtaining an interdict to prohibit a person from continuing with an activity), rather than relying on the cumbersome, reactive procedure of criminal prosecution, which provides for a small fine easily able to be written off as a cost of operation.

2.5.2 Mandamus

A mandamus is a remedy whereby the state may be compelled to exercise a statutory duty. In essence it is an interdict obtained against the State, ordering the State to fulfil its obligations. The same requirements to obtain an interdict against an individual are applicable in a court application for a mandamus.


2.5.3 Nuisance

A “nuisance” can be defined as the unlawful disturbance of a person's right to the enjoyment of his land. It has also been described as "interference with the physical comfort of human existence". Particular nuisances include causing: foul, unpleasant or noxious odours or stenches; noise which is excessive; smoke and water pollution. In order to succeed in an action based on nuisance, it is not necessary to prove either intention or negligence on the part of the perpetrator. What has to be established is that there has been an "unreasonable" interference with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff's land. The determination of whether the interference is unreasonable entails consideration of the measure or extent of the interference, the duration of the interference, the suitability of the plaintiff's use of his land and his susceptibility to harm, the time at which the interference took place, and the possibility of avoiding or mitigating the harm.

Our Courts have even decided that the owner of land can be held liable for a nuisance created by a previous owner without himself being at fault in causing such nuisance. Nuisance was held to include any conduct where a neighbour's health, well-being or comfort in the occupation of his land is interfered with, as well as the causation of actual damage to such neighbour. The general rule is that an owner of land has a duty, if he is in a position to do so, to prevent harm being done to neighbouring property caused as a result of a nuisance created by a previous owner.

The remedy granted in the case of a nuisance action will be an interdict.

2.5.4 Delict (Tort)

A delict is a wrongful act or omission which causes harm to another person. In terms of a delictual action one can sue for damages for patrimonial (monetary) loss actually suffered. In order to succeed with a delictual claim, a plaintiff must prove the following:

• a wrongful act was committed or an omission took place;

• which was done intentionally or negligently;

• such act or omission caused harm; and

• loss was suffered by the plaintiff.

In assessing the element of negligence, the courts rely on the "reasonable person" standard. Persons operating in specialised fields are judged against the reasonable standards adhered to in the particular field.


3. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is clear that South Africa has numerous pieces of legislation pertaining to the environment and is currently at the forefront in drafting new legislation in order to give further protection to the state.

The legislation does not only place the burden of looking after the environment on the State, but also on ourselves as individuals. The State is, however, the custodian of the nation’s environmental resources. The environment (including our water resources) is held in trust for the people and the environment must be protected as the peoples common heritage. Individuals therefore have various remedies, in terms of statute and the common law, to exercise their rights. Two positive recent developments are that:

• NEMA has also been recently amended to make provision for the appointment of Environmental Management Inspectors. Their functions will include the investigation of possible breaches of environmental legislation, thereby addressing the concern that the State does not have the necessary means to police the available environmental legislation.

• Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the new Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism, acknowledged on Monday that the environmental legislation in South Africa is too fragmented and numerous, thereby creating confusion in the minds of the public as they do not know what their rights are, and how to exercise those rights. To address this, he indicated that he was of the opinion that our environmental legislation will have to undergo a face-lift to address these problems.


TOWARDS THE FORMULATION OF A WASTE DISCHARGE CHARGE SYSTEM FOR SOUTH AFRICA

Pieter Viljoen1 and Dr Judex Oberholzer2 1Department of Water Affairs & Forestry, P/Bag X313, Pretoria 001. Email:[email protected]

2Urban Econ, Box 13554, Hatfield 0028. Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT

The development of the WDCS is driven by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry as part of the Department’s implementation of the National Water Act (36 of 1998). The Act provides for the use of economic instruments (incentives or disincentives) to encourage water conservation and reduce pollution, based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle. The WDCS is a sub-component of the water pricing strategy, introducing economic instruments to encourage impactors to internalise the social, economic and ecological costs associated with discharging or disposing of waste through water; and reduce the amount of wastewater that they need to dispose of into the environment.

1 INTRODUCTION The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) is developing a Waste Discharge Charge System (WDCS) as part of its suite of systems to manage water resources efficiently and effectively. The system will address the pricing of water that contains waste discharged into water resources. The WDCS will form a vital component of the Department's Pricing Strategy for Raw Water Use Charges. While much of the Pricing Strategy focuses on water use in terms of volumes abstracted or discharged, the WDCS component specifically addresses the impact that is caused by the discharge, and the waste that it contains. The overarching intention is to reduce the damaging effects of waste on water resources. The WDCS has four main aims. These are to:

• promote sustainable development and the efficient use of water resources

• promote the internalisation of environmental costs by impactors

• recover some of the costs of managing water quality, and

• create financial incentives for dischargers to reduce waste and use water resources in a more optimal way.

The discharge or disposal of waste into water resources may result in a cost to other water users downstream, since they lose some of the potential to use the resource for their own purposes, or incur costs by having to treat the water before they can use it. This is a key issue in a water-stressed country like South Africa, where competition for available water is growing rapidly and where return flows form a major component of water resources available for use.


Governments have used various tools to ensure that the users of natural resources pay the costs that arise from those uses. Among these tools are user fees established in terms of the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP), the principle upon which the WDCS is based. Several other principles, including affordability, equity, acceptability and financial viability (to name a few) also guide the development of the WDCS. Development of the WDCS began in 1999, and follows four phases, each of which is linked to outputs, as indicated below:

• Phase 1: Start of the process: Framework Document (DWAF, 2000)

• Phase 2: Development of a draft WDCS strategy: Draft Strategy Document

• Phase 3: Development of the final strategy: Final Strategy Document

• Phase 4: Implementation of the final strategy: Guideline Documents. The project is currently at the end of Phase 2, and the tasks identified for this phase are indicated in Figure 1. Figure 1: Phase 2 Project Outline

To date the project has progressed to the Strategy formulation (see Figure 2). The remainder of this paper provides a brief overview of the major activities undertaken as part of Phase 2.

Problem conceptualisation

Inception report

Assessment of pollution regimes

Charge scenariosInvestigation of

institutional systems

Financial impactmodeling

Evaluation ofoptions

Regionalconsultation

Strategyformulation

Inve

stig

ate

inte

rna

tio

na

l b

est p

ractice

s

Economic impactassessment

Formulation of interim charge system options

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

12

11

7

3

Problem conceptualisation

Inception report

Assessment of pollution regimes

Charge scenariosInvestigation of

institutional systems

Financial impactmodeling

Evaluation ofoptions

Regionalconsultation

Strategyformulation

Inve

stig

ate

inte

rna

tio

na

l b

est p

ractice

s

Economic impactassessment

Formulation of interim charge system options

1

2

4

5

6

8

9

10

12

11

7

3


2 DETERMINING THE STAUS QUO OF WATER POLLUTION IN SOUTH AFRICA

In order to formulate a strategy for the WDCS it was first necessary to determine the status quo of water pollution in South Africa. The main purposes of this task were to group pollutants, quantify major pollutant inputs, determine appropriate water quality targets, model the impact of selected key pollutants on in-stream water quality downstream of the discharges and estimate the upstream pollution load reductions required to meet the downstream water quality targets. Key pollutants have been identified and grouped. Total dissolved solids (TDS), total nitrogen and phosphate were selected as examples for the purpose of developing and testing the modelling of in-stream concentrations at the catchment outlets. Information gaps arising from the Phase 1 survey of discharge and other water data maintained by the DWAF Regional Offices (DPR, 2000) were identified and steps taken to obtain supplementary data. Default values were used to fill in any data gaps for TDS, total nitrogen and total phosphorus effluent data. An estimated total of 893 x 106 m3 of effluent data was derived from the original survey and its subsequent supplementation for 36 key developed catchments, covering a total catchment area of 210 657 km2. In-stream water quality objectives have been set for each catchment for TDS, total nitrogen and phosphorus. End-of-pipe waste discharge standards have also been derived for other key pollutants (Van Veelen, 2001). A spreadsheet model was designed and developed to simulate the concentrations of TDS, total nitrogen and phosphorus at the catchment outlet, given the input from effluent discharge, catchment runoff, water importation and release from upstream catchments for a twelve-month period (Herold & Mostert, 2001). The model takes account of IFR release, river abstraction and losses, in-stream decay and diffuse source input. The model comprises four spreadsheets, each of which in turn contains several worksheets. The model has been tested and calibrated for the three water quality variables indicated above. It has been used to simulate the load reduction required to achieve the desired downstream water quality targets. Three cases were considered, i.e. for TDS, total nitrogen and phosphorus. These include:

• Status quo (assuming no further load reduction)

• Reduction of available point source discharges of water containing waste.

• Reduction of both point and diffuse source discharges of water containing waste. The model results to date indicate that control of TDS effluent could result in an overall load reduction of between 165 000 to 266 000 t, depending on the proportion of the diffuse source load that can practically be reduced. Much of the potential reduction in the total nitrogen load will depend on the impact and effective management of diffuse sources.


It is not likely that much reduction in diffuse phosphate loads can be achieved. Control of point-source loads could remove at least 894 t of phosphorus per annum. As the project has focused thus far on point-source discharges, with the intention to address diffuse discharges at a later stage, the results for potential reduction of these pollutants are not clear. 3 FORMULATING CHARGE SCENARIOS The overall aim of the WDCS is the implementation of economic incentives to promote the more effective and efficient use of water, as proposed by the Department’s Pricing Strategy for Raw Water Use Charges. The overall aim can be interpreted in terms of a number of supporting objectives:

To promote sustainable development and the efficient use of water resources, by introducing economic instruments, including incentives and disincentives, to encourage the reduction in waste and reduce detrimental impacts on water resources.

Revenue objective to recover some of the costs imposed by the discharge of waste into water resources. This cost recovery will help pay for the remediation of downstream impacts, as well as the administration, billing and monitoring associated with the WDCS.

Deterrent objective to discourage the point-source discharges of waste that has severe, inhibitory or toxic impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and other water users.

Social objective to help ensure good quality water for the use of all downstream water users.

The development of different waste discharge charge scenarios takes into consideration the spectrum of waste streams and the alternative options for implementing a charge system. Some charge scenarios have also been modelled to provide an indication of the potential charges related to certain waste stream pollutants (WMB, 2001). Waste treatment costs for a number of waste stream pollutants were also evaluated to determine appropriate waste discharge charges. This evaluation included the impact of eutrophication on the treatment cost of mesotrophic and eutrophic raw water. This information provides some background to certain downstream impacts associated with waste discharges containing residual plant nutrients. The downstream impacts of salinity discharges on the Vaal River system were determined in previous studies. A variety of generic routes through which waste streams may directly or indirectly impact water resources were identified, together with the legal and practical implementation of a waste discharge charge on each route. The following waste streams were accepted as chargeable under the WDCS:

• Direct waste discharge to a water resource can be charged on the basis of direct or indirect measurement of waste load


• Waste discharges to unlined evaporation facilities can be charged on the basis of direct or indirect measurement of waste flow and load. Allowance for a rebate on recycling or return of some waste from the evaporation facility is still under discussion

• Waste discharges to land application facilities can be charged on the basis of direct or indirect measurement of waste flow and load.

Of the waste streams identified, the following were not included under the WDCS:

• Waste discharges associated with both the seepage/infiltration from waste storage/handling sites and polluted stormwater cannot be conveniently incorporated into the WDCS at this stage. Other regulatory tools will have to be utilised to control these waste streams and their impacts on water resources

• Waste flows associated with product streams and atmospheric deposition is not covered by the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998) and are excluded from the WDCS.

The charge scenarios that were developed recognised four tiers of charges, based on three different waste discharge pollutant concentration levels. These tiers are the following: Tier 1 - All waste dischargers would have to contribute to water quality management in a WMA and to the implementation of the WDCS specifically. This would apply even to waste dischargers with pollutant levels below an agreed WMA-specific zero-impact waste discharge pollutant concentration. This charge would typically be based on a flat charge per waste discharger. The cost for Tier 1 would typically be included in the current cost of water abstraction. Tier 2 - In some WMAs it may be necessary to implement certain collective or regional water quality management projects, targeting specific pollutant impacts. Such projects may be necessary due to the collective impact associated with many discharges. Waste dischargers contributing to the specific targeted pollutant may be charged to contribute to such regional or collective water management projects. This charge would be levied, irrespective of compliance with the authorised waste discharge standard. This charge would typically take the form of a flat charge per unit waste load. The charge would be based on recovery of the capital, operating and maintenance cost of regional and collective water quality management projects. Tier 3 - When a discharger exceeds the authorised waste pollutant concentration, it is appropriate to levy a supplemental charge. This supplemental charge must act as an incentive to rather treat the waste than discharge untreated or partially treated waste to a water resource. This charge would typically be a sliding scale charge per unit waste load. The basis of the charge could be the equivalent treatment cost associated with a pollutant. Tier 4 - When a discharger exceeds the inhibitory/toxic pollutant levels, it is appropriate to levy a substantial additional charge. This must serve as a strong disincentive to discharge untreated or partially treated waste, which threaten natural aquatic ecosystems and public health. This charge would typically be a sliding scale charge per unit waste load. The basis of the charge should reflect at least the equivalent pollutant treatment cost as well as a charge that is in proportion to the potential downstream damage.


4 DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE WDCS It is critical to understand the potential impact of the introduction of waste discharge charges on the economy as a whole. To achieve this, an economic model was developed to assess the impact of a WDCS on dischargers, downstream activities and abatement activities. The model is based on the economic theory of externalities, and uses a marginal cost-benefit analysis at the level of individual economic activities, e.g. individual company operations and municipalities (microeconomic level). Data for the model were obtained from both primary and secondary sources. An economic survey was conducted with a sample size of 200 and a response rate of about 17%. Secondary data were obtained from a previous regional survey conducted in Phase 1 of the project, as well as from annual company financial statements. In total, data of varying degrees of completeness were obtained for 225 economic activities, and were entered into the model. Outputs from this analysis were fed into a macroeconomic component to investigate the effects on the national economy. In order to gain as useful a result as possible, structural changes resulting from the introduction of pollution charges, such as economies of scale and changes in supply and demand, were also considered. This economic model has been run using several charge scenarios and appropriate data for each of the pollutants, in order to obtain a credible conclusion regarding the economic effects or impact of a WDCS. The economic impact assessment demonstrates the potential gains or losses to the economy as a whole, in terms of production and employment opportunities. 5 THE INVESTIGATION OF APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS

TO SUPPORT THE WDCS The study on appropriate institutional systems aims to specify:

• Primary organisational responsibilities for implementing the charge system, including setting, billing, collecting, monitoring and auditing waste discharge charges

• Roles of other stakeholders in implementing the WDCS

• Relationships between these organisations and stakeholders, whether these are regulatory, contractual and/or informal

• Fiscal mechanism/s for collecting and distributing the charges

• Technical, administrative and financial capacity required to implement the WDCS. In evaluating institutional scenarios to recommend the most appropriate option/s, the investigation addresses:

• The legal and mandate requirements for implementing the system, particularly in the context of the National Water Act


• The alignment of the institutional system with existing/proposed institutional arrangements and charging mechanisms

• The functions, or business process, required to implement the system

• The possibilities for outsourcing these functions

• The flexibility of the institutional system in terms of applying a charge system over different areas and for different types of waste discharge

• The simplicity, transparency and potential efficiency of the institutional system

• The probable staffing and overhead costs of the institutional system in terms of the additional functions associated with the WDCS

• The likelihood of the required capacity being available to the responsible institutions

• The institutional possibilities for ensuring compliance with the payment of charges and preventing corruption

• The integration of monitoring and auditing as an integral part of the institutional system.

6 FORMULATION OF INTERIM CHARGE SYSTEM OPTIONS

The purpose of this task was to generate all possible charge system options given the environmental, economic and institutional parameters that had emerged from the preceding tasks. These options were re-evaluated as part of Task 10.

7 FINANCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The financial implications of the various options were determined by using a financial model, which was based on the institutional characteristics of the charge system. The purpose of the model was to determine the potential revenue and expenditure regimes of the WDCS. The objectives of financial modelling were to:

• Assess the financial viability of various interim discharge charge system options

• Determine the applicability of revenue disbursement options

• Recommend appropriate revenue disbursement options. In order to achieve this, the following steps were followed:

• Investigation of the extent of revenue

• Determination of WDCS operational costs

• Determination of the advantages and disadvantages of disbursement options

• Recommendation of appropriate disbursement options

• Determination of the overall financial impact of the WDCS. 8 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

The initial intention was to perform this task by means of multi-criteria analysis, in which criteria would be identified, given weights and applied to each of the options generated in


Task 8. It was not possible to evaluate the options according to a uniform set of criteria, however, such an approach would therefore have been too rigid for the wide variety of options and situations that existed. Instead, the process of consultation, which involved regional workshops with stakeholders and discussions between the project management team and the DWAF policy team, were used to evaluate the options and issues in the light of the NWA, the existing policy framework and the types of disincentives that needed to be created. 9 STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PROJECT From the outset, the Department recognised the importance of ongoing inputs to the project from different sectors. Accordingly, the Project Task Team (PTT) and Project Steering Committee (PSC) were comprised of representatives of the following sectors:

• Business (Business South Africa)

• Government (DWAF, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Department of Trade and Industry, National Treasury, Department of Minerals and Energy, Department of Agriculture)

• Industry (Chemical and Allied Industries Association, Sasol, Eskom, Industrial Environmental Forum)

• Labour (Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers Union)

• Mining (Chamber of Mines)

• Organised Agriculture (Agri-SA)

• Water Research (Institute for Water Qualitiy Studies, Water Research Commission ) In addition, an external stakeholder participation process began at the same time as the project. A general invitation, in the form of an introductory newsletter, was extended countrywide in 1999 for interested parties to register. To date about 600 stakeholders have registered. Stakeholders were invited to comment on the first edition of the Framework Document. A total of 149 comments were received and reflected where possible in Edition 2, which was also issued to stakeholders. During Phase 2, stakeholders have been kept abreast of progress through additional newsletters, and invited to comment on these. Nine regional stakeholder workshops were held during August 2002 until September 2002 to discuss the draft strategy for a WDCS. A sectoral workshop was held to obtain inputs from each of the main economic sectors that would be affected by the WDCS. 10 PHASE 3 OF THE WDCS PROJECT Phase 3 of the WDCS project deals with the formulation of a final strategy for the system. The final strategy will provide guidelines for the implementation of the WDCS in specific regions, taking into consideration specific pollution regimes, hydrological conditions, types of discharge sources and destinations, economic activities and downstream users. The strategy will be made applicable to each Water Management Area by adjusting the variables according to the conditions in the catchment. This will serve as input to the Catchment Management Strategy required for each CMA.


The Final Strategy will be published in the Government Gazette, and stakeholders will also have an opportunity to comment. 11 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SYSTEM The introduction of the system should be gradual, to allow dischargers some time to adjust to the charge. The system should, moreover, be introduced on a trial basis, to allow the managers of the system to determine problems and find solutions before problems become unmanageable. The WDCS may initially be piloted in a limited number of priority catchments (which require high protection or are already severely degraded). The system should be limited to point-source discharges, but should target a variety of discharge destinations, such as discharges to surface water and evaporation ponds, as well as the irrigation of waste on land. This approach will serve to test the system in a variety of situations and on a limited scale with respect to manageable discharges. The pilot phase should be accompanied by a clear monitoring plan in order to determine the results of the system and obtain feedback on successes and failures. The results of the pilot phase will inform the rest of the implementation strategy, namely, whether the scope of the system should be expanded in the same limited number of catchments before implementation in other catchments, or whether it should be implemented on a broad basis before expanding the scope. Such decisions will depend on the areas in which problems are experienced; for example, if the system works well for all types of pollutants but problems are experienced along different reaches of a watercourse, the scope can be expanded while problems of a geographical nature are being addressed. The strategy will be made applicable to each Water Management Area by adjusting the variables according to the conditions in the catchment. This will serve as input to the Catchment Management Strategy required for each CMA. 12 CONCLUSION The development of a WDCS is a highly complex undertaking, requiring multidisciplinary studies with intensive collaboration and integration between different sectors, disciplines and study outputs. The system relies on detailed inputs from the environmental, engineering, economic and institutional spheres. Very little literature exists on the practical implementation of pollution charge systems, and groundbreaking work has therefore been required. Integrating the wide-ranging complex issues surrounding such systems, in the environmental, engineering, economic and institutional spheres has been challenging. It is truly a multi-disciplinary study requiring a great deal of collaboration between the disciplines. Thus far the project has been successful at integrating the various aspects, but much work remains. The project will continue to develop under the guidance of the Director Waste Discharge and Disposal (DWAF), any comments or information requirements can be addressed to the Department.


12 REFERENCES Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (2000). Development of a waste discharge charge

system: Framework Document Edition. 2. Pretoria: DWAF. Development Planning Research (2000). Waste discharge charge system: Survey of DWAF

Regional Offices to identify problem catchments and pollutants. Report to Water Research Commission by Development Planning Research CC.

Herold, C E and Mostert, E S (2001). Development of a waste discharge charge system:

Phase 2 – development of draft strategies. Report for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Directorate Water Quality Management by Stewart Scott Water Quality.

Urban-Econ (2000): Mine Water Desalination: Downstream cost comparisons of different

desalination options, Unpublished. Van Veelen, M. (2001). Waste Discharge Charge System: Waste limit values for discharge

charges modelling. Report for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry by BKS, Draft Report. Vol. 1 Assessment Guide. No. TT 101/98.

Wates, Meiring & Barnard. 2001. Waste discharge charge scenarios and costs. Report for the

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Directorate Water Quality Management.


CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO CONSERVATION: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

Dr Wynand Vlok Department of Biodiversity, University of the North. P/Bag X 1106, Sovenga, 0727.


Introduction: Again a new concept, are we changing for the sake of change?

• What is catchment management?

• Is it important to understand the concept?

• Am I part of it?

• What is my role? One can be negative about these new changes in the “water environment”, especially if you don’t see your role in the whole issue. Yes, the changes will affect us all, some more than others. But we hope that it will be for the better, especially when looking at water as a scarce and limited resource. I think all riparian owners should ensure that they become educated in the process. Make sure you try to look at the advantages as well. It is easy to focus only on the negative aspects to you – but to others, that is a positive outcome. The new water environment: The National Water Act (NWA) (Act No. 36 of 1998) has changed the arena for all water users and managers in South Africa. It is also regarded as one of the most progressive Water Acts in the world. A lot of effort has gone into the process of getting this legislation on the table and many experts in the “water environment” have made contributions. Yes, we will feel that it is having an impact on our daily lives. Those who really care for the environment will adapt more easily – again, look how you can make a difference! The main changes that one can mention in the NWA is that all water is now regulated, even groundwater. Water is not considered to be private commodity anymore. The fact that you own the land doesn’t imply that you own the water. You have a right to it, but there are rules and regulation attached to it. Water licensing is compulsory for water use. The ideals outlined in the Policy are translated into legislation in the following statement from Chapter 1, Section 3 (1) of the NWA:

As public trustee of the nations water resources, the National

Government, acting through the Minister, must ensure that water is protected, used, developed, conserved,

managed and controlled in a sustainable and equitable manner for the benefit of all persons and in

accordance with its national mandate.


Even though the concept of the Reserve is fundamental to RDM, there are some popular misconceptions concerning its definition that still prevail. Keep in mind that the Reserve is NOT the quantity of water stored in various dams and rivers around the country. It is NOT what’s left for the bugs and fish when the bit the people need has been accounted for. According to the NWA, the Reserve is defined as:

This means that any impact on water resources, current and potential, direct and indirect, needs to be subject to control in order to achieve sustainability. It also means that the strategies designed to ensure this are developed and administered at national level, with implementation requiring input and involvement from representatives at local and provincial level. It is important to note that the concept under discussion here is the use of water resources, not the ownership. Even under the Water Act (Act No 54 of 1956), individuals were not granted ownership of the riparian water, although their use of it was virtually unrestricted. Similarly, the NWA does not nationalise water resources but empowers government, as the trustees or custodians of the resource, to develop, implement and administer integrated national water resource management strategies. So what! The water will be managed by Catchment Management Agencies (CMA’s) and each CMA will be responsible for a specific river, the catchment and all the associated water in the catchment. This simply means that all the water in the catchment will be divided among all users, bearing in mind that the basic human need must be determined, a portion must remain in the rivers to sustain the environment and the associated biota and also the international allocation must remain, before allocations to other users can be made. The CMA must have representation from the following groups:

Government and Public Sector

National, Provincial, Local Councils, Regional Traditional Authorities

Para-statal and Utility Sector

Water Boards, Water User Agencies, Conservation Bodies, Universities, Statutory Research

Organisations (CSIR, WRC), Eskom, Telkom

Private Sector

Large individual companies, Chamber of Business, Agri-business, Farmers Aggregations, Forestry

organizations, Mines

Civil Society

Trade Unions, NGO’s, Interest Groups, Communities, Rate Payers Associations

The quantity and quality of water required to satisfy the basic human needs, and to protect aquatic

ecosystems, in order to secure ecologically sustainable development and use of the relevant water resource.


The agency will put forward its proposal to the Minister, explaining the management plan, a short description of the Water Management Area, how the CMA will function and how the growth will be addressed. A further feature of the proposal is the financial and social viability and the implementation plan for the CMA. What are the benefits? What will be the impacts on the environment?

• The whole idea of this legislation was firstly to share the scarce resource in an equitable manner and secondly to protect the environment.

• The country has obligations to its people, but also to people of neighbouring countries who rely on the resource.

• It is all about the long-term protection of the resource and to ensure sustainable utilisation – ensuring water for generations to follow.

• One aspect of importance is the “reserve determination”. This process will help to allocate resources. The term used is RDM (Resource Directed Measures) and will have a process where all water resources will be evaluated and allocations done after determining all needs from the particular resource. It will include aspects of “Inter Basin Transfers”. A similar process will be done on groundwater. The problem is that there is not a definite link between the two processes and the interaction between groundwater and surface water is not specifically taken into account.

Who will be affected?

• Everybody! As I stated earlier, it will impact on us all.

• The main aim is still to share the scarce resource in an equitable way.

• Allocations to primary use in minute! Don’t think that the proposed 25 litres per person per day is going to use all the available water.

Do we need to get involved?

• Yes, yes, yes! You don’t have a choice. If you don’t get involved, no one will fight for your cause or needs.

• All riparian landowners must ensure that they get their fair share, register activities and find out how they can get their share of the available resource.

What are the implications for the riparian landowner?

• You will be limited in use of the resource.

• Be proactive. Become more water efficient.

• Recycle where you can, implement water saving activities.

• If you don’t, you will lose out! I think all riparian owners (and farmers in general) must be more “water wise”. It is expensive to move from flood irrigation to drip irrigation. But plan well, any new development must help to use the water more effectively. There is nothing that I hate more than to see a centre pivot, going at full pace during the heat of the day. At least half of the water never reaches the ground! Add a strong wind to this and we might have a 20-30%


effective irrigation. Measure the water pumped and place water gauges on the ground, you will be amazed to see how little water is really reaching your crops. We live in an arid region. Contact experts to help you in planning. I know that the people at the University of Free State are doing wonderful work in this regard. Many publications are available and they are more than willing to assist. Yes, in many cases a fee will be added, but in the long run, you will be the winner. Useful links/contacts: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. On their website you can get all the acts, information on water issues and CMA’s. www.dwaf.gov.za The “River Health Programme”. A site giving information on rivers, their protection and how to do it. www.csir.co.za/rhp/ Rand Water/Vaal River data. A great site with lots of information on the work in the Rand Water area. www.reservoir.co.za Water Research Commission. Here you can find a lot of information on all research related to water. www.wrc.org.za


ESTABLISMENT OF THE ELANDS RIVER CONSERVATION AREA (ERYCA)

Gordon O’Brien Zoology Dept, RAU. Box 6093 Greenhills 1767. Email: [email protected]

Introduction This presentation deals with all aspects related to the proposition that a segment of the Elands River in Mpumalanga be declared a Yellowfish Conservation Area. The segment originates at the Waterval Boven Falls, and ends at a second series of waterfalls on a farm known as “Devilliers” about 60km downstream of the Waterval Boven Falls, two kilometres upstream from the confluence between the Elands and the Crocodile Rivers. The need to start a conservation area in the Elands River was initiated during an M.Sc study on the Elands River titled ‘An ecotoxicological investigation into the ecological integrity of a segment of the Elands River, Mpumalanga, South Africa’. The study was conducted over a two-year period in the Elands valley, and comprised various ecological assessment frameworks to assess, amongst others, the overall aquatic ecosystem status of this river. Some important aspects that were identified during the study were:

• The general ecological integrity of the Elands River is high.

• The general water quality, except for a few localised areas is pristine.

• Habitat availability is more than adequate, and

• as a consequence the Elands River boasts an extremely high diversity and abundance of biota.

Concerns that were identified during the study were that the yellowfish population seemed to be unrealistically low in terms of abundances, and that there did not seem to be a healthy ratio of breeding adults to juveniles. Many local landowners seemed to be pessimistic about the state of the yellowfish population in the river, and spoke of days long gone when there were “as many yellowfish in the Elands River as there are pebbles today”. This brought about some brainstorming, which has led to the formation of a few theories that may explain the current yellowfish population structure. Additionally there is a critically endangered suckermouth, Chiloglanis bifurcus, that was until recently, only believed to occur in the Elands River. This population is still currently under threat and is in need of some sort of conservation initiative. Finally the river is infested with high abundances of exotic fish species including Trout, Bass, Sharptooth Catfish (not endemic to the system) and Silver Robbers. During a conference where the results, findings and conclusions of the M.Sc study were presented, a discussion held between the author, Pierre de Villiers and Dean Impson (Nature Conservation), discussed the possibility of initiating a Yellowfish Conservation Area in the Elands River.


During 2003 a brief, tentative proposal was structured and forwarded to possible stakeholders. The initial response was very poor. The lack of response and consequently support was deemed to be related to a possible lack of sufficient structure related to the proposal of the ERYCA, inadequate arguments supporting the establishment of the ERYCA, insufficient research related to the arguments and the minimal stakeholder support that was associated with the initial proposal. The proposal included a description of the current conservation initiatives that have been implemented in the area, and the need for that ‘next step’. The Elands River Yellowfish Conservation Area (ERYCA). The establishment of the ERYCA is being spearheaded by the local landowners, the Elands River Conservancy and by Nature Conservation, all of whom will become the primary custodians of the conservation area. The Department of Water Affairs, research institutions and recreational associations will be acting as stakeholders of the ERYCA. The custodians of the ERYCA, with support from the stakeholders, will be responsible for the management of the ERYCA. The support required by the stakeholders includes financial support to facilitate the management of the ERYCA, research initiatives similar to the initiative implemented by the Rand Afrikaans University (The Elands River Study Team), which may include specialist advice and interaction such as breeding advice and or support. Finally tourism support and support for the information centre which is going to be established in the area. Benefits to the Elands Valley Benefits of the ERYCA to the Elands Valley can be separated into social, ecological and economical benefits to the area. The proposed benefits that the establishment of the ERYCA may have to the social sector of the area is a possible increase the social interactions of the inhabitants, and an improvement of the overall value and status of their environment. This would finally result in the inhabitants reaping economical and ecological rewards from the establishment of the ERYCA. Ecological benefits that may result from the establishment of the ERYCA include a facilitation of the conservation of the area as a whole, an increase in the awareness, understanding and social input into the conservation of the area. Additionally, the establishment of the ERYCA may facilitate the protection and conservation of rare, endangered, and sensitive communities. Finally the establishment of the ERYCA may have economic benefits to the area, primarily in the form of the generation of sustainable incomes for land owners utilising the ERYCA for recreational and tourism activities. This may be accomplished by an increase in the recreation, ecotourism and as a result an increase in the secondary trade.


Initial concerns Initial concerns that have arisen are the lack of support for the ERYCA and the costs associated with the implementation of a sustainable conservation system. Also the poaching activities that have been observed in the area and the impact of these activities on the yellowfish population. Security concerns have additionally been raised which may hamper the appeal of this area to potential tourism. On a lesser scale the increased access into the aquatic environment that the ERYCA may promote may have a negative impact on the integrity of the ecosystem. Concerns have arisen in regard to the possible alteration in legislative requirements of agricultural and industrial activities that occur in the area. What we have to start with Research endeavours have been undertaken or are currently being undertaken to assess topics related to the establishment and management of the conservation area. The research relates to the, population size, state, potential breeding grounds, system integrity, feeding preferences, habitat requirements and a possible uniqueness of the colony of yellowfish in the Elands River. Additionally some conservation endeavours have been implemented to assess the state of the critically endangered colony of Inkomati suckermouth. Projects that are to be implemented or project subjects that are additionally required include: a tag and release project aimed at looking into the movement and migration of the yellowfish as well as their flow and water quality requirements. Appendix A PROJECT PROPOSALS TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE ELANDS RIVER STUDY TEAM (ERST)

FOR THE PERIOD OF 2004. Background

Motivation

The ERST intends to carry out projects that may facilitate the establishment and management of the Eland River Yellowfish Conservation Area (ERYCA).

Members of the team

The team members of the study team are all honors students at the Rand Afrikaans University. They are currently specialising in Aquatic Health and these projects will form part of the requirements that they need to obtain their honors degrees. The team includes:

Andrew Husted Cameron von Bratt Irene Stryftombolas Justin Cochrane

Supervision of the projects will be supplied by: Gordon O’Brien (Zoology Department, RAU) Dr. Victor Wepener (Zoology Department, RAU)


Background to the ERST Proposals have been submitted to establish a Yellowfish conservation area in the Elands River. In-order to facilitate the establishment of this proposed ‘Elands River Yellowfish Conservation Area’ (ERYCA), as much information regarding the integrity stats and biotic community structures of the Elands River is required. Additional information regarding aspects (biology, habitat requirements, morphology and genetics for example) of the Yellowfish community in the area is required. The ERST team and the projects that they are proposing to undertake have been established to fulfil this information requirement.

Current stakeholders and motto of the ERST

The Elands River Conservancy along with the RAU and Nature Conservation are spearheading the establishment of the ERYCA. Additional industrial and social stakeholders including Sappi and members of the Yellowfish Working Group have been included in this endeavour. Current motto of the ERYCA states: The ERYCA is being established to improve the awareness and facilitate the conservation of the Yellowfish and its related ecosystem in the Elands River. Proposed projects for the ERST 2004

1. A preliminary morphological, genetic and behavioral assessment of the smallscale yellowfish (Laboebarbus polyepis) colony in the Elands River, Mpumalanga.

2. Preliminary assessment of the current integrity status of the Inkomati suckermouth (Chiloglanis bifurcus) population in the Elands River, Mpumalanga.

3. A preliminary assessment of the L.polylepis assemblages in the Elands River, with specific reference to habitat selection and requirements.

4. Active biomonitoring of the springs discharging water into the Elands River, in the vicinity of Ngodwana, Mpumalanga.

Appendix B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF A NEW ICHTHYOFAUNAL TAGGING TECHNIGUE, AND A

PRILIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE POPULATION SIZE OF THE SMALLSCALED YELLOWFISH IN

A GEOGRAPHICALLY ISOLATED SEGMENT OF THE ELANDS RIVER, MPUMALANGA. Motivation: The proposed tagging technique is a new, safe, cost effective and potentially reliable tagging technique. The proposed segment selected for the study is ideal as it contains two geographical barriers that contain a population of yellowfish between the barriers. Additionally the segment has been identified to contain an ecologically important colony of smallscale yellowfish. This research will benefit and facilitate the conservation and management of this species.


Manpower: Honors student, Supervisor G.O’Brien from the Rand Afrikaans University.

Time plan: Recognisance and a literature survey to be undertaken before the initial tagging survey, i.e. prior to March 2004. The tagging survey will be undertaken at three sites over a three-day period in March 2004. The tag recovery survey will be undertaken over a three-day period in May of 2004. The findings will be assessed and a write-up of the data will commence after the March 2004 survey and be completed in June 2004. A presentation of the findings will follow the write-up. Materials and Methods: Site selection will be based on sites selected during an M.Sc project carried out in the Elands River by Gordon O’Brien. Fish sampling techniques will be studied and selected relating to the best techniques available. The tagging technique will be based on a proposed technique developed at the RAU. Derived tag and release techniques will be assessed and implemented. A journal (Water SA for example) format will be followed to write-up the findings of the project in-order for the findings to be published. Prospective shortcomings: Information gathered will be based on two surveys carried out during the high flow (Summer and Autumn) period of the Elands River alone.


THE EFFECT OF ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES ON RIPARIAN ZONE MANAGEMENT

Hannes de Lange & Tony Poulter Working for Water, Box 4341 White River 1240. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT FROM PRESENTATION:

WfW Background:

The project was initiated in October 1995 by Minister Kader Asmal with a grant of R25 million from the RDP fund. Current budget around R400M.

Mission: TThe Working for Water programme will control invading alien species, to optimise the potential use of natural resources, through a process of economic empowerment and transformation. In doing this the programme will leave a legacy of social equity and legislative, institutional and technical capacity. The problem Introduced species become invasive because they are adapted to similar environmental conditions. They do not have the same levels of predation and competition as indigenous plants. Alien invasive plants produce large numbers of seeds, seeds often remain dormant, fruits are multi seeded and easily dispersed by common vectors, they establish and grow faster than indigenous species. WWhhaatt aarree wwee lloossiinngg?? Water security and supply Loss of biodiversity Up to 25% of South Africa’s plant species This loss of biodiversity affects tourism Loss of life, damage to land and property through high intensity fires Loss of topsoil through erosion Loss of productive land for agriculture Globally, invasive species are causing damage equivalent to 4% of the global GDP Legislation : (Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, 1983, Act 43 of 1983) CCaatteeggoorryy 11 ddeeccllaarreedd wweeeeddss Harmfulness outweighs any useful properties Has to be controlled Planting, trade, transport, spreading not allowed Health risk, financial losses, water usage Degrade natural ecosystems CCaatteeggoorryy 22 ppllaanntt iinnvvaaddeerrss Potential of becoming invasive, but certain beneficial (commercial) properties Allowed in demarcated areas for e.g.. Wood lots, shelter belts, building material , animal fodder, soil stabilization, medicine


Water use license required where area exceeds 1 hectare Not within 30m of 1:50 year flood line CCaatteeggoorryy 33 ppllaanntt iinnvvaaddeerrss Potential invaders but popular ornamentals/ shade trees Already in existence in March 2001 Not within 30m of 1:50 year flood line Planting, trade, transport, spreading not allowed Clearing invading alien plants. UUssiinngg ddiiffffeerreenntt ttrreeaattmmeenntt mmeetthhooddss,, ddeeppeennddiinngg oonn tthhee ssppeecciiee,, ssiizzee ooff ppllaanntt,, llaanndd--uussee,, cclliimmaattiicc ccoonnddiittiioonnss.. EExxaammpplleess ::CCuutt--ssttuummpp,, ffoolliiaarr sspprraayy wwiitthh hheerrbbiicciiddeess,, bbiioo--ccoonnttrrooll,, ffiirree Major terrestrial weed species Lantana camara Cestrum laevigatum Solanum mauritianum Tithonia diversifolia Caesalpinia decapetala Senna didymobotrya Psidium guajava Eucalyptus spp. Sesbania punicea Pinus spp. Tecoma stans Opuntia spp Rubus coneifolius Populus x canensis Chromolaena odorata Campuloclinium macrocephalum Acacia ataxacantha Acacia mearnsii, A. dealbata, A.longifolia

Aquatic weeds Eicchornia crassipes (water hyacinth) Myriophyllum aquaticum (parrot’s feather) Azolla filiculoides (red water fern) Pistia stratiotes (water lettuce) Salvinia molesta (water fern) Egeria densa (dense water weed) Arundo donax (giant reed) Effects of invasive alien plants on angling Reduced stream flow Sedimentation/ siltation influences spawning and feeding Oxygen starvation Changes in water temperature Physical barriers/obstruction Alters aquatic food chain by depleting phytoplankton through sunlight interception Alters indigenous plant nutrition and water chemistry Impacts on natural habitat of fish species Interferes with feeding of predator species Water clarity/turbidity The programme recognises the benefits of partnerships (with NGO’s, the private sector, forestry, conservancies, etc) Contact details: Working for Water Mpumalanga: (013) 751 3539. National Office : (021) 405 2200


FISH KILLS IN THE OLIFANTS RIVER: ANY SOLUTION ?

Dr Thomas Gyedu-Ababio Kruger National Park, P/Bag X1021 Phalaborwa 1390. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract The aquatic biodiversity in the Olifants River in the Kruger National Park has been found to be very high. The number of fish species in the KNP stretch of the Olifants River has however been found to be decreasing as a result of many factors including different forms of pollution, siltation of habitats and decrease in the volume/flow of the river. Various appeals have come from KNP to urge stakeholders to get their house in order. Some positive results have been realised but more needs to be done by all stakeholders to bring the Olifants River ‘back to life’. It is suggested that a reserve determination of the Olifants be completed to ensure that the environment receives its quota of the resource. It is also suggested that the management of LNW comes up with a management plan for the barrage that is supported by all the stakeholders. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry is urged to ensure that legislation is applied on all aspects of water use along the whole length of the Olifants River. Key words Biodiversity, pollution, reserve, stakeholders, management plan Introduction The Olifants River is one of the longest rivers in the northern part of South Africa. It stretches from Bethal through to the Kruger National Park passing through towns like Witbank, Middelburg, Phalaborwa and their associated mining and industrial regions. The Olifants River valley in the Northern Province is very rich in wild life. The contrast in climate, scenery and landscape are both striking and dramatic, and so are the many land use and water use activities in the Olifants Catchment. The Olifants River drains an area of approximately 55 000 km2. This area is of great economic importance to South Africa. The way in which a river functions depends on the nature of the terrain through which it flows, the relief, climate, and human activity in the catchment. For this reason, there is wide environmental diversity in aquatic systems, and in particular, the Olifants River system. Beneficial action in one place will not necessarily work elsewhere. In the same vein, pollution discharged into a river in the Vaal Catchment will not have the same impact as in the Olifants River. The Olifants River is used for different purposes, including agriculture, mining, industrial, dams for purification purposes to serve human needs and finally for biodiversity conservation. Above all these varied uses, is the need to allow some amount of water to drain into our neighbouring country, Mozambique. The Problem The Olifants River is greatly over-utilised. Pollution from various sources compounds the problem thereby degrading the riverine habitats and reducing the supply and quality of the river water. The Kruger National Park has a mission to …protect biodiversity in all its facets and fluxes…, but the quantity and quality of the Olifants River is continuously deteriorating to the detriment of the biodiversity. Siltation and sedimentation in the river generated upstream and the building of the Phalaborwa Barrage have added another serious impact on the biodiversity in the Kruger National Park stretch of the Olifants River.


According to the old KNP water policy document, the “abuse” of perennial rivers in the KNP (including the Olifants) in the form pollution and abstractions started as far back as 1920 with the advent of industrial and agricultural development in the lowveld and adjoining areas. The silting of the rivers had also increased from the mid-1940. Impacts? The heavy silting and extraction has led to the progressive decrease in the quantity of water. This has contributed to the cessation of flow in the river during some seasons of the year. Presently, the Olifants River virtually dries up in some stretches, has high silt levels and high levels of different forms of pollution. These occurrences have led to the disappearance of some biological species from our rivers. The constant and recurring fish kills is of a major concern to KNP. The inventory of fish kills in the Olifants River in the Kruger National Park section is as follows. Jan 1983: Very high rainfall in the Olifants River catchment causes water with a silt content of 78 700 ppm to flow into Kruger. Thousands of fish of at least the following 7 species died: Scientific name English/common name

Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique tilapia Labeo spp Tilapia rendalli swierstrae Southern redbreasted tilapia Labeobarbus marequensis Largescale yellow fish Eutropius depressirostis Catfish (botterbaber) Anguilla spp Eels Hydrocynus vittatus Tiger fish

Dec 1987: Lots of dead fish in Olifants River due to high silt loads. Dec 1989: Silt loads of 11 000 ppm causes fish kills in the Olifants River. Feb 1999: At least 5 species of fish found dead in Olifants River due to high silt loads, including:

Scientific name English/common name Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Silver carp (exotic) Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique tilapia Labeo molybdinus Plumbeous labeo Labeo ruddi Silver labeo Tilapia rendalli swierstrae Southern redbreasted tilapia

March 2000: Gerrie Marais, a local farmer reported a huge amount of dead fish, mainly Tilapia and Catfish, in the Selati River below Fedmis. 15 August 2001: Fish were dying below the Loskop Dam. “White spot” was identified.


July 2003: Mostly Labeo’s died below the Phalaborwa Barrage. January 2004: thousands of fish died of at least 8 species in the Olifants River below the Barrage including:

Scientific name English/common name Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Silver carp (exotic) Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique tilapia Labeo molybdinus Plumbeous labeo Labeo rosae Red nose labeo Chiloglanis paratus Sawfin suckermouth Barbus marequensis Largescale yellowfish Synodnotis zambezensis Brown squeaker Schilbe intermedius Silver catfish

Where to, from here? All is not lost as some stakeholders have heeded the call to conserve biodiversity. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), the mines and industries, have implemented or are in the process of implementing actions to reduce the impact on the ecosystem. Properly researched, transparent and tested management plans to be implemented by all stakeholders that have impacts on the Olifants Rivers. The Olifants River Forum which includes farmers, the industries, mines, community, authorities and the Kruger National Park is also creating awareness on the plight of the Olifants River. A much more concerted action and proper law enforcement might help to solve the problem in the long run. Acknowledgements I am grateful to the following people who have been working to conserve biodiversity in the Kruger National Park for their contribution towards this paper; Dr. Andrew Deacon, Jacque Venter and Dr. Freek Venter.


YELLOWFISH SPORT FISHERIES – OPPORTUNITIES & RESPONSIBILITIES

Kobus Fourie Elgro Lodge, Box 1111, Potchefstroom 2520. Email: [email protected]

Introduction. Yellowfish fly-fishing is not only one of the most exciting sports but the species is becoming one of the favourites to target on the fly in South Africa. It is therefore important to make sure that we manage and conserve this species for future generations. As a riparian owner with a lodge it is very exciting to be involved in the conservation of the smallmouth and largemouth that we find in our river. But this also comes with considerable responsibility and that is why we have to look into the following important matters. As riparian owner I believe that nobody has really tried to educate us about yellowfish. That is why so many farmers don’t understand the importance of conserving the species. For many years thousands of fishermen caught and killed them for no reason whatsoever, just to give away or to show off to friends. It is important that we bring to their attention the fact that it is better to return these fish to ensure their survival and also for somebody else to catch later. I also think that the time has come for the government to implement a rational licence policy. Not only would this generate extra income for conservation, but it could also fund a campaign to make the general public aware of the importance of our yellowfish. The riparian owner must also become the watchdog on the river and help to control the rivers in the country. Nobody must be allowed to take more than they really need. There is also no doubt in my mind that the Orange/Vaal system is one of the top fly-fishing destinations in the world and can compare with the best. That brings me to tourism. South Africa is low-priced and we can offer the fly fisherman the best value. More important than this, our unique country offers a new experience. Flyfishers are always looking for new places to explore and South Africa fills this very important gap in the market. It also provides a welcome income to the riparian owner. In our operation fly-fishing has become one of our more important departments and it is bringing in a welcome additional income. There are also a lot of other spin-offs like conferences, weekenders and this makes fly-fishing as a whole that more exciting as a business opportunity. We, the riparian owners and the Yellowfish Working Group have a responsibility in ensuring that together we guarantee the future of yellowfish in South Africa.


CONSERVANCIES: A TOOL FOR RIVER CONSERVATION INVOLVING THE

LANDOWNER.

Peter Mills 147 Mariana Ave, Clubview 0157. Email: [email protected]

This presentation was originally a slide show and the notes presented here are cryptic rather than consistent with a complete essay. 1. Introduction This presentation is aimed at providing a basic background to conservancies. The term means different things to different people while many conservation agencies view conservancies at different degrees of importance. Broadly, the term is often used to describe the idea of conservation actions taking place on private land. All over the world various models have been developed that are aimed at promoting conservation of biodiversity (wildlife) on private land. In Africa the concept of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) has become a popular model which allows for the transfer of the responsibility of wildlife management from the state to the community. The CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe is a good example of this. In essence, there are various ways of transferring responsibility of conservation to the people that traditionally has rested with the State. The presentation today will concentrate on the following points:

• Ecological background: A brief summary of ecological principles and the problems that face the conservation of biological resources.

• Conservancies: A discussion of the history and trends in the field of conservation on private land.

• The way forward: Suggestions on what needs to be done to promote and ensure that the idea of conservation on private land is carried forward to river conservation scenarios.

2. New Directions in Conservation Conservation practice is nothing new and has been around since we first decided that the environment needs to be manipulated to our own ends. The modern idea was conceptualised with the establishment of the Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming USA in the 1870’s. The move to a more holistic approach happened when people realised that the areas outside natural parks were being polluted and that effect on the environment was a negative one. The publishing of “The Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson in 1960 is generally regarded as a milestone in man’s realisation that conservation practice is just as important outside of protected areas. Since then we have realised that protected areas in isolation would be ineffectual in the general drive to conserve our biodiversity. Most land is in private ownership and if any conservation strategy is to succeed then land outside protected areas must be crucial to the plan. This has lead to the development of various models which include land easements, CBNRM and conservancies, to name a few.


3. Reasons for Biodiversity Loss The rapid decline of biodiversity in modern times can be attributed to five main factors:

• Pollution: Pollutants contaminate natural systems making it impossible for animals and plants to live in them.

• Alien species: Any species plant or animals outside of their natural range can become invasive to the detriment of indigenous species.

• Fragmentation of habitats: The home ranges of species become so limited that it cannot live through its natural life cycle. Breeding is inhibited and populations can crash.

• Over-harvesting: People harvest for sport, subsistence and commercial reasons. With increasing human population pressures are being placed on natural systems to such an extent that species numbers decline to the point that cannot naturally sustain their numbers.

• Habitat destruction: Again, the natural cycle of the animal is affected so that it can no longer survive.

4. Pillars or Objectives of Conservation

Conservation action aims to achieve three main objectives:

• Maintain genetic diversity: Diversity is encouraged at three levels; genetic, population and community levels. This concept applies to indigenous species and not aliens or domesticated species.

• Maintain cycles: These are the different cycles in the natural world that sustain life and earth and include the nitrogen and water cycles.

• Sustainable utilisation: Systems and species may be utilised but only if their long-term survival can be assured. Utilisation and total protection must be seen as two extremes of the management continuum.

5. Current Status of Conservancies The definition proposed in this paper is that for Gauteng and is by no means definitive. Different models exist internationally and what we call a conservancy here might be very different to a conservancy elsewhere. In Namibia and Mpumalanga conservancies, for example, are legislated and enjoy more legal protection than in most other models in the SADC region. In Gauteng, NW and other provinces there is no legal protection even though they might be mentioned in their Provincial Conservation Acts. Along the Vaal there is a conservancy established to conserve the yellowfish. There is no constitution and membership is totally voluntary. The landowner only needs to commit himself to developing measures that protect the yellowfish. It is a very loose model and is totally opposite to the more structured system currently in practice in Namibia. But, it works. Definition A conservancy is a registered (with the local Conservation Authority) voluntary association between land users/landowners who co-operatively wish to manage their natural resources in a sustainable environmentally friendly manner without necessarily changing the land-use of their properties. The idea is to get local people to put in place practical conservation measures that will contribute to better environmental management outside of formally protected areas. Conservancies are, therefore, not about big game and game fences. It can be any structure that is put in place and aimed at protecting natural systems and wildlife.


6. Objectives of Conservancies Conservancies, as a conservation strategy, aim to achieve the following objectives:

• Improve environmental best practice on private land.

• Promote conservancies in areas where natural systems and species are at risk.

• Promote conservation practice in urban, rural and industrial settings.

• Encourage communities to become involved with conservation action at local level.

• Improve decision support to government and private sectors by improving the natural resource database of the Province.

• Promote the conservation of our cultural and historical heritage. 7. The advantages of Private Initiatives The advantages of involving people in conservation initiatives are many. Here are some of the more important reasons:

• Protect or act as buffer zones to protected areas.

• They can provide corridors that link bigger parks with each other.

• Protect private lands within public protected areas. A good South African example is the Timbavati private game reserve which now forms part of the greater Kruger National Park.

8. Role of Government Government recognition of conservancies is important. One of the greatest incentives for joining a conservancy is to know that the programme carries the support of the authorities. Some of the more important roles of government are:

• Recognise private areas through some kind of legislation.

• Financial incentives: Work is currently underway to develop a suite of financial incentives that will encourage private owners to look after their environment.

• Provide technical assistance: Government employ professional personnel trained in conservation biology. Ecological advice and the development of management plans should be done with support of these agencies.

9. Negatives to Private Conservation Programmes There are negatives to this model and these must be taken into consideration:

• Size limitations: Conservancies tend to be too small to give adequate protection to systems or species.

• Ad-hoc by nature: They might not be in areas that need protection.

• They are dependent on judicial enforcement which is not always there: Government support is very important and that is not always the case in South Africa.

• Lack of sub-surface rights: DME continue to hold mineral rights under conservation areas which means they are always at risk of being mined.

• Need for long-term stewardship: Conservancies change as landownership changes. 10. The Landowners perceptions of conservancies There are certain perceptions held by the private owner that can also inhibit the development of conservancies.


• There are different perceptions of what a conservancy is. This discourages some people because they think they are forfeiting their ownership rights.

• Landowners are sceptical of Government and reluctant to go into any partnership with them.

• Most people have a poor perception of conservation and its principles. These often clash with the more popular economic incentives associated with agricultural practices and processes of domestication.

• Existing conservancy strategies have not enforced a management plan programme so it has been difficult to measure success. No data has also made it difficult to defend the concept within departmental management since the effectiveness of the programme is difficult to prove.

• Legal status of conservation on private land is fragmented and confusing.

• There are few incentives to encourage the establishment of conservancies. Those that do exist are difficult to implement and require funds that are not readily accessible from Government.

11. Typical Conservancy Programme Typical elements of a conservancy programme:

• Designation: Registration process

• Qualification: Must be ecologically valuable.

• Land Use Restrictions: Limitations

• Ongoing requirements: Each Conservancy should be managed according to an ecological management plan. Monitoring and evaluation/rating should be included as they are an important component to any plan.

• Incentives are important to a successful conservancy programme

• A support service is necessary to ensure continuity and motivation.

• Duration: Lasting 12. Management Plan Framework

Area/Species/Issue Habitat: Open grassland (typical Bakenveld)

Assessment: Area is in poor condition. 50% is cultivated (fallow) and the rest is infested with Black Wattle

Management Objective: Rehabilitate to grassland habitat (Bankenveld) character.

Management Prescription: Clear alien vegetation and seed disturbed areas with cynodon. Open ploughed lands: re-seed with cynodon Manual removal of alien plants. Paint cambium with herbicide. Monitor every 6 months.

Priority: 1 Time scale: New sections every 4 months. Total clearing strategy to be

completed in two years. Include a budget for each habitat type. This will often determine the priority because a management action can be expensive and thus a limiting factor.


13. Conservancy Activities Here are some activities that a conservancy will get involved in: Recycling Water conservation in the home Waste management

River/wetland rehabilitation Control access to rivers Law enforcement and control

Create wildlife habitat Restricted use of pesticides and herbicides

Rehabilitate disturbed areas Conservation education campaigns Management of natural resources 14. What next? Conservancies are an important tool for biodiversity conservation but government needs to put structure to them. Provinces should support and be encouraged to refine their existing conservancy programmes. This will be achieved by developing a suite of incentives that encourage the establishment of conservancies. Conservancies along rivers can play a very important role in the conservation of riverine ecology and can enhance yellowfish conservation. The Yellowfish Working Group should promote the concept and work with the Provinces to develop their conservancy programmes.


PROPOSED PROJECT: RADIO TELEMETRY ON Labeobarbus marequensis IN THE CROCODILE RIVER, KRUGER NATIONAL PARK

Francois Roux (MPB) & B. Lesley (SANP) Mpumalanga Parks Board, P/Bag X1088, Lydenburg 1120. Email: [email protected]

BACKGROUND In the past river ecology and river health were determined using, water quality and quantity, macro invertebrates (SASS), Fish (FAII), and the riparian vegetation index (RVI). Due to new technology available in South Africa it is now possible to look at the ecology of the specie by using VI tags and radio telemetry. RADIO TELEMETRY ON FISH The concept of radio telemetry on fish is fairly basic in that a transmitter, emitting radio pulses in short wave frequencies (142-144 M Hz) are received by a receiver with a directional antenna. These transmitters are encapsulated in a resin compound and can be attached to the fish either internally or externally. For different applications different functions can be used, for example location, temperature, depth or physiological. Also there is a weight variation on these transmitters and that is closely related to duration and longevity, but the rule is not to exceed 2% of the body mass of the fish. IMPLEMENTATIONS OF TELEMETRY USE ON FISH When using telemetry an in-depth study is conducted on the ecology of a specific species. This will entail the following:

• Behavioural: home range, territories

• Migration: spawning (when, where, why & link with environmental variables), feeding, dispersal

• Habitat utilization & requirements: (depth, temperature & location)

• Night/day movements

• Determine survival strategies (predators feeding)

• Determine reaction to stress of capture

• Physiology Caution must be expressed when starting a project on the telemetry of fish. It is very important that a dedicated person is available to track the fish on a daily basis and a fish specialist is used to interpret the data. All this must be linked to a GIS specialist. CROCIDILE RIVER PROJECT The integrity of the Crocodile River is severely threatened due to over abstraction, agricultural practices and obstructions caused by weirs and dams. About 10 years ago the lower Komati River was in the same predicament and now Labeobarbus marequensis is extinct


in these lower reaches. At present there is still a healthy population in the Crocodile River and it is important to start such a telemetry project on this specie to document their behaviour and ecology in this river. STUDY AREA The study area is in the Crocodile River (Mpumalanga Province) between the towns of Malelane and Komatipoort. This section falls within the Kruger National Park with a high conservation status. The transmitters will be deployed near Lodwichs Lust as this will allow for upstream and downstream movement. OBJECTIVES The following objectives have been set:

• Document ecology of a Lowveld specie.

• Determine location of spawning beds (when, where, what etc)

• Determine fish way functionality & implication of weir obstructions

• Habitat utilization (e.g. pools: why & when)

• Document migrational movement METHODOLOGY 25 Transmitters will be deployed, of which 12 will be deployed at the end of July and an additional 13 will be staggered from January 2005. This will ensure documentation of the full life cycle of this species. The transmitters will be externally attached as this procedure has been tested and proved successful. Tracking and data collecting will be done daily to determine daily movement. Also twelve surveys of 24 hours will be done to determine nocturnal movements. All this data will be expressed in Arcview and spatial analysis with the animal movement extension. River flow data will be collected on an hourly basis from the Riverside gauging weir and climatic data will be received from the Riverside weather station. CONCLUSION Should enough funds be found to finance this project it will be a first of its kind on a Lowveld yellowfish specie and the data obtained would be valuable in terms of management and the conservation of this specie.


THE YELLOWFISH FISHERY ON THE UPPER KOMATI: A LANDOWNER’S PERSPECTIVE

John R Clarke

30 Bluewater Drive, Bluewater Bay 6210. Cell 082 339 8302

Abstract Studies have shown that the economic value of recreational fisheries does not lie in the landed value of the catch but in the related industries they support. Fly-fishing for yellowfish has shown remarkable growth in recent years and is possibly the fastest growing sector of the sport in South Africa. Many riparian landowners are, however, not in a position to capitalize on this growth potential. Reasons for this are examined and a possible solution is proposed. In addition, many rural inhabitants consider our indigenous fisheries to be a cheap source of protein. The co-operation of these key role-players is essential to prevent a decline in the fish populations and to ensure that the economic, environmental and social potential of the fishery is realized. This paper examines problems currently experienced by landowners on the Upper Komati. It provides solutions to some specific problems and addresses issues arising from the transfer of riparian land from commercial farmers to community property associations or trusts under the land restitution process. Introduction The Upper Komati hosts populations of both smallscale and largescale yellowfish and is developing a reputation as one of the premier “dry-fly” fisheries in the country. The stretch of river above the Vygeboom Dam generally fishes best from April – September, when the river runs low and clear. Exceptional fishing however can be had during the summer months if the river is not too discoloured. The reaches below the dam fish best during the summer rainfall season because the dam acts as a sediment trap. Riparian owners are mainly white commercial farmers most of whom show little or no interest in the river other than for irrigation purposes. A few generate ecotourism income from the river, but this represents a relatively minor component of the total farm income. Much of the Badplaas Valley is currently under land claim with approximately 15 farms due to change hands with immediate effect. The fishery, to a large degree, rests in the hands of the new owners (trusts or communal property associations). Discussion Riparian owners, and farmers, in particular are often criticized for their reluctance to open their fishing waters to the general public. Some consider the landowner to be ignorant or lazy in that he is not prepared to make the effort to develop and utilize the resource. Others consider the farmer to be selfish and exclusive. In truth, recreational fishing often poses more problems for the landowner than benefits. The following problems resulting from human activities are a constant irritation to the farmer and occasionally result in considerable financial loss:-

- Runaway fires (Braais, cigarette butts etc.) - Gates left open – Resulting in livestock mixing, untimed and unplanned matings in

breeding stock, unplanned grazing of spared veld and livestock having access to public roads.


- Littering – And the resulting problems (livestock ingesting plastic, aesthetically distasteful, broken glass causing wounds etc.)

- Defecation – on grazing and the possible introduction of internal parasites to livestock (tape worm causing measles in beef cattle) as well as urination in still water (Bilharzia).

- Behaviour Problems – (drunkenness, illegal discharging of firearms, destruction of indigenous vegetation and interruption of family life e.g. waking of family members at unacceptable hours). Some activities have negative consequences for the fishery: -

- The Trampling of Spawning beds during the breeding season

- Access Control – can become more difficult. This can often lead to an increase in gill netting, illegal fishing and the poaching of game.

- Not all problems result directly from human activities. Some are inherent to the area

or the fishery. The Upper Komati suffers from the following “inherent” problems: -

- The fishery is seasonal because heavy rainfall in the catchment areas makes the river above the Vygeboom Dam discoloured and unfishable for much of the summer season. This can largely be attributed to forestry companies harvesting large tracts of timber simultaneously and thus exposing bare earth to the heavy summer rains (+/- 840mm) with their harvest/stack/burn practices. This is compounded by farmers preparing lands too close to the water course with subsequence erosion and runoff into the system.

- The Vygeboom pipeline (ESCOM) – Removing excessive volumes of water at certain times resulting in severe fish mortalities.

- Exotic Vegetation – e.g. Lantana, bugweed, wattle, Sesbania, gums and bramble impeding access and increasing erosion by out-competing indigenous ground cover species.

- Financial Viability – Fly-fishing for smallscale and largescale yellowfish on the Upper Komati requires a fair degree of competence. Catch per unit effort is relatively low and consequently the appeal to the general fly-fishing public is limited. This problem is compounded by a fairly common perception that because no stocking of fish occurs and because many farmers don’t utilize the fishery as a source of revenue, fishing on such waters should be free or at minimal cost. A compulsory catch and release philosophy further clouds the issue because many fisherman then think that because they are not directly impacting on the resource (by taking fish) it is unreasonable to expect them to pay for their fishing. An incongruity of the situation is that many fly-fisherman are quite prepared to pay handsomely for the services of a guide but are reluctant to pay similar rates for the privilege to fish. This situation contrasts sharply with trout venues where exclusivity has led to competitive (exploitative?) pricing.

Not all landowners benefit from the fishery. Those that provide other or additional services (accommodation, catering, conference facilities, horse riding, trout fishing, hunting, wingshooting, clay-pigeon shooting, 4x4 tracks, white river rafting etc.) receive the lions share of the income. One must, however, question how many similar venues the resource can sustain before saturation occurs. It is also obvious that the venues which prosper most from ecotourism will be those that are the most concerned with the “health” of the resource. Activities on neighbouring properties (gill-netting, pollution, careless use of agrochemicals etc.) can, however, have disastrous consequences for the successful ecotourism venue.


When one considers the above it is not surprising that so few landowners utilize their waters for recreational fishing. It is obvious that for many the relatively minor financial rewards to be attained from developing the resource are far outweighed by the risks incurred. It is also true, however, that a few landowners have developed small but thriving ecotourism enterprises in addition to their farming operations. The challenge lies in enabling other riparian owners to enjoy this “cherry on the top”, whilst avoiding many of the problems and risks associated with the process. I believe this is possible but only through an integrated management approach.

For many years game ranchers in South Africa developed their farms on an individual ownership basis. This was not without merit and, indeed, there is more game in South Africa today than there was in 1900. As game ranching progressed many owners realized that their farms were either too small or lacked variation in vegetation type and terrain. For many the solution lay in combining resources with neighbouring farmers. This not only made the bigger farming units more viable from an ecological point of view but also provided economies of scale e.g. less fencing, vehicle and equipment pools etc. It is essential that a similar approach be adopted to ensure the conservation and development of the Upper Komati system. An integrated management structure offers the following benefits:

- The seasonality of the fishery would be removed if riparian owners above and below the Vygeboom Dam were to pool their resource.

- River management would be simplified and enhanced by having an integrated, community based management plan: -

- A river ranger system could be introduced to police gill netting, illegal fishing, poaching of game, arson, littering etc.

- A more systematic approach to the elimination of exotic invader plants by the Working for Water Program could be adopted. Policing of these employees to eliminate their current illegal practices of gill netting and illegal fishing could be done by the river rangers.

- Support from local SAP and DEAT personnel in prosecuting gill netters and poachers rather than the current practice of regarding such activities as minor offences not worthy of prosecution.

- Better marketing of the area by pooling financial resources and expertise.

- Job creation:- River rangers, education officers, guides, tourism related employment, (cleaners, caterers, gardeners etc).

- Outside contracts:- River rafting, Hang/Para-gliding (Vaalkop) 4x4 routes, hunting, wingshooting etc.

It is clear that the Upper Komati and its environs have much to offer. Landowners stand to gain substantially by becoming involved in a community-based project. Similar initiatives have had considerable success in other areas e.g. the Barkley Wild Trout Association and the Campfire projects in Zimbabwe. For such a project to succeed requires vision, planning, education and the active support and involvement of the community. Efficient communication and tangible benefits to all are essential ingredients.


Conclusion A community-based, integrated management approach to the utilization of the Upper Komati is essential if optimal economic, environmental and social benefits are to be realized. Recent government initiatives with respect to the marine environment suggest an increasing commitment to conservation of fishery resources. Whether this commitment extends to inland waters remains to be seen. It is recommended that a study group be formed under the auspices of the Badplaas Dhlomo Dhlomo Development Forum to draft a community-based management proposal. Active support from government departments such as the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, DEAT and SAP, together with the unselfish commitment from current role-players (farmers, ESCOM, SAPPI, claimant communities and fishermen) is essential for the project to succeed. Given present circumstances it is obvious that aspects such as housing, provision of electricity and water for claimant communities, development of agricultural projects on trust farms and other more “pressing “ issues will enjoy priority. I truly hope and trust that more than mere lip service will be paid to environmental issues while current abusive practices e.g. erosion, drying up of feeder streams by commercial forestry, gill-netting, illegal fishing and poaching together with proliferation of exotic vegetation will discontinue. It will take a dramatic community effort to avoid the negative consequences of communal ownership and an influx of people into the area. The choice is ours - the “high road” or the “low road”!


RIVER HEALTH: MANAGING AND MONITORING ON SAPPI PLANTATIONS

Douglas Macfarlane (BSc Agric, MSc) Sappi Forests (Pty) Ltd., Box 13124, Cascades 3202. Email: [email protected]

Introduction South Africa is a semi-arid country with limited water resources. With an increasing demand for water and the threat of climate change, water resource management has received increasing attention. This has led to a number of legislative changes with a focus on wise use and equitable access to water resources. In this context, it is not surprising that plantations - located largely in upper catchment areas, have been criticized for excessive water use and negatively affecting water quality. The natural question that arises is “What is the forestry industry (and Sappi) doing to address these concerns?” Paying for water As from 1 April 2002 a water resource management charge has been introduced to cover some of the costs for water management. Everyone with significant water use within a catchment is affected. This includes the forestry industry which is the only land use currently recognized as a stream flow reduction activity (SFRA), regulated by means of a licensing system in terms of chapter 4 and Section 36 of the national Water Act, 1998 (Act no 36 of 1998). Costs range from 0.31c/m3 to 1c/m3 which, when converted into rands, runs into millions for the industry. Reducing water use While plantations are known to use more water than natural vegetation, relative use is determined in part by the proximity of trees to streams and wetlands. A need was therefore identified to ensure that appropriate buffer zones were left unplanted along streams and wetlands. In this context, the Forestry Industry has assisted in the development of “A Practical Field Guide for the Identification and Delineation of Wetland/Riparian Habitats”. This sound and scientific model is being used to exclude sensitive wetland and riparian zones and so reduce the impact of forestry on stream flow. Sappi has already removed thousands of hectares from production and are planning to complete the process of withdrawing from these areas by 2010. Monitoring river systems Monitoring of streams and rivers is essential not only to quantify our impacts, but to identify problems and to seek ways to reduce our environmental impact. Sappi Forests initiated water quality monitoring in earnest in 1999 and have grown this programme to include assessments of streams across our landholdings in Natal & Mpumulanga. The South African Scoring System (SASS5) is the primary tool used to monitor water quality. This well developed monitoring technique relies on the variable sensitivity of different invertebrates to changes in stream conditions. Un-impacted streams in natural condition contain sensitive species while taxa more tolerant to disturbance remain even in highly disturbed systems. Changes in the composition and structure of aquatic invertebrate communities therefore reflect change in the overall river condition. As most invertebrates are relatively short-lived and remain in one area during their aquatic life phase, they are particularly good indicators of localized conditions in a river systems.


While monitoring water quality was found to be of some use, it provides very little information on the impacts affecting a stream, providing plantation managers with little information with which to base management decisions. Having recognized this shortfall, we have worked hard over the past two years to develop a technique that is more useful at a management level. The current technique used is known as the “Habitat Integrity Index” (Macfarlane, 2004) and is based in part on a technique developed by Kleynhans (1996). This assessment is used to determine the health of riparian ecosystems as opposed to a point assessment of water quality. To conduct this assessment, a river is sub-divided into river reaches or management units. An assessment is then undertaken on the condition of three pre-defined zones. These are (a) the instream habitat, (b) riparian zone and (c) surrounding area or buffer zone as indicated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Diagram showing separation of riparian zones used in the assessment of habitat integrity. Assessments are undertaken for each zone by evaluating the effect that modifications have on habitat integrity. This differs for each zone, with modifications such as stream flow reduction and sedimentation being assessed for the instream habitat while weed infestation and bank destabilization are among the modifications assessed along the riparian zone. An assessment of impact is then used to calculate a score for each zone. In this way, a measure of habitat health is calculated that not only reflects habitat health but clearly identifies the impacts affecting the river reach. An example of the information generated is indicated in figure 2. Once brought to management attention, practical solutions can then be found to improve riverine management.

Riparian zone

Riparian zone

In-stre

am

Surrounding

area

Surrounding

area


Modifications to Riparian Zone Habitat

0

5

10

15

Solid Waste Debris

Accumulation

Stream flow

Reduction

Water Quality

Impacts

Channel

M odification

Inundation

(Dams)

Bank Erosion Weed

Infestation

Destruction of

vegetation

Type of impact

Avera

ge Im

pact

Figure 2. Example of impact scores obtained from an HII assessment. While this method is still under development, it shows good potential and is already being used extensively across Sappi landholdings. The information gathered through these assessments forms part of “State of the environment” reports that are being generated for all Sappi plantations. Such information is not only useful for identifying current state, but for monitoring the long-term improvements in environmental performance – something that Sappi Forests has pledged its commitment to. Conclusion The forestry industry recognizes that it has an impact on water resources and is making a concerted effort to improve riverine management. Sappi Forests is at the forefront of these initiatives that includes active reclamation of previously planted riparian habitats; development and implementation of monitoring systems; State of the Environment Reporting and a commitment to improved environmental performance.


ISCOR NEWCASTLE STEEL: WATER STRATEGY

Martin Bezuidehout Iscor, PP 11, Box 2, Newcastle 2940. Email: Martin [email protected].

Iscor obtained a water permit in September 1999 according to the old Water Act no. 54 of 1956. One of the permit conditions is to be a zero effluent discharge (ZED) plant by October 2004. To reach zero effluent Newcastle Works developed a water strategy that was communicated to and approved by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). The water strategy consists of 5 phases. Each phase is dependent on the success of the previous phase and can be summarised as follows: Phase 1 (2001 to 2002) Replace Demin Plant R 12 000 000 Completed Construct a drinking water plant R 3 600 000 Completed Upgrade the process water plant R 1 900 000 Completed Recycle and recoverable wastewater R 1 800 000 Completed Phase 2 (2002 to 2003) Construct Biological Treatment Plant R36 000 000 Completed Recycle Coke Ovens flush water R 1 900 000 Completed Phase 3 (2003 to 2004) Recycle mills flush water R 1 900 000 In progress Construct Reverse Osmosis Plant R35 000 000 To Start Phase 4 (2004 to 2005) Upgrade Effluent Concentration Plant R24 700 000 Future Project Phase 5 (2005 – 2006) Capture and treat storm water R18 500 000 Future Project The total capital expenditure required to implement the water strategy is R137.3 million, of which R57.2 million expenditure has already been completed. After the completion of phase 3 Iscor Newcastle Works will be a ZED plant. The Water Strategy focus on the following topics:

- Zero effluent discharge (ZED)

- Maximize recycling volume and thus minimise the extraction volume

- Phasing out of irrigation practices


Figure 1: Layout of Iscor Newcastle Steel Figure 2 illustrates what the effect of the various phases will have on the water extracted from the Ngagane River. Figure 2: Water extracted from river Figure 3 illustrate what the effect of the phases will be on the effluent release to the Ngagane River.

Environmental Control - Water extracted from river

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

Description:

m³/

h

Measuring the volume of w ater extracted from the river (Q03)

Phase 1

Phase 3 Phase 2

Phase 4 Phase 0

Buffalo River

Ngagane River

Mills

Steel Plant

Coke

Ovens

Blast

Furnace

Main Water

Plant

Sinter

Plant


Figure 3 illustrates what the effect of the phases will be on the effluent release to the Ngagane River. Figure 3: Effluent release to the river

Phase 1

Phase 3

Phase 2 Phase 4

Environmental Control - Effluent released into rivers

0

80

160

240

320

400

480

560

Description:

m³/

h

Environmental Control - Eff luent released into rivers

Phase 1

Phase 3

Phase 2 Phase 4


AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION POLICY IN SOUTH AFRICA

Pierre de Villiers Dept. Tourism, Environmental & Economic Affairs, Free State. P/Bag 20801, Bloemfontein 9300. Email:

[email protected]

Policy I am busy developing this policy. I have submitted an overall policy framework and some specific policies (Working documents) to Working Group One for comment. Once I have the approval of the process and the framework I will then circulate the documents to all role players for comment. In other words I need a basic document upon which all South Africans can comment. Process Working Group One is a committee made up of representatives from DEAT National, each province and National Parks. This committee is responsible for developing and assessing proposed national policies. It provides feedback and advice to the National Ministers who perform the role of Policy approval. The proposed ABCP (Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation Policy) will be developed and approved by Working Group One. It will then be approved in principle by the Ministers and then circulated for comment in a formal public participation process. It is here that all South Africans will assist in developing their ABCP. Posters I asked everyone present to assess the two posters. Once approved by the Yellowfish Working Group these can be printed in large numbers and distributed to all angling shops and lodges. I suggested that people get tasked to produce posters during future conferences. These can be mass-produced and will reach a wider audience. Marketing I discussed why the marketing of conservation programmes is critical and gave examples of what we are doing on the Vaal. Caps Signs River Health Booklet


FIELD RESEARCH UPDATE: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF SMALLMOUTH BASS

(Micropetus dolomieu) ON THE INDIGENOUS FISH COMMUNITY OF THE RONDEGAT RIVER, WESTERN CAPE.

Darragh Woodford1, Jenny Day1 and Dean Impson2 1University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, 7701. Email: [email protected]

2River Conservation Unit, Scientific Services, Cape Nature Conservation

Introduction: The Rondegat River, a tributary of the Clanwilliam Olifants River, Western Cape Province, rises in the Cedarberg Mountains and flows into Clanwilliam Dam. It is a relatively short river, spanning approximately 20km from its source to the dam. The upper reaches are for the most part undisturbed and near-pristine. The middle and lower sections of the river flow through farmland, and the riparian zone is impacted by various agricultural factors such as cattle, sheep, citrus orchards, and grazing lands that in some places lie adjacent to the river, with little or no riparian buffer present. The riparian zone is also invaded by alien invasive trees, including black wattle (Acaia mearnsii), blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon) and, in small patches, bramble (Rubus sp.). The river is currently home to five species of indigenous fish. These include the Clanwilliam yellowfish (Labeobarbus capensis), the largest resident species; other indigenous species present are the Clanwilliam redfin (Barbus calidus), the fiery redfin (Psuedobarbus phlegethon), the Clanwilliam rock catfish (Austroglanis gilli) and the Cape galaxias (Galaxias zebratus). The lower reaches of the river have been invaded by smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), a predatory fish considered to be a serious threat to indigenous fishes in the region, as well as the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). The bass have penetrated upstream as far as a waterfall barrier, approximately 5 km upstream of the reservoir. A joint research project by University of Cape Town, Cape Nature Conservation and the Table Mountain Fund is currently underway to assess the impacts of bass on the indigenous fishes in the river. The aims of the project have been to:

1. Survey the river in order to find which fish were found in the bass invaded reaches and which were found upstream during the various seasons of 2003/2004.

2. Measure habitat and food availability at pool and riffle sites down length of river to see what effect they may have on fish distributions.

3. Use comparative habitat use and diet analysis to understand the mechanisms of bass impacts in the river.

4. Investigate possible impacts of alien vegetation on fish Findings so far: Preliminary analysis of seasonal surveys has revealed significant differences in the fish communities at invaded compared to non-invaded sites, with the former showing a dramatic loss of indigenous fish abundance and diversity (Figure 1). Bass and bluegill were only recorded at sites below the waterfall, while the Clanwilliam yellowfish is the only indigenous


species found at both invaded and non-invaded sites. While no other indigenous species were recorded at the invaded study sites, a fyke trap set overnight directly below the waterfall in November caught a large Clanwilliam rock catfish, showing that indigenous species do still periodically enter the lower river from upstream. Yellowfish were not recorded at the bottom site, but this site is separated from the other sites by an extraction weir, which during the late summer caused the river there to run dry.

Figure 2: Comparison of fish species and abundances recorded at invaded and non-invaded sites during seasonal surveys of the Rondegat in 2003. The difference in sizes of yellowfish found at sites above and below the waterfall was quite striking (Figure 3), Here, one can see that while the whole range of sizes, from 5cm juveniles to 50cm adults were present above the waterfall, only fish larger than 10cm were present below, and the vast majority of fish were over 20cm in length. The markedly greater proportion of large yellowfish recorded at the lower sites appears to be a result of the larger, deeper pools found there, which offer greater space and cover to these individuals. In summer, large shoals of yellowfish were found in a pair of pools directly below the waterfall. As these are the largest pools found in the entire river, they appear to form a refuge for large yellowfish during the low flows of summer. In contrast, the riffle sites surveyed in the lower river were devoid of yellowfish, with electrofishing catching only juvenile bass and bluegill. A river walk conducted in November along the stretch of river below the waterfall pools revealed a small shoal of yellowfish larvae. These appeared to have hatched recently, and were hiding in the marginal vegetation of a small pool that was also occupied by juvenile bass. This suggests that the yellowfish found below the waterfall do spawn in the lower river, though there is virtually no recruitment, evident through to absence of any small juvenile yellowfish (5-10cm) at invaded survey sites.

Total Above Waterfall

Clanw illiam

Redfin, 1147

Fiery Redfin,

174

Clanw illiam

Rock Catfish,

185

Clanw illiam

Yellow fish,

169

Cape

Galaxias, 6

Total Below Waterfall

Clanw illiam

Yellow fish, 99

Bluegill, 8

Smallmouth

Bass, 94


Length frequency distribution for all yellowfish seen during surveys

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40+

size class (cm)

To

tal L

. cap

en

sis

seen

ABOVE BELOW

Figure 3: Length frequency distributions for all yellowfish recorded at study sites during seasonal surveys in 2003. Implications for yellowfish conservation: The data gathered so far from this project provides fairly compelling evidence of the negative impacts that smallmouth bass have on the Clanwilliam yellowfish. The evidence that yellowfish are spawning in waters invaded by bass, but the larvae that hatch do not survive to reach the juvenile stage of development, indicates smallmouth bass to be a highly destructive predator on the early life history stages of the yellowfish. Perhaps the most important implication of this finding is that in order to conserve the Clanwilliam yellowfish effectively within the Olifants system, concerted efforts need to be made to identify spawning and recruitment areas, and conserve these as best as possible. In the case of the Rondegat River, it may be theoretically possible to perform a complete bass eradication operation in the lower river using rotenone or another piscicide. This is a feasible option because a large proportion of the yellowfish in the lower of river were found to congregate in a cluster of deep pools directly below the waterfall after spawning in summer, and could therefore be removed en mass and placed in temporary storage before initiating the operation.

In general terms, rivers in the Cedarberg where yellowfish and bass co-occur need to be intensively surveyed during the summer months, so that key spawning and recruitment areas can be identified, and the feasibility of bass control in these river reaches be investigated.


THREATENED FISHES OF SWAZILAND

Richard Boycott¹ and Roger Bills² ¹ P.O. Box 5245, Mbabane, Swaziland. Email: [email protected]

² SA Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown. Email: [email protected]

Summary The presentation described in general terms the contents of the recently published Swaziland Red Data Book: fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals (Monadjem, Boycott, Parker and Culverwell 2003) and specifically the conservation status of the freshwater fishes of Swaziland. Eleven species are listed, six as threatened, and the remainder as of less concern. In the compilation of the RDB up-to-date information collected during the Swaziland Fish and Fisheries Survey (2002 to 2003) was incorporated making the publication of the most relevance. Amongst those species identified as lower risk species is the smallscale yellowfish (Labeobarbus polylepis). It has been recommended that this species and the other lower risk species be closely monitored while specific conservation measures have been proposed for the threatened species. Of particular relevance to the yellowfish, River Ranger Projects could result in significant improvements to the habitat. As reported in an earlier paper such a programme is planned for the Ngwempisi River (Boycott, Bills and Deacon 2003) but this could be extended to other areas such as the Nkomati River above and including the Maguga Dam. Data for each of the threatened species on the distribution, number of populations, population numbers, ecological requirements and threats were presented.

Threats Generally all the listed threatened species have restricted distributions in the country, low to medium population numbers and face similar threats. The most common threat is sedimentation of the habitat due to alien tree plantations and poor agricultural practices. Other identified threats include water loss due to alien plantations, water regulation, water extraction, habitat fragmentation (primarily as a result of dam and barrage construction), pollution and predatory alien fish species such as trout. THREATENED SPECIES Critically Endangered CR: B1 & 2c Chiloglanis bifurcus Jubb and le Roux, 1969 Incomati rock catlet Summary Distribution – restricted (one river system – Nkomati) Number of populations – six Population numbers – low Ecological requirements – small to medium rocky mountain streams Threats – water regulation and extraction, sedimentation and water loss associated with alien tree plantations and poor agricultural practices


Critically Endangered CR: B1 & 2c Barbus cf. neefi Greenwood, 1962 Sidespot barb Summary Distribution – restricted (one river! – Ngwengwana) Number of populations – one Population numbers – very low - one specimen! Ecological requirements – a small meandering rocky mountain stream Threats – could be affected by water extraction and sedimentation. The site is heavily grazed and on the outskirts of Gege. Critically Endangered CR: B1, 2c & e Chetia brevis Jubb, 1968 Orange-fringed river bream Summary Distribution – restricted (one river system/sub-system – Nkomati/Mlumati) Number of populations – three sites within a single sub-system (Mlumati) Population numbers – low (in rivers) to medium (in dams) Ecological requirements – large subtropical rivers, also survives in dams Threats – alien fishes, habitat fragmentation, pollution and water abstraction Endangered EN: B1 & 2c Barbus brevipinnis Jubb, 1966 Shortfin barb Summary Distribution – restricted (one river system) Number of populations – five (single sub-system – Mlumati) Population numbers – low Ecological requirements – small to medium rocky mountain streams Threats – water extraction, irregular releases and sedimentation Vulnerable VU: B1 & 2c Barbus crocodilensis Fowler, 1934 Southern rosefin barb Summary Distribution – highveld & middleveld streams (Mlumati and Usuthu/Phongolo river systems) Number of populations – fifteen Population numbers – low to medium Ecological requirements – small to medium rocky mountain streams Threats – could be affected by water extraction and sedimentation


Vulnerable VU: B1 & 2, D2 Amphilius natalensis Boulenger, 1917 Natal mountain catfish Summary Distribution – restricted (one river system - Nkomati) Number of populations – five Population numbers – low Ecological requirements – small to medium headwater streams Threats – sedimentation and water loss associated with alien tree plantations and poor agricultural practices, alien fish predators such as trout Summary of threatened species Of the six threatened species three are Critically Endangered (Chiloglanis bifurcus, Barbus cf. neefi and Chetia brevis); one is Endangered (Barbus brevipinnis) and two are Vulnerable (Barbus crocodilensis and Amphilius natalensis). The remaining five listed species are of less concern and several others are considered lower risk (conservation dependant) species.

LOWER RISK SPECIES Near Threatened Labeobarbus polylepis Boulenger, 1907 Smallscale yellowfish Summary Distribution – Komati and Phongolo/Usuthu systems in Swaziland, absent from the Mbuluzi. Most common in the upper Phongolo/Usuthu system, which includes the Ngwempisi. Size – over 6 kg, slightly larger than the largescale yellowfish (Labeobarbus marequensis) Not threatened Labeobarbus marequensis (A. Smith, 1841) Largescale yellowfish Summary Distribution – widely distributed in Swaziland, from highveld to lowveld rivers Size – up to 5.5 kg, although specimens at higher altitudes are usually below 1.5 kg Near Threatened Varicorhinus nelspruitensis Gilchrist & Thompson, 1911 Incomati chiselmouth


Summary Distribution – Komati and Phongolo/Usuthu systems in Swaziland, absent from the Mbuluzi. Locally common in the Shelangubo (Mlumati) and rare elsewhere (Mkhondo). Size – attains a length of 320 mm Least Concern Opsaridium peringueyi Gilchrist & Thompson, 1913 Southern barred minnow Summary Distribution – widely distributed in Swaziland, from highveld to lowveld rivers. Locally common in the Ngwempisi (Phongolo/Usuthu system) and rare elsewhere. Size – attains a length of 90 mm Least Concern Chiloglanis emarginatus Jubb & le Roux, 1969 Phongolo rock catlet Summary Distribution – widely distributed in Swaziland, from highveld to lowveld rivers in the Komati and Usuthu/Phongolo systems, absent from some sub-systems (Mlumati and Ngwavuma). Locally common in some lowveld rivers (Mlawula & Tambankulu) and uncommon elsewhere. Size – attains a length of 65 mm DATA DEFFICIENT/CONSERVATION DEPENDENT SPECIES Barbus annectens Gilchrist & Thompson, 1917 Broadstriped barb Summary Distribution – restricted to the lowveld rivers in the Nkomati, Mbuluzi and Phongolo/Usuthu systems in Swaziland (Swaziland Fish Survey unpublished data). Uncommon at most sites. Size – attains a length of 75 mm Labeo rosae Steindachner, 1894 Rednose labeo Summary Distribution – restricted to the lowveld in Swaziland and recorded from Mnjoli Dam (Swaziland Fish Survey unpublished data) and Mlawula Nature Reserve. Uncommon. Size – up to 3 kg


Labeo ruddi Boulenger, 1894 Silver labeo Summary Distribution – restricted to the lowveld in Swaziland and recorded from Mlawula Nature Reserve. Uncommon. Size – up to 1 kg Hydrocynus vittatus Castelnau, 1861 Tigerfish Summary Distribution – restricted to the lowveld in Swaziland where it was only found in two dams, van Eck Dam and Nyetane Dam (Swaziland Fish Survey unpublished data). Both sites contain introduced populations from the Usuthu River. The species is fairly common at these sites. Size: probably up to 3 to 5 kg in Swaziland Clarias ngamensis Castelnau, 1861 Blunt-tooth catfish Summary Distribution – restricted to the lowveld in Swaziland where it was only found at one dam, van Eck Dam (Swaziland Fish Survey unpublished data). An uncommon species at this site. Size: probably up to 3 to 4 kg in Swaziland Awaous aeneofuscus (Peters, 1852) Freshwater goby Summary Distribution – restricted to the lowveld and one middleveld site in Swaziland (Swaziland Fish Survey unpublished data) where it was found in a sandy section of a small rocky mountain stream (Kubuta) at an altitude of 600 m. An uncommon species in Swaziland. Size: attains a length of 260 mm Glossogobius callidus (Smith, 1937) River goby Summary Distribution – restricted to the lowveld in Swaziland where it was found at two sites, a river (Mnyame) and a dam (Jozini) (Swaziland Fish Survey unpublished data). While the first site has a rocky substrate the latter has mud. Locally common. Size: attains a length of 120 mm Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton-Buchanan, 1822) Tank goby Summary Distribution – restricted to the lowveld in Swaziland where it was found at several sites, mostly in dams with muddy substrates but also in a rocky river (Nyetane) (Swaziland Fish Survey unpublished data). Locally common. Size: attains a length of 400 mm


Acknowledgements The Swaziland Fish and Fisheries Survey managed jointly by the Swaziland Fisheries Section of the Ministry of Agriculture and the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity is acknowledged for providing unpublished data for the Swaziland Red Data Book. The Taiwanese Government and the Government of Swaziland provided funding for the survey. The Mazda Wildlife Fund provided a four-wheel drive vehicle during the initial month of the survey. Finally, thanks are due to FOSAF for the generous sponsorship that made it possible for the authors to attend the conference.

References BOYCOTT, R., BILLS, R. AND DEAKIN, L. 2003. Yellowfish populations in Swaziland

and a proposed River Ranger Project. Proceedings of the 7th Yellowfish Working Group Conference. Pp.66-68. FOSAF.

MONADJEM, A., BOYCOTT, R.C., PARKER, V. AND CULVERWELL, J. 2003. Threatened Vertebrates of Swaziland. Swaziland Red Data Book: Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals. Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Communications, Swaziland.


YELLOWFISHES OF ZAMBIA AND MOZAMBIQUE

Roger Bills South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, Private Bag 1015, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa.


Abstract Over the last five years SAIAB has been involved with numerous ichthyological expeditions to central African regions. The main purpose of this work is exploratory providing various agencies with accurate baseline information on species present together with recommendations for conservation where appropriate. During this work we have collected several yellowfishes and some of these are presented in this talk. Three regions are reported here - the Rovuma River in Mozambique, the upper Zambezi in western Zambia and the Chambeshi River in northern Zambia. The Niassa Reserve is the largest of Mozambique’s nature reserves and comprises a considerable portion of the Rovuma River catchment on the Mozambique - Tanzanian border. Little is known about the fish fauna and the only collections documented were made by David Livingstone in 1858-59. The area is remote and inaccessible. We collected fishes in August 2003 for Sociedade para a Gestão e Desenvolvimento da Reserva do Niassa (SRN) and reported approximately 40 species of fishes present. Two of these appear to be large cyprinids, which may be of interest to the yellowfish group. One is a “serrated-spine” barb similar to B. mattozi (Limpopo) or B. litamba (Lake Malawi). Its maximum size is unknown although we observed specimens of 25 cm. A second species was collected which looks similar to juvenile yellowfishes. Only small specimens were collected and nothing is known of their maximum size. Both species are new to science and nothing, barring our limited collections, is known about their distribution or biology. The upper Zambezi region is relatively well explored and the fish fauna well known. Recently SAIAB has been involved with the African Wildlife’s (AWF) “Four Corners” programme. The area is also a major destination for various fishing groups. Tigerfish and large predatory riverine cichlids (bream) are the main targets. Yellowfish (Labeobarbus codringtonii) are present in suitable rapid/waterfalls habitats in both the mainstream and tributary systems. Of particular interest for scientists is the variation in the size of the dorsal fin in some populations. Typically the dorsal fin is relatively small (not reaching the anterior anal fin) but in some areas the dorsal fin is extended (reaching to the caudal fin). The taxonomic significance of these variations is presently not understood and a similar situation is also found in populations of yellowfishes from the lower Zambezi - Buzi region in central Mozambique. The Chambeshi River is part of the upper Congo system in Zambia. We sampled the river half way between Mpika and Kasama and not far downstream from this point the river flows into the eastern side of Lake Bagweulu. It is a large floodplain river where we sampled although there are also rocky rapids. In March 2004 we bought a large yellowfish from a local fisherman fishing who was using worms and hooks. At present we are uncertain which species the pictured fish is - five yellowfish species were described from the upper Congo area but several were described from single specimens and are of dubious taxonomic status.


Due to difficulty in collecting some yellowfish species, particularly in the larger central African river systems, they are rare in museum collections. This is hampering taxonomic and biological studies. As South African fishermen are venturing into central African rivers more and more a request is made to help with collections of the species. A basic minimum would be to photograph fish and provide accurate coordinates of collection sites and dates of collection. Better still would be the collection of genetic and formalin specimens and anyone who can help is asked to contact me for advice on collection and preservation methods before going on trips.


IDENTIFICATION OF CONSERVATION UNITS OF TWO YELLOWFISH SPECIES:

Laboebarbus kimberleyensis & L. aeneus

Paulette Bloomer Dept of Genetics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002. Email: [email protected]

The talk outlined the motivation for and progress with the follow-up study on identification of conservation units in the two yellowfish species from the Orange/Vaal system. AngloGold Ashanti Limited is funding this follow-up study.

Motivation for the follow-up study The aims of the pilot study conducted in 2002-2003 were to identify conservation units within the two species and to formulate recommendations for the management of these units. In order to achieve these aims genetic variation in maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA was assessed between 71 L. kimberleyensis and 145 L. aeneus representing sites from the upper and lower Vaal as well as the upper and lower Orange. If two species have been distinct for a considerable length of time one would expect to find distinct genetic differences between them. Furthermore, if this time of separation has been long (hundreds of thousands to millions of years) there would have been enough time for differences within each to develop and one would be able to identify distinct populations that should be managed independently.

The pilot study did not show such a clear distinction between these two species, indicating one of two possible scenarios. Either the two species are very closely related so that insufficient time has elapsed to distinguish them at this level of genetic variation or there are instances of hybridization between them. The data however did indicate the presence of some conservation units, for example, distinct genetic lineages were found in the lower Orange and it was recommended that this area should be managed as a separate conservation unit.

In order to determine whether the two species are hybridizing or recently speciated, the follow-up investigation was proposed in 2003. Roger Bills and Nick Jones (SAIAB) were responsible for field sampling and morphological analysis while Herman van der Bank (RAU) is responsible for allozyme analysis and Paulette Bloomer (UP) for analysis of mitochondrial DNA variation.

Progress and preliminary genetic results Sampling in the upper and lower Orange was conducted in January/February 2004 followed by morphological analysis in February/March. Allozyme and DNA analyses were initiated in mid-March and are ongoing.

Samples available for genetic analyses included both species sampled from near Aliwal North and below Augrabies Falls at Onseepkans and Pella. Preliminary allozyme analysis, using eight loci developed by Van Vuuren et al. (1989), found very few “pure” individuals and could not distinguish the two species at Aliwal North. From the lower Orange, seven smallmouth and nine largemouth individuals showed clear differences (Van der Bank personal communication). Preliminary mitochondrial DNA data were added to the data generated in the pilot study and confirmed earlier results that the two species appear to be extremely closely related with shared maternal lineages. Overall there was more variability in smallmouth compared to largemouth yellowfish. Several distinct lineages were identified in both species. Four unique smallmouth lineages from the lower Orange and two from the


upper Orange were identified while the Sak, Kraai and upper Vaal may also be distinct populations. Two unique largemouth lineages (one from the upper and one from the lower Orange) could also be distinguished. Conclusions Some tentative conclusions were drawn based on previous information and the combined results from the morphological study and preliminary allozyme and mitochondrial DNA data.

Some background information to keep in mind include: The fact that the evolution of the “small-scaled” group of yellowfish species is centered on the Orange River basin (Jubb 1964); suggestions by earlier authors that the five “small-scaled” species diversified from a common ancestor that invaded the Orange River basin from the north during the mid-Pliocene (2-3 million years ago; Jubb1964) while Skelton (1994) proposed a much earlier invasion of the system during the early-Tertiary (40–27 million years ago; Oligocene to Miocene); the tentative dating of 500 000 to 1.5 million years ago for the split between L. capensis and L. polylepis based on DNA data (Tsigenopoulos et al. 2002).

The morphological and preliminary mitochondrial DNA data appear to support the hypothesis of recent speciation of the two species. If this is the case, the question arises how this could have happened as there is no evidence of recent geographical isolation between the two species (Paul Skelton personal communication). In order to investigate this possibility further the team will have to do an in-depth review of all the available literature on the history of the river system, and ecological separation between the two species will also need to be addressed (the latter can be done through the tagging and telemetry research that were proposed at the conference). The preliminary allozyme data however suggest that the possibility of either recent or older hybridization between the two species cannot be ruled out. Based on these preliminary genetic results the utmost importance of sampling a reference population of L. aeneus was again raised, as this is the only way in which all the data could be accurately interpreted. In this respect the genetic team which to acknowledge the efforts of Keith Wallington in organising sampling in Lesotho (above the distribution limit of L. kimberleyensis). Preliminary recommendations for management No movement of smallmouth and largemouth yellowfish should be allowed. Rather than movement of fish, habitat should be rehabilitated to allow natural recolonisation. There is an urgent need to identify breeding areas and general ecological requirements of these fish, especially for largemouth yellowfish. Protected areas should be identified where no disturbance of the fish populations should be allowed (e.g. spawning areas). If movement of fish is absolutely necessary, it should be done over the shortest possible distance and with taking into account the history of the particular system.

References cited Jubb, R.A. 1964. Freshwater fishes of southern Africa. 1. The Orange and South Coastal

Drainage Basins. South African Journal of Science 17-21. Tsigenopoulos, C.S., Rab, P., Naran, D. & Berrebi, P. 2002. Multiple origins of polyploidy in

the phylogeny of Southern African barbs (Cyprinidae) as inferred from mtDNA markers. Heredity 88: 466-473.

Van Vuuren, N.G., Mulder, P.F.S., Ferreira, J.T. & Van der Bank, F.H. (1989) The identification of hybrids of Barbus aeneus X Barbus kimberleyensis and Labeo capensis X Labeo umbratus in Hardap Dam, SWA/Namibia. Madoqua, 16(1): 27-34.


REGIONAL REPORT: WESTERN CAPE

Dean Impson Western Cape Nature Conservation Board, /Bag X5014, Stellenbosch 7500. Email:

[email protected]

Research Darragh Woodford’s MSc study on the impacts of invasive alien fishes and trees on the Rondegat River in the Cederberg is progressing well (see these proceedings) and field work has been completed. Woodford’s study is part of a much bigger study on the impact and management of invasive fishes in the Cape Floral Region (CFR) that is being funded by the Table Mountain Fund. An important component of this project is the identification and evaluation of rivers in the megaparks of the CFR (including the Cederberg) that are regarded as priorities for alien fish eradication. These rivers were identified at a meeting of freshwater fish experts in Grahamstown in October 2003. A report on these rivers is available. The field evaluation to identify the top priority rivers for alien fish eradication work is being done by a team comprising an ichthyologist and engineer that have good knowledge of local rivers and their fishes. This field assessment will be completed in June 2004 and will be followed by a post survey workshop of stakeholders to produce 4-5 rivers that are regarded as the top priorities for alien fish eradication work. Jeremy Shelton, a BSc Hons student at the University of Cape Town’s Freshwater Research Unit, completed his study looking at the impact of smallmouth bass on the Witte River, south-western Cape (Shelton 2003). This study, funded and managed by the Western Cape Nature Conservation Board (WCNCB), showed conclusively that smallmouth bass have a serious negative effect on indigenous fish communities in this river. Shelton compared fish community composition in three pools and riffles above a waterfall barrier where only indigenous fish occur. This was compared to three pools and riffles below this barrier where smallmouth bass are present (see Table 1). What is remarkable about the results is the ecological damage that is caused by a relatively small number of bass here. Table 1: Freshwater fish community composition in comparable reaches of the Witte River, Breede River System, in bass-invaded versus indigenous fish areas (from Shelton 2003). Species recorded Total numbers recorded in

indigenous fish river area (above waterfall)

Total numbers recorded in bass invaded river area (below waterfall)

Smallmouth bass 0 13 Cape kurper 353 2 Burchells redfin 1667 4 Yellowfish promotion and awareness The author wrote an article on the extinction of the Berg-Breede whitefish in the October 2003 issue of the magazine Flyfishing (Impson 2003).


The author and Jaco van Deventer of WCNCB organized a whitefish day on a farm dam outside Porterville in December 2003 for flyfishers of the Cape Piscatorial Society. The day was organized to allow local flyfishers to experience the joys of catching an indigenous Western Cape yellowfish on fly and to translocate adult fish into three nearby dams that were free of bass. The dam that was fished was illegally stocked with largemouth black bass several years ago – an introduction that halted whitefish recruitment in the dam. Jaco van Deventer has successfully established a whitefish fund at the WCNCB and has galvanized the local farming community around Porterville to stock whitefish as a conservation measure into their dams. No culture of the Western Cape yellowfish species has taken place since the last workshop. We plan to catch several adults from the vulnerable Hex River whitefish population in early spring for culture in this coming summer References Impson, D. 2003. A lesson too late for the learning: Berg River whitefish now extinct.

Flyfishing October 2003: 29-30. Shelton, J.M. 2003. The impact of the alien smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu on the

indigenous fishes of a South African river. BSc Zoology Hons. Project, University of Cape Town. 52pp with appendices.


REGIONAL REPORT: FREE STATE (YELLOWFISH CONSERVATION &

MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE ORANGE & VAAL RIVER SYSTEMS)

Pierre de Villiers Dept. Tourism, Environmental & Economic Affairs, Free State. P/Bag 20801, Bloemfontein 9300. Email:

[email protected]

Introduction I will structure the talk as follows:

• Species diversity & distribution

• Legislation

• Community driven conservation

• Orange-Vaal Yellowfish Conservation& Management Association

• Eco-Tourism

• Research

• Way Forward Within the Orange-Vaal system there are two endemic yellowfish species. These are classic angling species as well as sensitive indicator species. 1: Orange-Vaal Largemouth Yellowfish (Labeobarbus kimberleyensis)

• Scarce– red data

• Growth rate & fecundity: Slow growth rate and low egg number to body mass. Only becomes sexually active at 8 years at which time it is over 450 mm long. It will only produce a few thousand eggs at this stage. It can reach 22 kg.

• Large rivers: Mainly the Orange and Vaal Rivers and larger tributaries.

• Top predator: Top of the food chain, mainly preying on fish.

• Sensitive: Sensitive to water quality and oxygen levels.

• Habitat requirements: Deep pools as refugia and relatively deep rapids/riffles where it can hunt its prey. Rapids and riffles as spawning and nursery areas. Flowing water is important.

2: Orange-Vaal Smallmouth Yellowfish (Labeobarbus aeneus)

• Growth rate & fecundity: Also a slow grower. Will take 6 – 7 years to attain sexual maturity with a relatively low egg number to body mass ratio. They can attain 9 kg.

• Generalist: More of a generalist feeder eating most animal prey items but also algae. They have a longer gut length to facilitate this diet.

• Large & Small rivers: Orange and Vaal Rivers but also plentiful in smaller tributaries.

• Sensitive: Also sensitive to poor water quality, particularly low oxygen levels.

• Habitat requirements: Require deep pools as refugia. Feed, spawn and utilise rapids and riffles as nursery areas. Flowing water is important. They seem to be better adapted for survival in still pools in smaller rivers during the dry winter months.


Legislation

At present there are a number of national conservation bills. These provide overall guidelines for conservation of biodiversity. However, at a provincial level specific regulations exist or are being developed.

• Provincial versus national conservation which include: * catch & release * closed seasons * size limit * bag limit

• Enforcement: A problem as most conservation departments do not have staff to enforce regulations.

• Situation analysis: SA requires its people to assist the government in conservation.

• Community driven conservation: A community driven conservtion programme is required.

Community Driven Conservation

• Yellowfish Working Group: * National - This is a national initiative funded and managed by the Federation of Southern African Flyfishers (FOSAF) * Role players – Anglers, business, government, landowners, guides.

• Vision: Conserve yellowfish and their habitats for the generations to come.

• Conservation Initiatives: * Catch & Release – This philosophy is already a success as promoted by most angling magazines. * Conservation Associations - Develop form of conservancy other than formal conservancies whose scope is too small and does not form a continuum. A river must be conserved from its source to where it flows into the sea.

Orange-Vaal River Yellowfish Conservation & Management Association

• Value driven conservation: Create a value for indigenous fish species. In the past these were trash fish.

• Sustainable use and biodiversity conservation: While using these fish to create their value we are doing it on a sustainable basis. We are also conserving their habitat and the fish themselves. We are creating awareness of their value and the need to conserve them.

• Based on: * land owner’s buy-in - > 600 km river. * together with anglers’ support - > 500 members * implementing legislation in the field – before legislation is formally recognised by the government it is already being used in the field. * ecotourism – positive spin off is the ecotourism aspect. The landowner and the guide is being paid for their commitment.


Eco-Tourism

• Lodges: Developed

• Guides: Trained and deployed

• Fly-tying : Community based factory in Clarens

• Multiplier effect : industry is being developed Research

• Tag & Release : Proposed study in pipeline

• Genetics: Study on Orange-Vaal species.

• Biology & ecology: Studies undertaken and more proposed

• Telemetry: Proposed study in pipeline

• Angling techniques: Lectures by specialists

• Fishways: National programme funded by Water Research Commission Way Forward

• Uniform national legislation

• Individual responsibility towards conservation

• Increased understanding of the river and the fish in it

• Foster co-management of biodiversity resources Acknowledgements and thanks to:

• B2 Marketing

• AngloGold

• Federation of SA Flyfishers & YWG

• SAIAB

• Orange-Vaal Yellowfish Conservation & Management Association

• Dept. Tourism Environment & Economic Affairs of the Free State

• Mpumalanga Parks Board


REGIONAL REPORT: NORTHERN CAPE

Charles Ramogale Sekwele Northern Cape Directorate: Conservation Services, P/Bag X5018, Kimberley 8300. Email:

[email protected]

Northern Cape Yellowfish Working Group Committee. Chairperson: Dr Willem Pretorius Vice-Chairperson: Harm Vorster Secretary: Johan Jonk Treasurer: Johan Jonk Add. Member: Ettienne Benade Add. Member: Ramogale Sekwele

Activities

• Establishment of conservation area: Batlhaping community, Schmidtsdrif. Purpose - upliftment of HDI’s - awareness of yellowfish conservation - tourism development - overall conservation

• Annual flyfishing festival. Major sponsor Bell’s and many local sponsors. Last festival 3 – 5 October at Lillydale Lodge, Riet River. Results from the catch cards:

Species Number Smallmouth 273 Largemouth 7 Mudfish 12 Mormerid 1 Other 30

• Article by Ettienne Benade in Flyfishing magazine No. 82

• Actively involved in decision making where yellowfish may be involved. - e.g. recent intervention with DME NC on Acqui 70 (Pty) Ltd’s prospecting application prospecting an area between 1:50 & 1:100 year floodline & proposed yellowfish conservation area. - Aqua. Environmental Assessment Report done later. - Also intervention on accountability of the NDC’s prospecting/mining also at Schmidtsdrif area.


REGIONAL REPORT: GAUTENG

Piet Muller Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment & Land Affairs, Box 8769, Johannesburg 2000. Email:

[email protected]

1. Yellow fish conservation: No specific action ITO yellowfish conservation has been put in place in Gauteng to date. Distribution of the 4 species found in the catchments in the province is logged as part of the River Health Programme biomonitoring. 2. Legislation and Law Enforcement: No changes made yet to the current old Transvaal Ordinance in Gauteng. The new conservation act for Gauteng has still not been finalized. Changes in the New Biodiversity Bill has caused the delay ITO adapting the new draft act in line with the Biodiversity Bill A limited number of fishing licences are being issued in Gauteng. As part of the cost recovery scheme, potential dealers have to purchase fishing licence books at GDACE. This has caused a problem in that previously agents received the permit books free and are now not willing to pay for them. Licences are however available at the GDACE permit office. Gill netting in the Blesbokspruit near Ratanda is of major concern. Up to 7 nets are strung across the river at one time. The limited number of personnel available restricts the more regular use of law enforcement. Fish caught in these nets are sold along the roads as well. Most of the people engaging in this illegal activity are immigrants from Mozambique and Central and West Africa. These people are specialists in the art of fishing with nets and traps. 3. General: Although the distribution of fish species is recorded during RHP biomonitoring in the province, these efforts do not cover the complete catchments. A study determining the distribution of fish species in rivers and dams in Gauteng was initiated in October 2003 but did not materialize to date. (Red Tape). An additional aquatic scientist post has been created for the Aquatic Services Sub directorate and will be advertised on Sunday 16th May 2004. The acquisition of an additional specialist will fill the current void and time will be allocated to specifics like the conservation of yellowfish in the province. Efforts towards the extension of the Yellowfish Conservancy along the Vaal into Gauteng is currently being addressed by the person dealing with Conservancies at GDACE. 4. Summary: Although a shortage of specialist staff has caused a lull in the efforts of GDACE to contribute to the conservation of yellowfish in the province, biomonitoring as part of the River Health Programme has contributed towards the distribution of yellowfish in Gauteng.


REGIONAL REPORT: MPUMALANGA

Francois Roux Mpumalanga Parks Board, P/Bag X1088, Lydenburg 1120. Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Drought Period Due to late rains last year, limited spawning events were observed on the well-known yellowfish spawning beds. However, after the late rains arrived some spawning events were observed and spectacular colonization and dispersal migrations were observed in the lower Crocodile and Komati Rivers. Over-abstraction of water remains one of the serious problems in our rivers and DWAF have been contacted and requests have been submitted for IFR’s (Ecological Reserve Determinations), to be determined and then for the implementation of these reserves. Gill Netting Gill netting is very serious at present in the rivers and it seems that this practice is increasing. A social project with regards to this issue has been registered by Mr Richard Simelane (MPB) to address this problem. Verifications need to be obtained pertaining to who the people are, why, when, where etc. The long-term aim of this project would be to incorporate these people in aqua cultural projects Yellowfish Conservancies Due to a lack of manpower more emphasis is being placed on the conservation of rivers (therefore yellowfish) by private landowners. The MPB is at present involved in the establishment of two yellowfish conservancies in the Ermelo district and above the Heyshope dam. Stress & Disturbance to Yellowfish Currently there are serious concerns pertaining to fly fishing guides and consultants. These groups of people are getting involved in management and development issues but have no capacity to do so. Some of these consultants and guides have no biological background and fish ecology knowledge, yet they try to advise landowners regarding the development of the aquatic resource. For instance one of these so-called consultants advised a landowner to increase habitat for yellowfish by constructing a weir across the river. However the design and time frame were totally wrong and in the process 80% of the yellowfish population was lost. Furthermore the question is being raised in the conservation fraternity as to the impact of flyfishing on the yellowfish populations. What do guides contribute to the conservation of yellowfish in South Africa? It appears to be zero and that they are only interested in making money. A good example is Borokololo where fly fishermen managed to decimate the whole population in 3 years. How that is for a feather in the cap of yellowfish fly fishermen.


In future all flyfishing operations in the Mpumalanga Province will be subjected to the EIA process with management plans for the operations. Due to irresponsibility and non compliance with ethical standards set to avoid spawning beds during the spawning season, decisions have been taken to try and apply a closed season. MPB Tagging Project In Mpumalanga visible implanted (VI) tags have been used very successfully on tigerfish and yellowfish during the last two years. Arrangements are now in the progress to start a Mpumalanga tagging project whereby private fly fishermen can contribute to tagging. The idea would be to train private individuals to use VI tags and then to establish a database whereby the individuals register their own tagging efforts. Fish Ladders A number of new fish ladders have been built in rivers in the Mpumalanga Province. At present there is a project underway to assess the functionality of these fish ways. Recommendations are being made to improve the functionality of these fish ways. Conclusion FOSAF and their Yellowfish Working Group have already contributed significantly to the conservation of the yellowfish. However, the guides and the ordinary fly fishermen must get even more involved if they want to ensure the future of their sport, in this case flyfishing for yellowfish. At this stage they are there for the picking and waiting for Conservation to do the rest. In Nature Conservation there are a couple of aquatic scientists left, trying their best with limited funds and manpower.


REGIONAL REPORT: LIMPOPO

M.K.Angliss Dept. of Finance & Economic Development & Environmental Affairs, Box 217 Polokwane 0700. Email:

[email protected]

Introduction In the last year, the structures relating to Environmental Management in Limpopo Province have been formalized and some new legislation implemented. Several research projects on yellowfish have been registered with the department. The following is a broad summary of the situation to date.

1. Provincial structures and legislation.

1.1 The simplified environmental structure is as follows. Dept of Finance and Economic Development. (DFED)

� Chief Directorate of Environmental Affairs. � Chief Directorate of Tourism.

Limpopo Parks Board (LPB)

� Activities overseen by the Chief Directorate of Tourism. 1.2 Although in operation for some time, the Limpopo Parks Board actively took over

the management of all of the provinces reserves as of 1st April 2004 and is addressing management, tarrifs, and other matters at this time.

1.3 The Limpopo Environmental Management Act (Act no 8. 2004) was promulgated

and came into force on 1st May 2004. (The act is still at the government printers) The proposed content of the aquatic section of this act was presented at the YWG meeting at Elgro lodge in 2003.

However, some last minute changes crept into the aquatic section of the act and regulations and the following should be noted.

� Angling permits for public waters are no longer required. However, the act

now states that a permit is required for protected areas. Since these are administered by the LPB the future is unclear. Initially the LPB indicated that they would implement their own permits for reserves, but after some initial consultation these would now seem to be a thing of the past. Instead, gate entrance fees to LPB reserves have been substantially increased and it is currently the case that gate entrance fees permit angling within the reserve. Very few of the reserves have recognized angling waters and fewer still are considered to hold good yellowfish.


� The LPB currently do not have any capabilities to manage the aquatic resources within the provincial reserves.

� None of the proposed regulations (as indicated in 2003) pertaining to bag and size limits have been captured. Regulations as proposed last year must still be amended. Current size and bag limits are the same as the old TPA regulations. It is hoped that the proposed regulation changes will be adopted in the near future.

� Clearly there is still some confusion, but there is a willingness between the above parties to meet and work towards a simple, unified approach to angling.

2. Research. 2.1 A research permit was registered with DFED in 2002. The research was to address

genetics of the two provincial yellowfish species L.marequensis and L.polylepis. No interim results have been returned and it is not clear if the research has even started.

2.2 P. Fouche of Univen is continuing with his Doctoral Degree, which is addressing the

breeding of L. marequensis. His project is also registered with DFED for research. Assorted sizes of yellowfish are also being collected across the province by DFED during River Health Programme Surveys and are being supplied to Mr. Fouche for his research.

2.3 A further research project for an honours degree was registered in the Waterberg at

the beginning of 2003. The project was again intended to address the breeding of L. marequensis. However, due to drought, the project was abandoned.

2.4 A national fishway research programme is underway and the monitoring of Limpopo

Province fishways is being coordinated through DFED. The monitoring will address both research on fish capabilities, fishway design and will cater for long term mitigatory monitoring reports. The Limpopo project has commenced at Xikundu Fishway in the Luvuvhu River and is expected to progress to at least 2 other fishways in the coming months.

3. Release of fish. 3.1 A permit to release L.polylepis into streams of the upper Letaba River Catchment was

approved.


SUMMARY OF COMMENT AND DISCUSSION FOLLOWING EACH PRESENTATION

“Hunting the yellowfishes of Southern Africa” – Turner Wilkinson. In answer to a question Turner Wilkinson stated that B. mattozi was a Bushveld species and was a very strong, predacious fish which seemed to do better in dams than in rivers where it had a tendency towards overpopulation. However, it appeared that they have disappeared from Rust der Winter. Francois Botha suggested that not only largemouths tended to feed at the edge of drop-offs in winter but also catfish fed in these areas and possibly the two species fed together. Keith Wallington noted that schools of largemouths tended to be denser in winter. “Keynote Address: Mpumalanga Parks Board” – Andre Coetzee Johann Grobler asked about the progress made towards a single national licence and Mr Coetzee admitted that the current situation was problematic but pointed out that flyfishers were a privileged group. On the question of hatcheries Pierre de Villiers stated that they did not work for re-stocking yellowfish into rivers but they could be used for dams. Mr Coetzee said that hatcheries were generally redundant. Peter Mills stated that in FOSAF transformation was an area of key concern. He also felt that we should be moving away from the focus on flyfishing to a more conservation-orientated lobby. Andre Coetzee stated that in the department MPB was aligned with agriculture which was by comparison a fairly destructive industry. However, Horst Filter pointed out that a major percentage of farmers were conservation conscious and Mr Coetzee agreed that such people were the natural allies of the conservation agencies. Mr Filter outlined the problem of pollution emanating from Piet Retief municipality who were not following correct procedures. Mr Coetzee suggested that a totally different and unorthodox approach be used in this case rather than the traditional approach. In answer to Dr Wolhuters question about the MPB’s annual expenditure Mr Coetzee said this was about R40 million per annum of which 51% was for staff salaries. R11 million was allocated to protected areas and R3 million for each of the other divisions. “South African Freshwater Resources: Rights, Duties and Remedies.” – Morne Viljoen Pierre de Villiers stated that the courts did not view transgressions like illegal netting or keeping baboons in a very serious light. Morne Viljoen agreed and said that law officers needed a major change in mind set with regard to these activities. Horst Filter said that in the case of the pollution from Piet Retief an EIA had been done but the municipality was ignoring the legal requirements. Mr Viljoen said that the Constitution guarantees the provision of clean water but where this was being ignored the government could be shown to be mendacious. Wayne Sinclair said that neighbouring farms (recent land claims) were creating erosion, which was impacting on the stream, and Mr Viljoen said that this could be seen as a case of pollution and brought to the attention of DWAF.


“ Towards the Formulation of a Waste Discharge Charge System for South Africa” – Pieter Viljoen In answer to a question from Keith Wallington, Mr Viljoen stated that the system would generate R488 million with a nett income of R144 million. Dr Gyedu-Ababio believed that there had to be a fast track process for the Olifants River (Mpumalanga) because of the problems facing it and it was also agreed that rapid action was required for the Crocodile in the same province. Pieter Viljoen stated that it took considerable time to licence discharges. He believed the system would be implemented in late 2006. In the meantime much of the information could be obtained on the DWAF website. “Catchment Management Approach to Conservation: What does it mean?” – Dr Wynand Vlok. Dr Wolhuter stated that if the environment was considered a resource and if in the case of a river this was linked to a minimum flow (reserve determination) how was this measured? Dr Vlok said this was done at a specific time of year but floods or simulation of floods were also required. For example this a required for the riparian vegetation. Dr Vlok said certain experts such as catchment management forums did the determination but this was not set in stone and would need adjustment in future. Pierre de Villiers said that it as imperative to involve people in the plan and Andre Coetzee pointed out that in future climatic change would have a major impact on the environment. “Establishment of the Elands River Conservation Area (ERYCA)” – Gordon O’Brien Francois Roux stated that stocking of trout was only permitted above the Swartkops confluence. He also asked what criteria were used for the designation of the breeding sites for yellowfish and Mr O’Brien said although certain sites had been designated these still had to be confirmed. Furthermore Mr Roux pointed out that this area of the Elands was a very pristine system with a consistent food supply and chemical content. He said there were also a lot of variables to take into account in the study. Mr O’Brien said that the removal of gums in the Working for Water project would increase water temperatures which would result in fewer trout. Mr O’Brien stated that although the endangered catlet (Chiloglanis bifurcus) was the same as the Swaziland species he did not know whether there were phylogenetic differences and Roger Bills said that long term monitoring of this species was still required. Horst Filter stated that both yellowfish and trout predated on the catlet. The Effect of Alien Plant Species on the Riparian Zone Water Management - Hannes de Lange Francois Roux asked about the training Working for Water staff received on identification of plants and Mr de Lange said project managers received training. Keith Wallington asked about the assistance to landowners and Mr de Lange said that herbicide was provided but sometimes also labour. However, in future the State was looking for a greater contribution from the landowners. “Fish kills in the Olifants River: Any Solution?” – Dr Thomas Gyedu-Ababio In answer to a question from Mr Wallington, Dr Gyedu-Ababio said that they had identified the people who were abstracting water illegally and had reported them to DWAF. Apparently no action had been taken and Morne Viljoen agreed that the State or department could be charged. Roger Bills said that the impact of agricultural chemicals was much lower in Swaziland. Pierre de Villiers emphasised the importance of setting up a conservancy or management forum for the Olifants.


Emile van Druten stated that tilapia were being heavily fished in certain areas but it appeared that this was a case for the MPB to follow up. “Yellowfish Sport Fisheries – Opportunities & Responsibilities” – Kobus Fourie Grant Williamson asked whether anglers were prevented from fishing when yellows were spawning and Mr Fourie said that at Elgro they were starting to practice this or asking people to avoid spawning areas. Turner Wilkinson stated that considerable responsibility rested with the guides with regard to this. The problem was that sometimes breeding was fairly continuous in summer and that certain resorts had only short sections of river and these had large numbers of anglers throughout the year. Furthermore he said that the key was to involve all landowners and conservancies. Dr Vlok suggested certain areas to be designated ‘no fishing’ zones and Mr de Villiers suggested that we needed to evaluate key spawning areas. In addition he pointed out that disturbance of the rapids affected the insect life which should be given a chance to recover. Peter Mills stated that certain species reacted differently and that whereas yellows appeared to survive handling by anglers they might be sensitive to disturbance of their breeding areas. Conservancies: A tool for river conservation involving the landowner - Peter Mills Roger Bills asked why the Bronkhorstspruit needed a conservancy in this area. Peter Mills stated that it was close to a large urban area, offered good flyfishing and it was a way of controlling poachers. Gordon O’Brien said that to start a conservancy a complete plan with a draft constitution was required. It was a long process to get all the landowners involved. Pierre de Villiers stated that there had to be follow-up on the nearby Komati with a plan to get conservancies started. “Proposed project: Radio Telemetry on Labeobarbus marequensis in the Crocodile River, Kruger National Park” – Francois Roux. In answers to questions from Dr Wolhuter and Keith Wallington Mr Roux said the equipment was stored in Lydenburg and the capital required was R400 000 for the tigerfish project and a bit less for yellowfish. Running time was usually a year and it was planned to start the yellowfish project in July. Cost of the tags was US$1,00 each “The Yellowfish Fishery on the Upper Komati: A Landowners Perspective” – John Clarke Mr de Villiers asked whether there was any plan for the system and Mr Clarke said the plan for the future was mainly agricultural. Regarding Keith Wallington’s question about the availability of finance for people who were moving onto this land apparently there would be a delay in funding and little was known about the number of people who are moving in which was an unsatisfactory situation. Moreover, despite government assurances that the farm would be bought as a going concern there was insufficient money and therefore the livestock and equipment have been sold.

“River Health: Managing and Monitoring Rivers on Sappi Plantations” – Douglas Macfarlane With regard to the 2010 date for compliance Mr Macfarlane confirmed with Johann Grobler that Sappi would wait for plantations to reach maturity before implementing this. Pierre asked about the distance of planting from rivers and Mr Macfarlane said that the guidelines varied according to conditions and were based on a very technical DWAF document. In answer to Dr Wolhuter’s question on further plantings Mr Macfarlane said that there was very little expansion of plantations.


“Iscor Newcastle Steel: Water Strategy” – Martin Bezuidenhout Mr Bezuidehout, in answer to Hester Planks question about the cost benefits derived from the project, stated that these were minimal as water was so cheap and that Iscor merely wished to comply with the legislation. Keith Wallington and Horst Filter asked about the state of the Buffalo River and Mr Bezuidenhout stated that based on bio-monitoring done every 6 months the river was improving steadily and that reports were available. Gordon O’Brien asked whether there was a problem arising from water with a saline content leaching from the company’s agricultural land and Mr Bezuidenhout stated that the results from groundwater tests had been good. In addition the grass on their land was used for feeding to cattle. Regarding the commercial value of waste products Mr Bezuidenhout said they were always looking into this and at the moment they were investigating the use of lagoons for the disposal of waste products with lime to neutralise them. “Field Research Update: Assessing the impact of smallmouth bass on the indigenous fish community of the Rondegat River, Western Cape.” – Darragh Woodford In answer to Keith Wallington’s question about the removal of yellowfish prior to treatment with rotenone, Mr Woodford said that this would be done in summer when the river was at it’s lowest. This was when the brood stock appeared to congregate in the large pool below the barrier fall. These fish would be removed on a temporary basis before treatment. Horst Filter said that smallmouth bass appeared to have ascended what was thought to be a barrier fall on the Slang River of 1 to 1,5 metres. Mr Woodford said there appeared to be great variation in what constituted a barrier for bass. “Threatened fishes of Swaziland” – Richard Boycott & Roger Bills. Although Keith Wallington mentioned that the cichlid (Chetia brevis) looked like a philander (Pseudocrenilabrus philander), Mr Boycott and Mr Bills said that it was definitely a different species, the main visual difference being the orange-red colour of the anal fin of C.brevis. Pierre de Villiers asked about alien tilapias in Swaziland and Mr Boycott said several had been introduced e.g. S.robustus and greenhead tilapia. Their survey had found 54 indigenous species of fish and only 6 aliens. Identification of conservation units of two yellwfish species.- Paulette Bloomer, Herman van der Bank & Roger Bills Keith Wallington stated for largemouth and smallmouth yellows the key identification method for flyfishers was the space between the eyes (intra-orbital space) and their positioning which allowed the largemouth to look upwards as a predator whereas the smallmouth looked downwards. By looking down on the head of the largemouth one is able to differentiate as the largemouth’s eyes can be seen from above but not the eyes of the smallmouth. Regarding the additional sampling required Mr Wallington had collected the 20 L.aeneus specimens and was waiting for the water temperatures to decline before collecting the 20 L. kimberleyensis. The selection of an additional site for collecting L.aeneus where there were no L.kimberleyensis present was discussed at some length. It was agreed that the best site might be the upper Orange in Lesotho although this posed some logistical problems.


“Regional Report: Western Cape” – Dean Impson as presented by Darragh Woodford. Mr Woodford said that bass were stocked illegally in the dam from which the whitefish were removed. He also said whitefish were able to spawn in dams, particularly in the shallows with a stony bed. Regional Report: Free State – Pierre de Villiers In answer to Louis Wolhuter’s question Mr de Villiers said the Conservancy of the Orange/Vaal Management Association comprised 630 km of both banks of the Vaal River. Peter Mills and Bernard Venter questioned the future policy towards alien species, particularly bass and trout. Mr de Villiers stated that it was accepted that certain waters would be zoned for these species e.g. Swartwater for trout, but in future there would be no stocking of the Little Caledon with trout and the landowners appeared happy with this. Regarding bass these would be restricted to certain waters as well. Although the minority of the bass fraternity had an arrogant attitude towards this, we needed to work with these anglers and resolve the problems. Johann Grobler said the new policy document regarding grass carp served as a good guideline for other alien species. Fred Beeslaar asked about weirs and Pierre de Villiers said that these structures would require an EIA in future. Regional report: Northern Cape – Charles Sekwele Pierre de Villiers asked whether the Schmidtsdrift community was to be involved with guiding and Mr Sekwele said this was being planned. Horst Filter asked about the monitoring of mining activities along the river and Mr Sekwele said he believed that the monitoring and follow up to this was still not being correctly carried out. Regional Report: Limpopo – Mick Angliss Mick Angliss said the recently installed DWAF fishway appeared reasonably successful and long term monitoring had only just started. He also said that it was fairly easy to calibrate flow rate over bedrock (as an alternative to monitoring weirs) in certain areas. Horst Fliter asked about the occurrence B. mattozi in the province and Mr Angliss said they had only been recorded at three sites including the upper reaches of the Limpopo and the Aurabies Dam.

Regional Report: Mpumalanga – Francois Roux Horst Filter queried Mr Roux’s criticism of guides who he said had not participated in the tagging project. Francois Roux answered that he had spoken to a couple of the guides but the response had been poor. Mr Filter said he wished to be included for the area in which he operated and Arno Laubsher also offered his services. Keith Wallington was keen to be included for the upper Vaal. Mr Roux said there would be a cost for those participating. Turner Wilkinson offered his services to Pierre de Villiers for the Elgro area and said that he might be prepared to sponsor. Francois Roux suggested that for the telemetry project there be a meeting of the people involved. Horst Filter agreed that if too much pressure were placed on a stretch of river or group of fish like tigers or yellows they would eventually disperse. Pierre de Villiers said that it was vital to start tagging projects on all the important river systems with the help of flyfishers.


WORKSHOP SESSION 2004

The intention of this session was to follow on from the Elgro Workshop in 2003 as we try to adopt a process of adaptive management in our WG activities.

Mission To promote the long-term conservation of yellowfish as a flagship group within their natural habitats through sustainable utilisation practices and as a means to create an awareness of conservation with the relevant decision makers.

Introduction Workshop session:

• Discussion and actions taken since last year.

• Explanation of the environment in which the Working Group functions (model). Also to be addressed again during the group session.

• Explain that this symposium is used to evaluate and adapt our management actions so that the Group can remain focussed.

• Explain management plan as it exists at the moment and discuss the focus areas.

• Activities identified last year will be unpacked and shortfalls highlighted. Working Groups Focus Areas Legislation, Education, Yellowfish Management, YWG Management Points for Discussion:

• Impressions of progress over the year.

• ID of key activities and any major shifts

• ID of person who will drive the process for each group

• Put in place performance measurement measures.

• Schedule of activities and responsibilities (Commitments).

• Communication and reporting measures that will be used. Plenary and way forward Workshop Results

1. Legislation The issue of legislation is being considered by the National Aquatic Conservation Committee. The Working Group has undertaken to become actively involved with this process as an interested and affected party.

2. Structure of the Working Group The structure of the YEG is a matter that concerns the Executive Committee and was not discussed at the Badplaas workshop. Two points were raised:

• The Yellowfish Working Group should develop an image by adopting a logo for letterheads. This should be completed as matter of urgency.

• The working group, to be effective, should strengthen ties with other angling organisations and in so doing form stronger lobbies.


• Website/chat room: The merits of establishing a chat room were debated. It was concluded that the website could be linked to the FOSAF web page. (www.fosaf.co.za) 3. Yellowfish Management.

It was agreed that the yellowfish should be used as a flagship species to encourage river conservation.

There is a need to generate information about yellowfish and this should include the following information:

1. Species integrity. A description and understanding of the conservation problem. 2. Critical biology & ecology (breeding, feeding, space and shelter). Additional ecological

information is required as nothing really exists at present. These were identified last year as important issues.

Additional Information required for Yellowfish Management Database: Existing data on yellowfish is incomplete. The meeting identified the need to establish a programme that insures the collection and storage of data in a way that is accessible to researchers and anglers. Fly fishers should be used to collect data. Scientists must put a programme together that facilitates this. Programme should include:

• Good collection and preservation programme (Electronic data base).

• Catch returns

• Data forms o Time/effort o Condition

� Parasite � Length and girth measurement

Tagging (iTag) and radio tagging should also be considered in the data collection proposal. (Scientific panel to give direction here).

• Fishermen can play an important role in collecting data.

• Conservation Departments should be encouraged to buy into this type of programme.

• Riparian owners also have a role to play. Conservancies Whitefish The whitefish was identified as extremely endangered. Western Cape Conservation should be encouraged to implement extreme conservation action to ensure that this fish survives in the wild. Possible actions should include;

• the establishment of a conservancy,

• remove trout and bass from the system,

• engage with the local trout club and elicit their support for a trout free system. River Reserves (Recognised in legislation). River conservation and protected areas specifically along riparian zones should be promoted and a system of river conservation areas must be developed throughout the country. The Working Group must liaise with Conservation authorities and encourage the strengthening of their conservancies programme. During this process we should also be identifying potential river habitat requiring special protection. Specific management actions should also be


instituted where problems are identified, for example, trampling of spawning beds by wading anglers.

4. Education The working group felt it important to sensitise the public towards yellowfish and river conservation. Information to be communicated?

• Conservation status of the yellowfish and the systems in which they occur.

• Species and their identification, biology/ecology information.

• Conservation measures required. Media Working group members should use the media to promote this forum as well as the conservation status of the yellowfish. The two Southern African fly fishing magazines should be used to promote the above objectives. Various authors were identified and the working group should approach them and request that they produce articles on the fish. Possible articles: Articles and press release on: Tagging article Whitefish needs special mention Programme on 50/50. Way Forward An action plan will be developed for items mentioned above and the Executive Committee will follow up on these. The 2005 workshop will be used to assess progress of working group activities.


SUMMARY OF THE MAIN RESOLUTIONS TAKEN DURING THE 2004

CONFERENCE AND AT THE SCIENTIFIC PANEL MEETING.

1. The 2005 YWG Conference to be held at Elgro Lodge, Potchefstroom in April. 2. No fishing to be permitted in areas where critically endangered species occur.

Although witvis (B. andrewi) in the Hex was an example it was decided that we should not mention this river by name.

3. The current moratorium on stocking and transport of yellowfish to be maintained. At the 2003 conference the following resolution was recorded; “ It was agreed that the moratorium be maintained until new regulations which were being drafted by Pierre de Villiers, were promulgated. In the meantime if stocking was required it was recommended that this be done after the authorities had issued a permit. If necessary the relevant nature conservation authorities should supervise the stocking. Fish for such a stocking could only be obtained from a local source in the same system.”

4. A logo and letterhead to be developed for the YWG. 5. All editorial to be channelled through Peter Arderne who will circulate to Turner

Wilkinson and Louis Wolhuter who together with Peter will comprise the editorial committee.

6. Dr Gert Steyn to prepare a proposal for a telemetry project for the two Orange/Vaal species. The YWG will issue a letter of support and the document will then be circulated to all their provinces for their approval and support.

7. With regard to trampling of spawning beds Dr Wynand Vlok and Pierre de Villiers will prepare a proposal for a research project. The YWG will support this proposal and assist by circulating it to the provinces. Thereafter a suitable institution willing to finance and carry out the work will be approached.

8. When Prof. Bloomer has written up the current Orange/Vaal genetic studies these documents will be circulated to the Scientific Panel for comment and then forwarded to the provinces for their input.

9. Letters to be sent to AngloGold, Sappi and Iscor to thank them for their support of theYWG and to commend them for their progress in implementing the provisions of the Water Act of 1998.