MARINE TOURISM AND SHARKS: A CASE STUDY OF PROTEA BANKS by Gina Helene Sjursrether Submitted as partial ful film ent of the requirements for the degree of Master (co ursework) of En vironmental Management in the School of En vironmental Scienc es, Uni versity of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 2005 As the candidate's superviso r I have / have not approved this thesis for submission. Sign ature: \::s\s~ - ,/:-t Name: GG 6c-<-\ J\., Date: 1- Ii 106 r I ABSTRACT Marine touri sm is an expanding segment of both international and domestic touri sm in KwaZulu-Natal and can be of valuable contribution to the national and local economy, but there are also concerns about its sustainability. Tw o of the most popular marine activities in KwaZulu-Natal are di ving and recreational fishing. However, these two different user groups can also create conflicts as they have very different user practic es in relati on to the same marine area ana its resources. While certain marin e regi ons along the coast have been declared marin e protected areas with site specific management plans, other popular marine areas remain almo st unmanaged. Shelly Beach on the South Coast of KwaZulu-Natal is the most popular boat launching site on the Natal coastlin e with both divers and recreational fishermen visiting a fossilised sand dune reef called Protea Banks which is situated 7 to 8 km off-shore from Shelly Beach. The reef is famous for its abundance of fish as the attraction for fishermen and big sharks attracting divers. A controversial topic in association with Protea Banks is its shark population. The divers are concerned that the number of sharks is decreasing, while the fishermen are concerned about there being too many sharks eating their hooked fish before they can boat their catch. Thi s study looks at marine tourism and sharks using Protea Banks as a case study for marine touri sm and management. Th e focus is on stakeholders' and different marine user group s' opinions on management, marin e resource protecti on and user conflict. The issue of sharks and sustainability in association with both diving and recreational fishing is also investig ated. Th e study shows that the stakeholders have developed a system of self-regulation based on the experience gained from their utilisation of Protea Banks. Th e stakeho lders prefer to maintain this system rath er than the authorities declaring the area a marine protected area or in other ways further involve the auth oriti es. The various stakeholders express 11 different but speci fic environmental concerns including carrying capaci ty, seasonality and unsustainable pressure during the peak tourist season, shark and fish management, and lack of enforcement of regulations. The study concludes with recommendations toward s a site specific management plan for Protea Banks. iii DECLARATION I declare that the work submitted in this thesis is all my own, except where specifically indicated in the text, that all sources have been acknowledged and referenced in the text, and that this work has not previously been submitted, either in whole or part to any other University degree purposes. Signed : Date: _ ----'- _ Gina Helene Sjursrether IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professor Gerry Garland for his kind help and assistance with my thesis. I would like to thank all the people who shared their time, knowledge and opinions with me and contributed to the research for this study through intervi ew participation . A big thank you to Melissa van Oordt for her ass istance and co mpany during the research. It has been great to have someo ne who shares my interest in marin e animals and diving. David, thank you for helping me with this study and makin g everything more fun. I would like to express my greatest appr eciation to Chris Mi ller and Martin McKenna for making my year in Durban such a fabulous and fun experience . Without you it wo uld not have been the same. You are the most exce llent friends anyone could ever dream of and absolutely amazing people. Th ank you so much for everything you have done for me and all the fun times. v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Sustainable development and sustainability 3 1.2. Tourism, sustainability and ecotourism 4 1.2.1. Ecotourism ..............•................................................•................ 5 1.3. Tourism and ecotourism in South Africa 8 1.4. Marine tourism in South Africa 10 1.5. Marine tourism and diving in Kwa'Zulu-Natal.. ll 1.6. A brief introduction of the study area Protea Banks 13 1.7. Previous studies conducted at Protea Banks 13 1.8. Rational for the study 14 1.9. Aim and objectives of the study 15 1.10. The following chapters 16 2. THE STUDY AREA: PROTEA BANKS 18 2.1. Diving at Protea Banks 18 2.1.1. Attractions for dive tourism at Protea Banks.....••.•.........................•.•19 2.2. Recreational fishing at Protea Banks and boat launches from Shelly Beach 20 2.3. The state of the species Zambezi shark (carcharhinus leucas )...•..•..........22 2.4. Different user groups and conflict at Protea Banks 24 2.5. Legislation applicable for Protea Banks 26 2.5.1. Public participation in decision making and coastal management 28 2.6. Shark regulations in South Africa 30 3. MARINE TOURISM: MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION 31 3.1. Introduction to marine tourism 31 3.2. Marine tourism management. 33 3.3. Marine tourism and SCUBA diving 39 3.3.1. Marine wildlife and human interaction 40 VI 3.4. Marine tourism and recreational fishing .44 3.5. Marine conservation and tourism 44 3.5./. Nature conservation and the marine environment...............•..............45 3.6. Marine Protected Areas 48 3.6./. Marine Protected Areas in South Africa....................................•.....52 3.6.2. User conflicts and marine areas .........•.••.................................•.....54 4. METHODOLOGy 57 4.1. Qualitative methods 57 4.2. Methods and techniques used in the study 60 4.2./. Secondary data collection 60 4.2.2. The Natal Sharks Board Library and Archive 60 4.2.2.1. Historical review ofmarine tourism and sharks on the South Coast 61 4.2.3. The Oceanographic Research Institute (ORl) Library 61 4.2.4. The Internet 61 4.3. Primary data collection and techniques 62 4.3./. Semi-structured in-depth interviews 62 4.3.2. Interview questions..............................................•.................•••... 63 4.3.3. Equipmentfor recording data ...............................................•.......64 4.3.4. Sample methods and criteria ..................................•...........•..........64 4.3.5. Field visits, observation ofthe study area andparticipant observation 65 4.4. Processing and analysing of primary data 67 4.5. Limitations of the study and its methods 67 5. PERCEPTIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF SHARKS 68 5.1. Introduction 68 5.2. Sharks and marine tourism history on the KwaZulu-Natal South Coast; economics and emotions 68 5.2./. South Coast shark attacks and Black December /957 69 5.2.2. Anti-shark measures along the South Coast 71 5.2.3. The Anti-Sharks Measures Board and shark research .76 Vll 5.3. Human perception of sharks · ·79 5.4. Recent shark attacks in South Africa 82 5.5. International shark fishing and management 83 5.5./. International shark jishery management plans...•.........•..........•.........86 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 89 6.1. Introduction 89 6.2. Results of the study 90 6.2./. Objective 1: The current user groups and direct stake holders at Protea Banks 90 6.2.2. Objective 2: Marine tourism code ofpractices used by stake holders at Protea Banks 92 6.2.3. Objective 3a: The value ofProtea Banks as a marine tourism resourc e 92 6.2.4. Objective 3b: Stake holders views on user conflict issues and how these issu es can be resolved 94 6.2.5. Objective 4: The stakeholders' opinion of shark management and conservation 95 6.2.6. Objective 5: Protea Banks as a marine protected area (MPA) 95 6.2.6.1. Stakeholders environmental concerns at Protea Banks and Shelley Beach 97 6.3. Overview of the main findings 98 6.3./. User conflict 98 6.3.2. Marine tourism seasonality and carrying capacity concerns 99 6.3.3. Stakeholders environmental conc erns 99 6.3.4. Gap in shark research and scientific studies ofProtea Banks l00 6.3.5. Stakeholder opposition towards Protea Banks as a marine protected area..100 6.4. Further description and discussion of th e findings 101 6.4./.Marine user groups and their activities at Protea Banks 101 6.4.1./. Charter boat fi shing 101 6.4. 1.2. Recreational sportfi shing 103 6.4.1.3. Commercial fi shing 104 VII I 6.4.1.4. Dive operators 105 6.4.1.5. Whale and dolphin watching 109 6.4.1.6. Spearfishing 110 6.4.1.7. Non-governmental organisations (NCO) 110 6.4.2. User conflict andpotential solutions at Protea Banks....................•..... 111 6.4.2.1. Other conflicts in associa tion with Protea Banks 115 6.4.3. Carrying capacity, seasonality and marine tourism management 115 6.4.4 Protea Banks as a marine tourism resource........•....•.•..•.•...•.•.........•.. 118 6.4.5. Shark management and lack ofscientific research at Protea Banks... ...•••120 6.4.5.1. Shark chumming and fee ding fo r the purpose ofdive experiences 123 6.4.6. Protea Banks and marine protection.........•..•.....•........................... 124 7. CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATIONS 128 7.1. Concluding remarks 128 7.2. Recommendations towards a site specific management plan for Protea Banks 128 7.3. Final comments 130 REFERENCES 132 Appendix I: List of interview participants Appendix II: Diving with sharks Code of Conduct used at Protea Banks by Andy Cobb, Andy Cobb Eco Diving IX LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1.