Srt Marine Systems Share Discussion Threads

[lavalmy] 28/10/2018 10:56

I forgot to add (must be the times changing) that it is odd that they have agreed $290.5 million in additional foreign military financing on top of the more round number $100 million a year between all the countries. It sounds that there is something specific in mind that has been properly costed.

[lavalmy] 28/10/2018 10:43

C5, indeed it does sound like madness to have three systems, but am not sure that the fishing, coastguard/navy and ports will be entirely separate, though the projects might. Simon, in the recent webcast, focussed on the separation of the applications rather than the technology. So, in effect, the same infrastructure backbone can be used e.g. by the fisheries people with their own customised database/GEOVS system with catch reporting etc. The coast guard would have a different one, ports different again, but all using the same basic kit. I don't think they will be ordering three sets of towers with RADAR, infrared, AIS base station etc and then expecting boats to carry up to three transponders. Despite the silo mentalities, the Indonesian project was supposed to be run by Bakamla but with access for all the relevant other bureaucracies.

I also noted in the pentagon guy's piece a reluctance to say what for and possibly to whom the cash was going to flow, other than in the most generic terms. Possibly as a result of national sensitivities?

[owenski] 28/10/2018 10:29

Thanks for the posts LaV, SRT has morphed a bit from the original box shifting sales business model, makes me wonder where it'll head in future times, suspect sometimes it'll attract a security systems label.

[countryman5] 28/10/2018 10:27

It has always seemed slightly illogical that the various ASEAN countries appear to have a different MDA programme for three different sectors.ie fishing, coastguard and ports. Some logic would suggest that each country would have an integrated system covering all three aspects. I have always assumed that the lack of integration is because of power and control of different gov departments fighting to retain their fiefdoms. However, having read Lav’s recent post it may be that if coastguards have a specific MDA project it qualifies for US cash. Clearly fishing and ports would not qualify for the US cash.
Perhaps there is a recognition that each of the three sectors will be able to communicate with each other, and perhaps the various friendly national coastguard systems will also communicate together. Logic would dictate that if there is to be communication between internal systems or between various friendly governments, a common MDA platform will be a prerequisite. Will SRT be the provider of such a platform?

[lavalmy] 28/10/2018 09:46

Here is a recent update:



“There’s a lot of interest [edit: among the ASEAN nations] in MDA and how that can ultimately lead to greater connectivity with like-minded countries who are also developing MDA, the challenge of maritime security is inherently multilateral, so the first step is having awareness of one’s own sovereign area and [Exclusive Economic Zone], and beyond that, the ability to have connectivity with others in the region who share an interest in promoting maritime security.”

[lavalmy] 28/10/2018 06:46

If you google Maritime Security Initiative, you should come to various articles, particularly in the Diplomat, a rather good journal even if it has a very US standpoint.

Briefly, under the Obama administration the US put aside $425 million for this program with the bulk expected to spent in 2018-2020, a $100 million per annum. The initial tranche of some $60 million went to the Philippines, as they have experience of dealing with the US - this article details more or less what: - and the other ASEAN beneficiaries less so.

Anyway, the programme is still ongoing, despite the change in administration, and seems to be pretty much geared towards MDA and trying to get some sort of common operating picture or the possibility of information sharing in the future. But what the money is being spent on is particularly unclear, but it would seem to me that there is at least a good possibility that some of the larger projects that SRT is working on in the region might well be beneficiaries - the ones with coast guards rather than fisheries. Simon sometimes states that nobody in the region wants US money and I know that SRT's systems are pitched as civilian rather than military. However, this programme, part of the US department of defence spending, is considered so small as to be laughable from a military point of view - I heard a new expression, 'budgetary dust' to describe it - so it might well be diverted to SRT's cheap and cheerful civilian system.

Here is a link to what they had funded before this programme:



page 27 gives details of what the ASEAN countries had got from the US.

[lavalmy] 24/10/2018 14:00

A good article C5. Additional points it doesn't mention are the higher inspection costs when a country is yellow carded (and possible expensive rejection of cargoes) and the diversion of produce to China where it fetches much lower prices. As your link yesterday mentioned about Korea, the US, Canada and Japan are already on the same hymn sheet as the EU, making it harder and harder for IUU fish to enter those markets and depressing prices in markets that are not so rigorous. In turn, that depresses incomes of those engaging in IUU in say Vietnam and the incomes of fishermen in countries where the produce ends up, mostly China, where there are already huge subsidies for their large fleets. One article I read somewhere reckoned that that global fishing subsidies for the high seas fleets were around 50% of the commercial value of the catch. Get rid of the subsidies, the problem goes away and fish becomes much more expensive from the high seas initially and stocks recover in the coastal fisheries where the small, poorer fishermen ply their trade. (Edit: as if it were that simple...)

[countryman5] 24/10/2018 13:43

This article is a few months out of date but it clearly explains the issues that are facing ASEAN countries that wish to export fish to the EU. If the Philippines leads the way, there is vast potential with a whole list of Countries. This alone could provide SRT with enormous opportunities stretching way into the distance on a timeline.

[yumyum] 24/10/2018 09:44

Fair enough LaValmy. Still a fair amount of wriggle room....until the red flag.

I have bought some more shares this morning. There is not much selling appetite from the market makers.

[countryman5] 24/10/2018 08:54

Philo 2 bids open next Tuesday?

[yumyum] 23/10/2018 20:57

Thank you C5.

Total wiggle room, LaValmy ? Until a red flag.

[lavalmy] 23/10/2018 16:20

Well spotted C5

'Under EU legislation, only fish that is legally caught can be sold on the EU market...'

No wriggle room. It has to be traceable in order to show that it is legally caught. Hence with Vietnam, even if the EU lifts the yellow card in order to allow the free trade agreement to be signed, they will still insist on the full VMS/catch reporting to be implemented.

I suppose well done to Korea to go from yellow card to partner in the fight against IUU in a very short time.

[countryman5] 23/10/2018 16:09

EU AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA JOIN FORCES IN FIGHT AGAINST IUU FISHING
October 22, 2018, 03:40 PM
On October 18th 2018, the EU and the Republic of Korea have pledged to work closely together to fight against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing with a joint statement signed by European Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Karmenu Vella, and Mr Kim Young-Choon, Minister for Oceans and Fisheries of the Republic of Korea. The signing took place on the eve of a bilateral EU-Republic of Korea Summit.
Commissioner Vella said: "Putting an end to illegal fishing is one of the main objectives of the EU's international ocean governance agenda. By joining forces with the Republic of Korea, a world player in fisheries, we send a clear message to those breaking international law that there is no place for such products on our markets and we will continue to fight illegal fishing until we have fully eradicated it."

With the new partnership, in line with the objectives of the EU's Ocean Governance strategy, the EU and the Republic of Korea will:

- exchange information about suspected IUU-activities

- enhance global traceability of fishery products threatened by Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing, through a risk-based, electronic catch documentation and certification system

- join forces in supporting developing states in the fight against IUU fishing and the promotion of sustainable fishing through education and training

- strengthen cooperation in international fora, including regional fisheries management organisations.

The Republic of Korea and the European Union have been working closely together on IUU fishing for several years already. The Republic of Korea is the fourth country with whom the EU signs a joint statement on IUU fishing, following the USA, Japan and Canada. Together, these five economies imported almost 90 billion euros worth of fish and fisheries products in 2017.

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing constitutes one of the most serious threats to sustainable fishing and to marine biodiversity in the world's oceans, with devastating environmental and socio-economic consequences. These consequences are particularly challenging for coastal communities in developing countries, who rely on fisheries for food and employment. Globally, IUU fishing is estimated to deprive coastal communities and honest fishermen of up to 20 billion euros of seafood and seafood products per year.

Background

The EU is internationally recognised for its leadership in the fight against IUU fishing. Under EU legislation, only fish that is legally caught can be sold on the EU market – the biggest market for fish and fisheries products in the world. Countries for which there is concern about IUU fishing receive a ‘yellow card'. This starts a process of dialogue and support to find solutions and ensure that international law is fully applied. This can either lead to the repeal of the yellow card or it can turn into a ‘red card', which would mean the banning of the products from the EU market.

In April 2015, the Commission lifted the yellow card adopted in 2013 to the Republic of Korea, recognising the country's efforts to bring its legal and administrative systems in line with the international standards. Since then, the Commission and the authorities of the Republic of Korea have continued their fruitful cooperation in a bilateral working group to address IUU fishing.

[yumyum] 23/10/2018 15:13

LaValmy...you say it seems 'rather too well planned'. It has been a long time in the planning. How it works in practice will likely be somewhat different. Let's wait for the contract award (hopefully) in a few weeks' time.

[lavalmy] 23/10/2018 14:49

YUMYUM

No worries. The way I see it, it will be two years before all the 5,000 boats in Philo 2 are equipped and the 117 base stations in the smaller ports installed. About 40 odd boats per base station on average leaving lots of capacity for expansion in the numbers tracked, though you also need base stations spaced every 60 miles or so apart to ensure maximum terrestrial coverage. It seems like overkill given that much of the time the largest boats will be out of range. If they pick up a boat on the RADAR within the 15 mile zone, how are they going to know who it is? The logic suggests that eventually all the boats will have transponders and that it will be sold to the 'municipal' fishermen as protecting them from the >3 tonne boats fishing too close to shore. Similarly, all fish landed in the Philippines will be subject to traceability, as proposed in the new draft rules. It all seems rather too well planned.

[yumyum] 23/10/2018 11:37

Many thanks.

[lavalmy] 23/10/2018 11:29

Here is one:

[yumyum] 23/10/2018 10:56

Hi LaValmy, please can you give me the link to Oceana's lawsuit ?

I agree that the webcast was VERY upbeat. Also VERY confident insofaras they have hired project managers and raw data experts.

[lavalmy] 23/10/2018 10:42

The BFAR has just issued draft rules for traceability of fish from municipal fishing boats (i.e. those that don't go out very far and weigh less than 3 tonnes). No indication that they will have AIS, at least for now - though the door is open to integrating the catch reporting onto the Philo system. Some also land their catches in the busier, larger ports which presumably will have the regional centres. I could easily see those boats being a right pain, so they might be the first candidates for tracking. SRT have repeated stressed that there are further projects in the pipeline in the Philippines, although quite what they entail is unclear. There probably is a longer term plan to cover all vessels.

It looks like all the >3 tonne fishing boats will be covered under the system and that this law suit by Oceana is some sort of PR/softening the resistance manoeuvre.

[goodapple] 23/10/2018 08:36

A further thought on Flir's contract with the US Coastguard and its potential to extend business to other American 'blue light' services.
Given the US Navy's recent collision record and their apparent concession to switch on AIS when in congested waterways so that other shipping can "see" them, it would seem highly likely that they will want the very best second generation transponders with encryption.
...with SRT inside.

[lavalmy] 22/10/2018 15:46

Just listened to the latest webcast again, as normally I tend to miss some bits.

Overall, I don't remember any previous webcast being so bullish - some new projects as well as milestones on existing ones are due in H2 and they have very good visibility on these. Sounds like three new ones (including Bahrain phase 2?) and the existing Philippines and Kuwait ones. Probably somewhere around half of the £140 million odd in procurement due to start/restart in the next five months. The other half, who knows, but possibly over the course of the next financial year.

Secondly, they have been hiring project managers and various raw data experts for the fusion of the various data sources. I had previously only heard of the latter.

[lavalmy] 21/10/2018 10:39

The BFAR issued an administrative order on 5th October which takes effect 15 days thereafter and is basically the starting gun for certain categories of boat to have a VMS. The biggest have to have it immediately, others get one to two years. As in previous versions, boat owners have a theoretical choice as to what system to go for but it has to be approved by the BFAR and, of course, has to be inter-operable with the central system, so effectively limiting the choice to you know who. One thing that I think is new is that the smaller boats don't have to transmit catch data via satellite. Another thing left very vague is who is paying for it all.

As a result, Oceana have already sued the BFAR for not going far enough and not tracking all commerical fishing boats. I suspect this is a set-up to try and make it more palatable to boat owners when the time comes for them to tracked.

[yump] 20/10/2018 17:45

I thought it interesting that ST mentioned that some of the process with non-EU customers was actually less complex and easier, which surprised me. Perhaps that's why there are some some SME business representatives/directors appearing now and again who are surprisingly pro Brexit. Although I always thought rest of world (especially East) was a difficult place to get prompt payments, perhaps countries in the EU are just as bad, when it comes to government contracts.

The reality seldom seems to appear in the media so end up relying on hearsay (which in my case is 2 business owner acquaintances who have had nightmares with countries in Asia paying up). Although I've never dealt over there, I have had a ridiculous amount of faffing around to do to meet the various cookie laws emanating from the EU in a pathetic attempt to deal with privacy issues, despite knowing (judging by the past) that hardly any websites will be penalised as a result of GDPR or cookie law or privacy. There's no teeth - just bureaucrats who'll generate twice as much paperwork and box ticking for everyone - then we'll all feel safe - except that people will continue to get scammed increasingly by real criminals, who, horror of horrors, don't care about privacy or cookies. Funny that.

[lavalmy] 20/10/2018 13:25

Particularly with the lumpy nature fo the contracts and some slow payers.