Asked by: Madeleine Moon (Labour - Bridgend)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her oral contribution of 18 October 2016, Official Report, 301WH, which UK sites are already designated for protection because of international agreements; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by Thérèse Coffey
The UK has designated 150 sites under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, including 25 in the UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. In addition UK Marine Protected Areas contribute to the well managed ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas under the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. These can be found on line at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1389 and http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=4549
Our network of protected sites, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Parks, Marine Conservation Zones, European and Ramsar sites, support the UK’s contribution to achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Target 11 (protected areas increased and improved). These networks also contribute to the achievement of UN Sustainable Development Goals 14: conservation and sustainable use of the marine environment and its resources; and 15: sustainable use of the terrestrial environment and halting biodiversity loss.
Asked by: Madeleine Moon (Labour - Bridgend)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the effect of the vote to leave the EU on her policy on the EU nature directives; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by Rory Stewart
Until we leave the EU, current arrangements for farming, fisheries, food and drink, rural affairs and our environment remain in place.
Defra will continue to ensure the right policies are in place for a cleaner, healthier environment for everyone.
The priorities for negotiating our exit from the EU will be a matter for the new Prime Minister and their Cabinet.
Asked by: Madeleine Moon (Labour - Bridgend)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will bring forward legislative proposals to limit the use of antibiotics on farms to sick animals.
Answered by George Eustice
There are no plans to significantly revise the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 until the conclusion of the current review of the EU legislative framework on veterinary medicines and medicated feedingstuffs.
The Government has reissued guidance on the responsible use of animal medicines on the farm to emphasise that we do not support the routine preventative use of antibiotics, or the use of antibiotics to compensate for poor animal husbandry.
Under the current UK legislation, all antibiotic veterinary medicines are only available through a prescription from a veterinary surgeon, who in turn can only prescribe to animals under their care following a clinical diagnosis. Using antibiotics responsibly is a requirement of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Code of Professional Conduct for Vets.
Asked by: Madeleine Moon (Labour - Bridgend)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will take steps to enable the establishment of a market in 100 per cent sustainable timber by 2020.
Answered by Rory Stewart
Defra is committed to tackling the trade in illegal timber. We implement the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), which makes it an offence to place illegally logged timber on the EU market for the first time, and the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Regulation, which aims to combat illegal logging and improve the supply of legal timber to the EU. The EU FLEGT Regulation establishes Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) between the EU and timber producing countries. Once VPAs have been agreed, timber producing countries will issue exports with a ‘FLEGT licence’ which verifies the timber’s legality.
The Government’s Timber Procurement Policy also requires Government Departments, Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies to procure timber and timber products that are both legal and sustainable.
Domestic forests provide about 20% of the UK’s timber needs. They are managed in accordance with the UK Forestry Standard, the reference standard for sustainable forest management in the UK. Moreover, about 85% of UK timber production is independently certified, providing additional assurances of sustainability. We are strongly supportive of initiatives such as Grown in Britain, which create new sustainably managed woodland to increase the supply of British timber destined for use by local people and businesses. Timber and wood products labelled with the Grown in Britain logo are from trees and forests assured as compliant with the UK Forestry Standard.
Asked by: Madeleine Moon (Labour - Bridgend)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will assess the effect on the bee population of the repeal of the ban on neonicotinoid pesticides; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
The UK Government has not repealed a ban on neonicotinoids. There is not a ban, but an EU restriction on the use of three neonicotinoids that has been in place since 1 December 2013. A number of uses of these neonicotinoids remain approved. The restriction has been implemented in full in the UK.
EU rules on pesticides allow for the limited and controlled use of restricted neonicotinoids in emergency situations to control a danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means. In assessing applications for limited and controlled use, the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides considers all the relevant environmental and agronomic factors, including the effects on bees and the value of the products as a consequence of safeguarding crop yields. Recently, Ministers followed the Committee’s advice in the granting of two authorisations to use neonicotinoids to protect an area equivalent to 5% of the national oilseed rape crop.
The European Commission has begun a review of the science on neonicotinoids and pollinators. The UK Government is participating fully in that process.
Asked by: Madeleine Moon (Labour - Bridgend)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether Report No. 544 of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, on the identification of discrete and persistent areas of relatively high harbour porpoise density in the wider UK marine area, published in March 2015, identifies breeding sites for harbour porpoise as required by the 1992 EU Habitats Directive; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90th percentile (i.e. areas that had the top 10% of predicted porpoise density) was chosen as the threshold to define ‘high density’ based on a method used by Embling et al. (2010)[i]. This method considered boundary placement to delineate protected areas for harbour porpoise using a perimeter length to area ratio approach. By comparing areas with the top 1%, 5% and 10% of porpoise densities, the perimeter–area ratio was lowest (desirable) and its confidence interval was narrowest (greater certainty) for areas defined by the top 10% threshold (i.e. equivalent to the 90th percentile). The Inter-Agency Marine Mammal Working Group therefore considered it appropriate to adopt this published approach for the analyses undertaken in Report 544. Both Embling et al. (2010) and Report 544 have been subject to peer review by experts.
Member States, including the UK, use Annex III of the Habitats Directive and additional EU Guidance in the identification of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), but decisions on implementation are taken at the national level. This includes the determination of appropriate thresholds.
The identification of breeding sites for porpoise is not a requirement of Annex III of the EU Habitats Directive. A representative large-scale picture of porpoise calve distribution could not be attained from the data set that informed Report 544, and therefore was unable to support the identification of breeding areas.
The CCW Atlas of Marine Mammals of Wales included data collected and reported on in Pierpoint 2006 and 2008. All data from the Atlas were submitted to the Joint Cetacean Protocol, which provided the dataset that informed Report 544 where consents from the data providers were given.
The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.
Report 544 is one step in wider assessment of information towards the identification of possible SACs for harbour porpoise, carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Country Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies. Full information on the assessment process and other key documentation would be made available in a public consultation, providing an opportunity to comment on the scientific process undertaken.
[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. & Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Biological Conservation 143, 267–279.
Asked by: Madeleine Moon (Labour - Bridgend)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with reference to Report No. 544 of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, on the identification of discrete and persistent areas of relatively high harbour porpoise density in the wider UK marine area, published in March 2015, for what reasons the 90th percentile was used as the cut-off point for the threshold of the prediction of porpoise presence; whether the same cut-off point is used (a) for prediction of other marine mammals and (b) by other EU countries; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90th percentile (i.e. areas that had the top 10% of predicted porpoise density) was chosen as the threshold to define ‘high density’ based on a method used by Embling et al. (2010)[i]. This method considered boundary placement to delineate protected areas for harbour porpoise using a perimeter length to area ratio approach. By comparing areas with the top 1%, 5% and 10% of porpoise densities, the perimeter–area ratio was lowest (desirable) and its confidence interval was narrowest (greater certainty) for areas defined by the top 10% threshold (i.e. equivalent to the 90th percentile). The Inter-Agency Marine Mammal Working Group therefore considered it appropriate to adopt this published approach for the analyses undertaken in Report 544. Both Embling et al. (2010) and Report 544 have been subject to peer review by experts.
Member States, including the UK, use Annex III of the Habitats Directive and additional EU Guidance in the identification of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), but decisions on implementation are taken at the national level. This includes the determination of appropriate thresholds.
The identification of breeding sites for porpoise is not a requirement of Annex III of the EU Habitats Directive. A representative large-scale picture of porpoise calve distribution could not be attained from the data set that informed Report 544, and therefore was unable to support the identification of breeding areas.
The CCW Atlas of Marine Mammals of Wales included data collected and reported on in Pierpoint 2006 and 2008. All data from the Atlas were submitted to the Joint Cetacean Protocol, which provided the dataset that informed Report 544 where consents from the data providers were given.
The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.
Report 544 is one step in wider assessment of information towards the identification of possible SACs for harbour porpoise, carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Country Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies. Full information on the assessment process and other key documentation would be made available in a public consultation, providing an opportunity to comment on the scientific process undertaken.
[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. & Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Biological Conservation 143, 267–279.
Asked by: Madeleine Moon (Labour - Bridgend)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether Report No. 544 of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, on the identification of discrete and persistent areas of relatively high harbour porpoise density in the wider UK marine area, published in March 2015, takes into account data on the presence of harbour porpoise identified in the 2nd edition of the CCW Atlas of Marine Mammals of Wales and the Pierpoint Reports of 2006 and 2008; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90th percentile (i.e. areas that had the top 10% of predicted porpoise density) was chosen as the threshold to define ‘high density’ based on a method used by Embling et al. (2010)[i]. This method considered boundary placement to delineate protected areas for harbour porpoise using a perimeter length to area ratio approach. By comparing areas with the top 1%, 5% and 10% of porpoise densities, the perimeter–area ratio was lowest (desirable) and its confidence interval was narrowest (greater certainty) for areas defined by the top 10% threshold (i.e. equivalent to the 90th percentile). The Inter-Agency Marine Mammal Working Group therefore considered it appropriate to adopt this published approach for the analyses undertaken in Report 544. Both Embling et al. (2010) and Report 544 have been subject to peer review by experts.
Member States, including the UK, use Annex III of the Habitats Directive and additional EU Guidance in the identification of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), but decisions on implementation are taken at the national level. This includes the determination of appropriate thresholds.
The identification of breeding sites for porpoise is not a requirement of Annex III of the EU Habitats Directive. A representative large-scale picture of porpoise calve distribution could not be attained from the data set that informed Report 544, and therefore was unable to support the identification of breeding areas.
The CCW Atlas of Marine Mammals of Wales included data collected and reported on in Pierpoint 2006 and 2008. All data from the Atlas were submitted to the Joint Cetacean Protocol, which provided the dataset that informed Report 544 where consents from the data providers were given.
The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.
Report 544 is one step in wider assessment of information towards the identification of possible SACs for harbour porpoise, carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Country Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies. Full information on the assessment process and other key documentation would be made available in a public consultation, providing an opportunity to comment on the scientific process undertaken.
[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. & Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Biological Conservation 143, 267–279.
Asked by: Madeleine Moon (Labour - Bridgend)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the non-inclusion of Swansea Bay as an identified breeding site of harbour porpoise and Special Area of Conservation in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report Number 544, published in March 2015; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90th percentile (i.e. areas that had the top 10% of predicted porpoise density) was chosen as the threshold to define ‘high density’ based on a method used by Embling et al. (2010)[i]. This method considered boundary placement to delineate protected areas for harbour porpoise using a perimeter length to area ratio approach. By comparing areas with the top 1%, 5% and 10% of porpoise densities, the perimeter–area ratio was lowest (desirable) and its confidence interval was narrowest (greater certainty) for areas defined by the top 10% threshold (i.e. equivalent to the 90th percentile). The Inter-Agency Marine Mammal Working Group therefore considered it appropriate to adopt this published approach for the analyses undertaken in Report 544. Both Embling et al. (2010) and Report 544 have been subject to peer review by experts.
Member States, including the UK, use Annex III of the Habitats Directive and additional EU Guidance in the identification of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), but decisions on implementation are taken at the national level. This includes the determination of appropriate thresholds.
The identification of breeding sites for porpoise is not a requirement of Annex III of the EU Habitats Directive. A representative large-scale picture of porpoise calve distribution could not be attained from the data set that informed Report 544, and therefore was unable to support the identification of breeding areas.
The CCW Atlas of Marine Mammals of Wales included data collected and reported on in Pierpoint 2006 and 2008. All data from the Atlas were submitted to the Joint Cetacean Protocol, which provided the dataset that informed Report 544 where consents from the data providers were given.
The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.
Report 544 is one step in wider assessment of information towards the identification of possible SACs for harbour porpoise, carried out by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Country Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies. Full information on the assessment process and other key documentation would be made available in a public consultation, providing an opportunity to comment on the scientific process undertaken.
[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. & Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Biological Conservation 143, 267–279.
Asked by: Madeleine Moon (Labour - Bridgend)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent assessment she has made of the (a) threats to and (b) steps necessary to address the decline of British bees; and if she will make a statement.
Answered by George Eustice
Defra recognises the importance of pollinators, including bees, and their value to food security and sustaining the natural environment. This is why Defra committed to producing the National Pollinator Strategy (NPS) (www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-pollinator-strategy-for-bees-and-other-pollinators-in-england).
To help inform the NPS, Defra commissioned a report published in July 2014 on the ‘Status and Value of Pollinators and Pollination Services’ (http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=18916#RelatedDocuments). The report reviewed evidence on threats to pollinators and served to highlight the many pressures which pollinators face. A loss of flower-rich habitat is considered to be the likely primary cause of the recorded decline in diversity of wild bees and other pollinating insects. Another key finding was the uncertainty that remains over population levels. Addressing such key gaps in our understanding is one of the key aims of the NPS. Defra has commissioned a research project to develop a national pollinator monitoring framework to detect changes in pollinator populations in the future.
The NPS, published in November 2014, forms a framework for collective action to help manage and raise awareness of the pressures facing pollinators. To raise public awareness a ‘Call to Action’, “Bees’ Needs: Food and a Home” (www.wildlifetrusts.org/Bees-needs) was launched in July 2014. This is a simple message on the essential needs of pollinators and how to fulfil them.