Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fisheries Monitoring Centre

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
    The SFPA has duties as assigned to it by Government and they are included in the maritime work pile which also has the duties of the CGA and Maritime Rescue and the communications associated with that, by it's 24/7 watchkeeping Branch. The SFPA communications task can only be that attached to Fisheries such as the FMC. The SFPA do not go to sea as their function but assign that to the NS by Service Agreement.
    A sea fishery protection officer is an assigned member of the crew of a ship, Government owned, whose commanding officer is commissioned and listed in the appropriate gazette for commissioned officers. The protection at sea is provided by NS on behalf of the SFPA while the latter carry out shore inspections and advise whether a detention will become an arrest with Court proceedings. All must have some connection with EU rules and regulations.
    As a point of clarification any of the following can be a Sea Fishery Protection officer
    -- a member of the relevant Department dealing with Fisheries.
    -- a temporary assistant to a shore based officer
    -- a member of the defence forces of not less then Leading hand, serving aboard an active ship
    --a member of the Garda Siochana
    -- a Customs Officer.
    However only the defence Force members are at sea.

    Comment


    • #47
      Customs are at sea on cutters and have boats on the back.
      SFPA can be embarked onboard, navy, customs or lundy boat to carry out inspections. That's on the websites.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by batterysgt View Post
        Customs are at sea on cutters and have boats on the back.
        SFPA can be embarked onboard, navy, customs or lundy boat to carry out inspections. That's on the websites.
        The problem with the Customs Cutters is that they are part time and rarely at sea.

        The "crews" main role is normal custom roles.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by A/TEL View Post
          The problem with the Customs Cutters is that they are part time and rarely at sea.

          The "crews" main role is normal custom roles.
          I went through a PQ with a former colleague of yours some years ago, which asked how much was spent on fuel in a 12 month period. Based on the fuel spend alone, he calculated, given the type of engines in use, knowing their normal burn rate and allowing for the fact that when at berth the Cutters use shore supply, both vessels did an average of 30 full days at sea in a calendar year.
          That's not to say the unit wasn't active, they are well known at ports and marinas, it's just the cutters aren't always with them.
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by batterysgt View Post
            Customs are at sea on cutters and have boats on the back.
            SFPA can be embarked onboard, navy, customs or lundy boat to carry out inspections. That's on the websites.
            NOT really at sea----like for three weeks or so? SFPA can certainly be deployed as you say. I wonder how many deep-sea FV's has Lundy Sentinel detained and brought into port to be arrested. What port and what jurisdiction. I think they only map infringements and tell Daddy( Maybe Mammy) in Brussels.
            In days gone by when we were involved on Salmon patrols, because Salmon is classified as a river fish the Naval vessels used to board with a garda and sometimes a customs officer to make it legal.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
              The SFPA has duties as assigned to it by Government and they are included in the maritime work pile which also has the duties of the CGA and Maritime Rescue and the communications associated with that, by it's 24/7 watchkeeping Branch. The SFPA communications task can only be that attached to Fisheries such as the FMC. The SFPA do not go to sea as their function but assign that to the NS by SLAVE LABOUR AGREEMENT (forced upon DF by DOD).
              A sea fishery protection officer is an assigned member of the crew of a ship, Government owned, whose commanding officer is commissioned and listed in the appropriate gazette for commissioned officers. The protection at sea is provided by NS on behalf of the SFPA while the latter carry out shore inspections and advise whether a detention will become an arrest with Court proceedings. All must have some connection with EU rules and regulations.
              Fixed that for you

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by A/TEL View Post
                Our ships are not designated Fishery Patrol Vessels, that is a secondary role which is part of an SLA with the SFPA.

                FP is carried out whilst on Maritime Defence and Security Patrols.

                The FMC is not just about co-ordinating boarding operations at sea.

                The monitoring of what vessels are fishing where and their quotas etcis a 24/7 365 job of the FMC which works closly with the SFPA.

                The SFPA can inspect vessels upon landing ashore by the FV of their catch.
                Incorrect.

                The Naval Service Fleet are committed by Government and DoD to spend 90% of their time at sea on Fisheries Enforcement Duties.
                This is because the DoD can get away with not paying for Ships and Maritime Patrol Aircraft themselves, and instead tap into the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

                https://assets.gov.ie/118854/c6c4161...a44a4d1ae5.pdf (Page 150 onwards)

                e - The modernisation and purchase of patrol vessels, aircrafts and helicopters, provided that they are used for fisheries control for at least 60 % of their total period/time of use per year

                Purchase of Offshore Naval Vessels – Reliable sea-going platforms for at-sea control presence. These types of operations were identified to meet the needs identified in Chapter 2 and the Strategy outlined in Chapter 3. As a result of these operations a modern and efficient seagoing and aerial presence will be available for Fisheries Control operations and as required in supporting SCIPs etc. EMFF supports will contribute to the purchase of new vessels and new aircraft between 2018 and 2020. These are expected to be committed to fisheries monitoring for approximately 90% of their patrol days.

                In this context, when you subtract the amount paid by the EMFF towards DF platforms, our Defence Spend falls significantly less than 0.3% GDP.




                Believing that the Naval Service is anything more than an extension of the SFPA/Coastguard in the eyes of the government/DoD is wishful thinking by those who want to try and elevate the Naval Service into what it should be: A NAVY.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TangoSierra View Post
                  Incorrect.

                  The Naval Service Fleet are committed by Government and DoD to spend 90% of their time at sea on Fisheries Enforcement Duties.
                  This is because the DoD can get away with not paying for Ships and Maritime Patrol Aircraft themselves, and instead tap into the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

                  https://assets.gov.ie/118854/c6c4161...a44a4d1ae5.pdf (Page 150 onwards)




                  In this context, when you subtract the amount paid by the EMFF towards DF platforms, our Defence Spend falls significantly less than 0.3% GDP.




                  Believing that the Naval Service is anything more than an extension of the SFPA/Coastguard in the eyes of the government/DoD is wishful thinking by those who want to try and elevate the Naval Service into what it should be: A NAVY.
                  There are 2 ways one can deal with this information.
                  (a) this is a disgrace, this is terrible, this information makes me angry grrrr, etc, nothing can be done though anyone who thinks it can change is fooling themselves.
                  (b) This must change. I will do whatever I can to see that it does. I will annoy my local TD, Senator Councillor etc on every form of social media, email or clinic until they realise this is an issue affecting the people who vote for them, and we won't rest until it changes. The DF are Voters. Fair to say that the DF, i.e the people of Kildare (Largely made up of serving and retired members of the DF who serve or have served in the DFTC, Naas, Newbridge or Kildare and their families) recently elected a former member of the DF as their voice in the Dail. Two candidates standing on the DF platform were candidates in the General Election. It can happen elsewhere too.

                  I have chosen option (b).
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    In this context, when you subtract the amount paid by the EMFF towards DF platforms, our Defence Spend falls significantly less than 0.3% GDP.
                    I knew EMFF contributed but not that much.
                    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      There are 2 ways one can deal with this information.
                      (a) this is a disgrace, this is terrible, this information makes me angry grrrr, etc, nothing can be done though anyone who thinks it can change is fooling themselves.
                      (b) This must change. I will do whatever I can to see that it does. I will annoy my local TD, Senator Councillor etc on every form of social media, email or clinic until they realise this is an issue affecting the people who vote for them, and we won't rest until it changes. The DF are Voters. Fair to say that the DF, i.e the people of Kildare (Largely made up of serving and retired members of the DF who serve or have served in the DFTC, Naas, Newbridge or Kildare and their families) recently elected a former member of the DF as their voice in the Dail. Two candidates standing on the DF platform were candidates in the General Election. It can happen elsewhere too.

                      I have chosen option (b).
                      I think all on IMO including myself choose option b as well. The DF is hemorrhaging personnel because a lot of those option b people have just run out of endurance and are putting their families first.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by TangoSierra View Post
                        Incorrect.

                        The Naval Service Fleet are committed by Government and DoD to spend 90% of their time at sea on Fisheries Enforcement Duties.
                        This is because the DoD can get away with not paying for Ships and Maritime Patrol Aircraft themselves, and instead tap into the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

                        https://assets.gov.ie/118854/c6c4161...a44a4d1ae5.pdf (Page 150 onwards)




                        In this context, when you subtract the amount paid by the EMFF towards DF platforms, our Defence Spend falls significantly less than 0.3% GDP.




                        Believing that the Naval Service is anything more than an extension of the SFPA/Coastguard in the eyes of the government/DoD is wishful thinking by those who want to try and elevate the Naval Service into what it should be: A NAVY.
                        How do you figure the GDP figure?

                        EU funding for the four P60 class vessels amounted to € 900,000 out of a cost of ~ €190m (for 3)

                        This report says the NS dedicates 90% of its time to fishery protection yes but concurrently with that time it is also doing other roles, that’s why a multi-role agency is good VFM

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Those outside must act on behalf of those within. It is in all our interests.
                          It is vital that the Commission on defence is SWAMPED with submissions. The message must get through that a large cohort of the general public care about what happens in the NS, Army and Air Corps, and not just those who wear a military uniform as their full time or part time job.
                          The 6000 extra people who were in the RDF in 2005, but aren't any more, should all make a submission of some sort. All those who left the PDF in the last 5 years should put in a submission explaining exactly why they chose to leave.
                          I'm sure the foreign military experts will be shocked.
                          My only fear is, like what Cathal Berry TD said recently, there has been so many review boards, Efficiency audits white papers etc, whose stark recommendations have been systematically ignored by successive governments. Is this another one for the pile?
                          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                            NOT really at sea----like for three weeks or so? SFPA can certainly be deployed as you say. I wonder how many deep-sea FV's has Lundy Sentinel detained and brought into port to be arrested. What port and what jurisdiction. I think they only map infringements and tell Daddy( Maybe Mammy) in Brussels.
                            In days gone by when we were involved on Salmon patrols, because Salmon is classified as a river fish the Naval vessels used to board with a garda and sometimes a customs officer to make it legal.


                            Looks like the SFPA dropped the ball big time, and the state will suffer as a consequence.
                            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                              https://www.irishtimes.com/news/envi...tion-1.4485289

                              Looks like the SFPA dropped the ball big time, and the state will suffer as a consequence.
                              On the ground the SFPA are on the back foot due to the single-minded work ethic of the Fishery sector. Allowable margins are stretched, obviously ,and a double recording system may apply to pay the boat for what they caught, and enter up against the quotas. Salmon netting is legally gone for years but continues as described, including abducting inspectors who boarded.
                              The Navy seem to be let carry on their routine duties without much confrontation. The figures for 2016 were 3900 inspections of which 1250 were naval and about 2650 were SFPA or 7.3 inspections ashore per day at a total of 6 main Fishery Harbours plus others like Kilmore Quay, Baltimore, Schull etc. Results and control effectiveness must be a reflection of the effort put in.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by DeV View Post
                                How do you figure the GDP figure?

                                EU funding for the four P60 class vessels amounted to € 900,000 out of a cost of ~ €190m (for 3)

                                This report says the NS dedicates 90% of its time to fishery protection yes but concurrently with that time it is also doing other roles, that’s why a multi-role agency is good VFM
                                au contraire

                                €14 Million from EMFF 2014-2020 (which there is a risk will not be paid: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/envi...tion-1.4485289)

                                You'll have to search for EFF 2007-2013 for details on expenditure for that period. Think it came to €64 Million with some €24 million going on Fisheries Enforcement.

                                Also, bear in mind, this is funding in principle. Ie. there is no guarantee that the Defence Forces money will ever get reimbursed for providing a service that should have been paid for from another Dept's budget in the first place.
                                Even if EMFF funding is given to cover the cost of the project, there is no guarantee that the receiving Dept will ever hand it over to the Defence Forces.

                                Several military specific projects have been reduced in scope, delayed, postponed or cancelled because money that was marked for them had to be diverted to fisheries related demands.



                                Written answers
                                Tuesday, 1 December 2020
                                Department of Defence
                                Naval Service

                                Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal, Labour)
                                Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

                                355. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if additional funding has been requested from the EU for the Naval Service to support patrolling Irish territorial waters in view of Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40303/20]

                                Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
                                Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

                                My Department has not requested any additional funding from the EU for the Naval Service in the context of Brexit. However, my Department does apply for appropriate EU funding opportunities in support of the Defence Forces as and when they arise. My Department has secured approval in principle for EU funding available under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) Operational Programme (2014-2020) for a number of relevant projects, including projects specifically linked to Naval Service capabilities and operations.

                                Almost €14 million is available from the four projects, which my Department has been approved in principle for, subject to agreed conditions. The table below provides a brief description of each project and the amount of funding available.

                                Project Name Funding applied for and approved
                                Upgrade of Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) € 9,000,000
                                Training for new MPA € 675,000
                                Upgrade of Fishery Monitoring Centre IT system € 1,300,000
                                Support of Specific Species Control and Inspection Programmes € 3,000,000
                                Last edited by TangoSierra; 16 February 2021, 13:09.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X