Discarding the red herring

Responding to the pressure cooked up by the TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall nthe European Commission is talking about banning discards.

But is going to do it whilst keeping quota. So while some fish will not be caught in vain it does nothing for fishermen.

The statement by Maria Damanaki, European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries is instructive on this. Firstly despite the hype you will hear about this we are not seeing the introduction of a ban,

" I am considering proposing a discard ban as part of the CFP reform proposals"

Considering is not quite the same thing as banning, I suspect you might agree.

The question then is which management system to choose, in order to manage fish stocks. One possibility would be to only manage our mixed fisheries with an effort system. The idea is to preserve relative stability by translating the relative stability in quotas into a relative stability in effort for mixed fisheries. Such a management system is relatively simple as all catches would need to be landed. Control is also easy as the time spent at sea can be easily controlled by the vessel monitoring system.


Another possibility is the catch quota system with by catch quotas. All catches would have to be counted against quotas and then later against the by catch quotas. In such a system it would also be necessary that Member States allocate quotas more in line with the real possible catches of their vessels. A catch quota system would need guarantees that it would work, because it will be more complicated.

As you see the quota system will be retained, rather than basing things on days at see. Thus it will not help fishermen. And finally, just to get you civil  liberties types interested is this little snippet.

We will need CCTV or observers on board vessels above a certain length

At what cost? Both in privacy in supervision and in simple finance?

More spys in the skies

Little piece of news that sent a shiver down my spine. Of course normally I applaud any business doing well, but in this instance.... well maybe not,

Frost and Sullivan have just put this out,

Steady demand from government civilian agencies is pushing the air surveillance market in Europe, especially for unmanned aerial vehicles(UAVs), civil helicopters, multi mission aircraft and airborne radars.

And it gets better for those who live in London, Dorset and elsewhere,

"The civil security air surveillance market in Europe will benefit from growing co-operation between EU member states and the industry," says Frost & Sullivan Program Manager Balaji Srimoolanathan.
"Large-scale events like the 2012 Summer Olympics in London will be a testing ground for civil UAVs."

Civil security air surveillance is used in urban networks for law enforcement, maritime surveillance, emergency medical services, earth observation, and in the energy sector. There is significant potential in these sectors for air surveillance and greater cooperation among industry participants is making the market business critical.

All a bit Blade Runner and I don't like it one little bit

Baggies move to Sparkbrook

No, no not West Brom, but poly bags which we learn the best dressed Birmingham CCTV's will be wearing after a row about targetting of the intrusive devices.

According to the BBC,

Bags are to be put over scores of surveillance cameras in parts of Birmingham after allegations residents were not properly consulted.
Safer Birmingham Partnerships (SBP) said 218 cameras had been put up in Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook, where there are large Muslim populations.
The cameras were financed by a counter-terrorism fund, but the SBP said they would tackle all crime.
The cameras will not be used until consultation has been carried out.

Thus is the latest aspect of a saga involving the cameras and how they are to be used, and I can see the point of some of the complaints.

However there are a couple of key questions that need to be asked. Firstly, if these cameras are indeed joint use, that is both anti-terror and anti 'normal' crime, then why is it that there use and placing is up for debate here and nowhere else. Should Councils get the OK of the local population anywhere before they start festooning our streets with their high-tech panopticans?
And secondly how much is all this costing. According to figures on the Big Brother Watch website, each camera is costing approximately £3,000 per annum to run. Making these 218 cameras the best part of £650,000 in mere running costs, and that doesn't even begin to factor in the capital costs.
FOIs are making there way to the Safer Birmingham Partnership as I write.

Update,
BBW on the story