The Namibia Competition Commission has cleared major fishing operators of anti-competition behaviour last week.
The NaCC concluded that it could not find evidence of price-fixing and collusion by at least 10 major fishing operators, who have been accused of cartel behaviour by rights holders.
The Issue has learnt that the NaCC last week informed the operators, who were the subject of investigations, that the parallel investigations against them ended with no adverse findings.
The NaCC had not yet provided a response at the time of publishing, despite stating that it will issue a statement on their findings.
Fishing rights holders are people who are granted rights (similar to a licence) to harvest a particular marine resource or species from the ocean. The government awards quotas; the amount of fish a rights holder is allowed to harvest, in that particular year or season.
The operators are companies who do the actual harvesting of the fish or marine species. These companies often own vessels and factories.
In a typical year the rights holders sell their quota to the operator in a transaction known as the quota usage fee.
The NaCC’s investigations targeted 10 major fishing companies, Erongo Marine Enterprises, Namsov Fishing Enterprises, Venmar Fishing, Seaflower Pelagic Processing, Cavema Fishing, Scombrust Fishing, Gendev Fishing Group, Hadago Fishing, Carapau Fishing and Etosha Fishing.
The first leg of the NaCC’s investigation dealt with an August 2023 complaint, which dealt with allegations that the operators colluded to deliberately keep the quota usage fee low. The NaCC announced during November 2025 that it has initiated an investigation against a number of fishing operators for alleged price-fixing of quota usage fees paid to fishing rights holders.
The rights holders have complained that the price has been fixed and that all operators offer the same price regardless of whether the season is good with a bumper harvest or favourable market conditions.
Unhappy industry insiders told The Issue that before 2012, quota usage fee for Horse Mackerel for instance was less than N$800 per metric ton.
In 2012, because of new entrants into the market by international players, as well as then minister Benard Esau wielding a reformist broom, the quota usage prices went up to N$1 500 and then later to about N$3 000. However, the price has remained the same for about five years, with all operators offering a uniform stance on the price.
The operators allegedly don’t offer any justification for the prices they insist on.
“This year the market saw an increase in the amount of fish caught, this translates into a good harvest, but on what basis does the usage fee remain the same as three years ago,” said a rights holder.
The Issue has further learnt that because of favourable market conditions there are some operators currently offering up to N$4 500 per metric ton, because the market is booming and the harvest has improved from last year.
The second leg of the investigation dealt with the complaint that operators were colluding and fixing the price when they bid for the government objective quota, which the government auctions off publically. This leg of the investigation started in July 2024.
Documents seen by The Issue, state that the NaCC found that, based on evidence submitted to it by the respondents, there was no evidence of abuse of dominance by the the respondents by imposing unfair purchase prices.
That the quota usage fees are determined or negotiated on commercial terms while the reserve price is a non-negotiable minimum amount set by the government to meet governmental socio-economic objectives. Therefore the service price is set depending on how much the government wants to achieve from auctioning quotas.
The investigation also found that quota usage fees offered to Horse Mackerel fishing rights holders were the same as those offered by the operators between themselves. Therefore, on this basis alone, the quota usage fees offered to the Horse Mackerel rights holders who do not have fishing vessels, have not been found to be unfair. Even though the respondents are found to be dominant or hold a level of market power in the relevant market, the commission has found no evidence of abuse of such position in the possible contravention of the competition act.
