Opening Tsitsikamma’s shores — can conservation and community coexist in Africa’s oldest marine sanctuary?

When the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area (MPA) was proclaimed in 1964, it became Africa’s first marine sanctuary. In 2020, it became a strict no-take zone and a global example of marine protection, allowing fish stocks and ecosystems to recover and flourish.

But for generations before that, indigenous communities had fished the Tsitsikamma’s rocky coastline and sandy beaches, relying on angling for food, trade, income and a deep cultural connection to the sea. The closure cut them off from a way of life.

“Angling is such an important part of our indigenous life,” said Henrico Bruiners, a third-generation angler and former chairperson of the Tsitsikamma Angling Forum.

“It’s not only about providing food, it’s also about our identity, community, and our connection to nature. It ties us to the land and sea. And it’s often a space where families come together.”

In 2016, after decades of protest by the indigenous anglers, 20% of the MPA was opened to controlled fishing by permanent residents of the Kou-Kamma Local Municipality under strict regulations.

Today, under South African National Parks’ (SANParks’) new Vision 2040 strategy — which frames national parks as “mega living landscapes” blending conservation with economic activity and community wellbeing — the Tsitsikamma MPA has become a test case for reconciling environmental protection with local access.

Read more: How SANParks plans to rethink conservation and include those previously marginalised

“We are moving from something that’s called fortress conservation to inclusive conservation,” said SANParks spokesperson JP Louw, adding that the “big downside” of fortress conservation is that “you then make people feel a sense of alienation because you move them from their land”.

Cut off from a way of life

For generations, Bruiners’ family fished Tsitsikamma’s shores. He recalls childhood weekends spent camping on the beaches with his father: “We’d just take our blankets, make a fire and sleep. Hearing the sea, smelling nature, that is an experience you will never forget. I would love to do that again.”

Before the MPA was proclaimed, communities traded fish for vegetables and tied cultural practices to the sea.

“At Easter time, they didn’t want meat, they wanted fish,” said Bruiners. “That’s how we are connected to the sea.”

Bruiners said there was a feeling of disappointment when the MPA restricted angling. “Ja, that’s what I can still remember because we were simply cut off from the sea.” At the time, under apartheid, resistance to closures was met with arrests and intimidation. “If you resisted, you would just be suppressed and thrown in jail,” he recalled.

After apartheid, anglers formed the Tsitsikamma Angling Forum to demand the recognition of their rights. Bruiners said they rejected rigid Western conservation models that excluded people, advocating instead for conservation that “puts people in the centre”.

Years of petitions, protests and negotiations led to a compromise in 2016: three zones covering roughly 20% of the coastline were opened to registered community anglers. Frustrations linger, however: access remains less than requested, consultations are limited, and restrictions exclude older fishers and minors, weakening the transfer of intergenerational knowledge.

By 2000, fishing in the Tsitsikamma MPA had been completely phased out, sparking anger and illegal activity.

The need for Marine Protected Areas 

Discounting offshore islands, only 5.4% of South Africa’s continental marine waters are protected — a far cry from the the 30% ocean protection target to which South Africa committed under the UN’s 30x30 goal.

Research consistently shows that no-fishing zones in MPAs are crucial for allowing marine life to thrive. Fishing inside MPAs can deplete fish stocks, including endangered species, and disrupt the ecosystem. By contrast, well-managed MPAs boost fish biomass, protect biodiversity and ensure the reproductive output of larger fish, producing spillover benefits for adjacent fisheries.

Read more: Landmark August 12 verdict expected over illegal fishing inside Marine Protected Areas

“All the fish research done in Tsitsikamma has shown that the fish are bigger, more abundant and more diverse within the MPA, which are genuinely the three characteristics you find in an MPA,” said Mandy Lombard, the South African research chair in Marine Spatial Planning at Nelson Mandela University.

Read more: Marine Protected Areas are our insurance policy for a climate-uncertain future

Lombard co-authored a study on SANParks’ decision to open part of the Tsitsikamma MPA for shore angling. It found that even a small fraction of the MPA being opened undermines ecological integrity, weakens fish populations — including endangered species — increases enforcement costs, and goes against broad scientific and public consensus favouring full protection.

While intended to ease social pressures, the move did not resolve underlying socioeconomic issues. Lombard argued that decisions must weigh species vulnerability, habitat threats and precedent for other MPAs. Broader stakeholders — scientists, NGOs and the public — overwhelmingly opposed the move.

Lombard told Daily Maverick that the impact depends on the application and whether species are threatened and habitat-specific, as many Tsitsikamma species are, and on whether the decision sets a precedent that undermines other no-take MPAs. She said there were “edge effects to consider, and many other ways to address the concern of the locals without opening the [fishing]”.

What the data show

Only permanent Kou-Kamma residents who are registered anglers may fish the three designated fishing zones, and under stringent rules: endangered species like white and red steenbras are fully protected, while there are strict bag limits for others, including galjoen.

As at August 2025, roughly 600 registered anglers made around 3,900 trips a year to the three zones, mostly on weekends, with limited participation from under-24s.

“The fishing effort was really a lot lower than anyone predicted. It’s tough to walk down and up those cliffs; it’s not easy to access the beach,” said Kyle Smith, a SANParks marine ecologist. Catches are dominated by small-bodied, fast-growing species such as strepie, blacktail, roman and galjoen, which are more resilient to harvesting.

Monitoring shows that fishing pressure remains relatively low and compliance high. However, catch-per-unit-effort — a key measure of fish abundance — dropped in 2024 to below historical levels recorded in nearby Plettenberg Bay. While this does not yet confirm a decline caused by fishing, Smith — whom Lombard fully supports — stresses that “a lot more work needs to be done” to determine if it reflects a long-term trend or short-term fluctuation.

Smith agrees with the 2020 study led by Lombard but notes its limitations, given early uncertainties in the data. “I’m not sure that that model can incorporate the sort of messiness of human negotiations,” he said. “There was quite a bit of uncertainty about how fishing efforts would play out.”

Smith reflected that the history of Tsitsikamma “has been so full of frustration and heightened emotions, including anger, for such a long time”, pointing to frustration from the anglers when the MPA was closed, and NGOs and the general public being excluded from consultations in the early years.

Despite these challenges, compliance inside the MPA is generally high. Illegal fishing does occur, but at low levels, partly because permit-holding anglers hold each other accountable.

“During meetings with local anglers, we remind them of regulations — bag limits,” said Bruiners. “I told the guys, if you go into a closed area, we’re not responsible when you get a fine. We educate people and make them aware of regulations to keep this resource sustainable.”

Between 2018 and 2025, rangers conducted 1,216 patrols inside the MPA, recording just 17 incidents — a non-compliance rate of 1.39%. By comparison, in the adjacent De Vasselot section, 785 patrols logged 34 incidents, a 4.3% non-compliance rate. Daily patrols, limited access points, and strict permit requirements help keep illegal fishing low.

“People should not give the impression that we, as anglers, are not for conservation — we have conserved in this area for many years,” said Bruiners.

More than just fishing 

Why can’t locals just fish outside the MPA? Smith points to two main reasons. “Sometimes it’s very difficult for people to actually travel somewhere else. Many anglers walk or cycle to fishing points, so if a large area is closed, the distance and cost become prohibitive.”

He also highlights the deeper connection people have to the sea. “For some, it’s more than just fishing. You can get fish, but you also get other benefits — getting away from troubles at home, relaxing, enjoying the scenery and nature. Those benefits are also denied when people are restricted.”

Bruiners, a retired schoolteacher now able to fish with his son and hoping to teach his daughter how to fish, said: “What makes angling special for me and for many in our community is that it’s a living tradition. It is peaceful, it teaches patience, and it is deeply spiritual.

“You don’t just catch a fish; you carry on a way of life that honours those who came before us.” DM