Faroe Islands in EU herring spat

We’ve had cod wars, so why not herring wars?

Herring trade sanctions begin against Faroe Islands

Slaettaberg is one of only 10 boats which make up the Faroese pelagic fleet.

EU trade sanctions against the Faroe Islands have now been introduced because of an international dispute over who has the right to fish herring.

Tensions have been growing since the small North Atlantic country trebled its previous share of the catch.

The sanctions mean European countries are banned from importing herring landed by the Faroese.

In the Faroese capital Torshavn there are boats everywhere – rowing boats, cruisers, yachts and even a tall ship.

But, strangely, no herring boats.

Torshavn, the Faroese capital, is home to boats of many varieties.

And yet Government House, which overlooks the waters, has become embroiled in a big fight because of them. Further round the coast is the small community of Kollafjordur where a large boat, the Slaettaberg, is unloading its catch of herring.

She is one of only 10 boats which make up this country’s pelagic fleet, compared with 29 in the UK.

Bogi Jacobsen, a Faroese skipper, told me his government is right to take on Europe.

“We know that the EU are fishing a lot more than the quota is,” he said.

“They are allowed to throw fish out, not taken off the quota so the fact is this is not about sustainability, as stated by the EU.

“This is about who has the right to fish, who has the right to the quota.”

The Faroe Islands has a population of just 50,000, and until 2012 their share of all the herring available was 5%.

But this year, without agreement, they decided to land 17%.

Prime Minister Kaj Leo Johannesen told me they were right to catch more.

He said: “The mackerel and the herring is in huge quantities much more into our area and that is what we are reacting on, that we own a bigger part of this stock.”

He told me the migration patterns of herring are changing, that they are eating more food in Faroese waters and that that is damaging other stocks.

‘Negotiated solution’

So punishing the Faroes for wanting more, he believes, is wrong.

“It’s not the guy who is fishing 5% who is destroying the stock, it is the guy who is fishing 95%.

“But we hope we will have a negotiated solution.”

Faroese PM Kaj Leo Johannesen (right) was visited by Danish Foreign Secretary Villy Sovndal.

In town is the Foreign Secretary of Denmark, Villy Sovndal, here to show his support to a nation which is part of the Danish kingdom.But as an EU member, his country is in an awkward position.

The Danes have no plans to defy the European ruling but the dispute has been referred to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas.

Asked what the UN convention should decide he said: “I am not the judge, I leave it to the judges to take that decision.”

But challenged that his response did not sound like a wholehearted support he repeated: “No, I just say I am not the judge, it is not Denmark that is going to decide this matter.”

Scotland’s fishermen, where the UK’s pelagic fleet is largely based, have welcomed the introduction of sanctions and describe what the Faroese are doing as an “astonishing act of irresponsibility”.

Increasing markets

Iceland, also failing to reach agreed settlements with the other coastal states, says: “The extreme action is not the way to solve a disagreement between friendly countries.

“While we do not condone the Faroe Islands’ approach to managing its herring quotas, we object on the strongest possible terms to the EU’s coercive measures.”

Nobody will admit how much the sanctions will hurt the Faroe Islands, instead saying they have increasing markets in Russia, the Far East and Africa.

But they will be back around the negotiating table in London next month.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23855798

Pentagon considers cancelling F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, overseas partners may be in trouble

Yikes! A kick in the budgetary backside for the Pentagon as tough choices are being made between smaller forces, less new equipment, and reduced operations.

But this does not just affect the US military. There are 10 international partners involved in the F-35 boondoggle. In particular, Britain’s Royal Navy has predicated its entire 21st century naval aviation programme on the F-35B STVOL variant. Its new aircraft carriers are under construction without the cats & traps that would permit an alternative (such as the F/A-18E/F) to be substituted affordably.

Is it too late to restart the AV-8B production line?

Pentagon considers cancelling F-35 program, leaked documents suggest

F-35 JSF (AFP Photo / HO)

Leaked documents from a Pentagon budget review suggest that the agency is tired of its costly F-35 fighter jets, and has thoughts about cancelling the $391.2 billion program that has already expanded into 10 foreign countries.

Pentagon officials held a briefing on Wednesday in which they mapped out ways to manage the $500 billion in automated budget cuts required over the next decade. A slideshow laid out a number of suggestions and exposed the Pentagon’s frustration with its F-35 jets, which are designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corp. based out of Bethesda, Md. The agency also suggested scrapping plans for a new stealthy, long-range bomber, attendees of the briefing told Reuters.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke to reporters on Wednesday and indicated that the Pentagon might have to decide between a “much smaller force” and a decade-long “holiday” from modernizing weapons systems and technology.

Pentagon briefing slides indicated that a decision to maintain a larger military “could result in the cancellation of the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 program and a new stealthy, long-range bomber,” Reuters reports.

When officials familiar with the budget review leaked the news about the F-35s, the agency tried to downplay its alleged intentions.

The F-35 program is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapon system. A fleet of 2,443 aircraft has an estimated price tag of $391.2 billion, which is up 68 percent from the projected costs measured in 2001. Earlier this year, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manager, condemned the manufacturer for “trying to squeeze every nickel” out of the Department of Defense.

Although the warplane is the most expensive combat aircraft in history, its quality is lacking. In February, the US military grounded an entire fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters because of a crack found on a turbine blade on one of the jets, marking the fourth time that a fleet was grounded because of manufacturing problems. In April, Bogdan told a Senate committee that he doubted the planes could withstand a sophisticated cyberattack.

But before the sequestration took effect this year, the Pentagon secured several contracts with Lockheed Martin to ensure the continued production and maintenance of the costly F-35s. This week, the Defense Department struck another deal with the company to produce 71 more jet fighters, claiming the costs per aircraft have been reduced by about 4 percent – an insignificant reduction when compared to the 68 percent price increase that has occurred since 2001.

After news broke of the Pentagon’s prospect to cancel the program, officials tried to control the damage of such an alarming statement that runs counter to the claims they publicly make.

“We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modeling, possible decisions we might face, under scenarios we may or may not face in the future,” Pentagon Spokesman George Little told Reuters in an email when asked about the slides. “Any suggestion that we’re now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday’s discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect.”

An unnamed defense official familiar with the briefing told Reuters that the leaked budget document indicated possibilities for a worst-case scenario. He admitted that the Pentagon considered scrapping the program, but said it was unlikely, since “cancelling the program would be detrimental to our national defense.”

Regardless of the Pentagon’s intent, Congress is responsible for authorizing Department of Defense spending, and has often forced the agency to make costly and unnecessary weapons purchases.

Last year, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said that the US has no need for new tanks. But even though senior Army officials have repeatedly stated that there is no need to spend half a billion dollars in taxpayer funds on new 70-ton Abrams tanks, lawmakers from both parties have pushed the Pentagon to accept the useless purchases.

Earlier this year, an investigation revealed that lobbying efforts by Northrop Grumman have kept a costly Global Hawk drone flying, despite the Pentagon’s attempt to end the project. A defense authorization bill passed by Congress requires the Air Force to keep flying its Block 30 Global Hawks through at least 2014, which costs taxpayers $260 million per year.

The US spends more money on defense than any other nation, but lawmakers from both parties often insist that the agency continue to buy tanks and keep ships and planes it no longer needs. Although the Pentagon has expressed its frustration with the costly F-35 fighter jets, there is little the agency can do without congressional support.

http://rt.com/usa/pentagon-f35-stealth-bomber-963/

“Even a 400-metre ship in a typhoon is at the mercy of the elements.”

She’s a big ‘un all right.

The biggest ship in the world

The Maersk ‘Triple-E’ container ship is the biggest vessel in the world. But what goes into building the ultimate engine of commerce?

Big, they say, is beautiful. Whether you apply that principle to cargo ships depends how much you like winches, grease stains and enormous, smoke-belching funnels. But, beautiful or not, the Maersk Mc-Kinney Møller is a landmark in engineering.

A quarter-of-a-mile long, 195ft wide — equivalent to an eight-lane motorway — and 240ft high, the vessel, which began its maiden voyage earlier this month, is the biggest ship in the world.

Its sole purpose is to plough the trade route between Asia and Europe, bringing us millions of products manufactured in China, Malaysia and Korea, before returning, rather lighter, with exports from the West.

No ship has ever been able to carry so many goods in one journey; the Mc-Kinney Møller has room for 18,000 containers, each of them 20ft long, 8ft wide and 8ft high. That’s enough space for 36,000 cars or 111 million pairs of trainers. But Maersk, the ship’s Danish owner, will not just benefit from the economies of scale that spring from operating such a large vessel; it will also save money on petrol.

The ship has been designed to sail at an average of only 16 knots – a system known as “super slow steaming” – which is expected to save the company around £750,000 in fuel on a typical journey between Shanghai and Rotterdam.

It will still emit egregious amounts of pollution – cargo ships use a form of high-sulphur fuel, banned on land, that has been linked to cancer, heart disease and coastal erosion.

But, instead of burning 214 tons a day, the Mc-Kinney Møller will burn a slightly less-damaging 150 tons, which Maersk executives insist is a step in the right direction. The slow speed also reduces carbon dioxide emissions.

Over the next two years, Maersk is overseeing the construction of another 19 similar vessels, forming a class of ship it calls “Triple-E” dedicated to the Asia-Europe route.

The captain of the third Triple-E will be David Johnstone, from Wishaw, in Lanarkshire, a Harley-Davidson fanatic who has been skippering container ships for 24 years.

On the day I spoke to him he had just returned from Belfast where he’d visited an exhibition about another big ship – the Titanic.

Was that necessarily the best preparation for his new job?

Johnstone insisted it was. “The Titanic has fascinated me for 40-odd years. I’ve got books on the Titanic, I’ve got a 3ft print of the Titanic on my wall. I went to the exhibition with 40 other bikers and they thought it was hilarious to get me to pose in the souvenir shop with a captain’s hat.

“But, when it came to the exhibition itself, I went round on my own. The story reminds you that no ship is impregnable. Even a 400-metre ship in a typhoon is at the mercy of the elements.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/10203784/The-biggest-ship-in-the-world.html