House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 23 Apr 2004 (pt 3)

23 Apr 2004 : Column 677W—continued

Radioactive Waste

Mr. Simon: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will take evidence from the relevant bodies in (a) Sweden, (b) Finland and (c) the USA. [159024]

Mr. Morley: CoRWM is an independent Committee and will gather information from any organisations it considers relevant.

Rural Payments Agency

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many formal complaints were made against the Rural Payments Agency's Northallerton office in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [164597]

Alun Michael: Complaints against the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) are interpreted as complaints in respect of decisions made under the Common Agricultural Policy schemes which it administers. Such complaints are therefore recorded against scheme type and not on a site by site basis.

23 Apr 2004 : Column 678W

The RPA could not extrapolate the data required to break this figure down to site level without incurring disproportionate costs.

Timber

Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are being implemented by the Environment Agency to ensure that all timber used on the construction sites of new offices will come from legal and sustainable sources, and if she will list those sites. [166717]

Mr. Morley: The procurement by the Environment Agency of sustainably managed timber is reported publicly at quarterly Board meetings and in the Agency's Annual Environmental Report. Preliminary indications are that in 2003–04, all of the timber used was from a sustainably managed source.

The Agency is currently having a new leasehold office built to its requirements at Wallingford, near Oxford.

Trees

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of trees (a) had full crowns, (b) had slight defoliation, (c) had moderate defoliation, (d) had severe defoliation and (e) were dead in the most recent survey of tree health in Europe under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution, broken down by country. [165742]

Mr. Morley: The results of the 2002 Large-scale Survey of Forest Condition in Europe is published by the UNECE and European Commission are shown in the table. The report did not separate the 'severe defoliation' and 'dead' categories.
Defoliation of all species by classes and class aggregates (2002)

Participating Countries Area surveyed (1,000 ha) No. of
sample trees 0 none 1 slight 2 moderate 3+4 severe and dead 2+3+4

Albania 1,028 — — — — — —

Austria 3,481 7,029 60.2 29.6 8.5 1.7 10.2

Belarus 7,845 9,690 34.9 55.6 8.2 1.3 9.5

Belgium 691 3,079 38.7 43.5 16.1 1.7 17.8

Bulgaria 3,314 5,303 24.1 38.8 29.9 7.2 37.1

Croatia 1,175 1,910 38.4 41.0 18.6 2.0 20.6

Cyprus 138 360 30.8 66.4 2.8 0.0 2.8

Czech Republic 2,630 7,013 11.6 35.0 52.7 0.7 53.4

Denmark 468 480 61.5 29.8 7.3 1.4 8.7

Estonia 2,249 2,169 45.9 46.5 6.6 1.0 7.6

Finland 15,006 8,593 54.6 33.9 10.5 1.0 11.5

France 13,100 10,355 40.1 38.0 20.3 1.6 21.9

Germany 10,264 13,534 35.1 43.5 20.0 1.4 21.4

Greece⁽⁴⁾ 2,512 1,768 42.1 37.0 16.6 4.3 20.9

Hungary 1,804 26,921 38.1 40.7 16.0 5.2 21.2

Ireland 399 424 43.9 35.4 16.0 4.7 20.7

Italy 7,699 7,165 20.3 42.4 33.4 3.9 37.3

Latvia 2,902 8,682 19.8 66.4 12.0 1.8 13.8

Liechtenstein ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾—

Lithuania 1,858 5,162 16.4 70.8 9.6 3.2 12.8

Luxembourg 84 ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾—

Rep. Of Moldova 318 11,489 25.2 32.3 32.6 9.9 42.5

The Netherlands 210 231 57.1 21.2 20.4 1.3 21.7

Norway 12,000 7,421 35.0 39.5 22.0 3.5 25.5

Poland 6,868 24,580 8.8 58.5 30.7 2.0 32.7

Portugal 3,233 4,350 47.8 42.6 8.9 0.7 9.6

Romania 6,244 104,366 62.7 23.8 12.0 1.5 13.5

Russian Federation⁽⁶⁾ 6,315 4,144 37.9 51.2 10.2 0.7 10.9

Serbia/Montenegro⁽⁷⁾ — 1,104 80.8 15.3 3.7 0.2 3.9

Slovak Republic 1,961 4,207 17.3 57.9 23.3 1.5 24.8

Slovenia 1,099 936 32.3 39.6 24.2 3.9 28.1

Spain 11,588 14,880 24.2 59.4 13.2 3.2 16.4

Sweden 20,600 16,671 49.2 35.0 13.4 2.4 15.8

Switzerland 1,186 1,064 23.4 58.0 11.7 6.9 18.6

Turkey ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾— ⁽⁵⁾—

Ukraine 1,285 1,204 8.9 63.4 23.8 3.9 27.7

United Kingdom 2,156 8,532 27.3 45.4 25.7 1.6 27.3

⁽⁴⁾ Excluding Maquis.
⁽⁵⁾ No survey in 2002.
⁽⁶⁾ Only regional surveys in north-western and central European parts of Russia.
⁽⁷⁾ Montenegro only.

23 Apr 2004 : Column 679W

Participating Countries	Area surveyed (1,000 ha)	No. of sample trees	0 none	1 slight	2 moderate	3+4 severe and dead	2+3+4
Albania	1,028	—	—	—	—	—	—
Austria	3,481	7,029	60.2	29.6	8.5	1.7	10.2
Belarus	7,845	9,690	34.9	55.6	8.2	1.3	9.5
Belgium	691	3,079	38.7	43.5	16.1	1.7	17.8
Bulgaria	3,314	5,303	24.1	38.8	29.9	7.2	37.1
Croatia	1,175	1,910	38.4	41.0	18.6	2.0	20.6
Cyprus	138	360	30.8	66.4	2.8	0.0	2.8
Czech Republic	2,630	7,013	11.6	35.0	52.7	0.7	53.4
Denmark	468	480	61.5	29.8	7.3	1.4	8.7
Estonia	2,249	2,169	45.9	46.5	6.6	1.0	7.6
Finland	15,006	8,593	54.6	33.9	10.5	1.0	11.5
France	13,100	10,355	40.1	38.0	20.3	1.6	21.9
Germany	10,264	13,534	35.1	43.5	20.0	1.4	21.4
Greece⁽⁴⁾	2,512	1,768	42.1	37.0	16.6	4.3	20.9
Hungary	1,804	26,921	38.1	40.7	16.0	5.2	21.2
Ireland	399	424	43.9	35.4	16.0	4.7	20.7
Italy	7,699	7,165	20.3	42.4	33.4	3.9	37.3
Latvia	2,902	8,682	19.8	66.4	12.0	1.8	13.8
Liechtenstein	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—
Lithuania	1,858	5,162	16.4	70.8	9.6	3.2	12.8
Luxembourg	84	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—
Rep. Of Moldova	318	11,489	25.2	32.3	32.6	9.9	42.5
The Netherlands	210	231	57.1	21.2	20.4	1.3	21.7
Norway	12,000	7,421	35.0	39.5	22.0	3.5	25.5
Poland	6,868	24,580	8.8	58.5	30.7	2.0	32.7
Portugal	3,233	4,350	47.8	42.6	8.9	0.7	9.6
Romania	6,244	104,366	62.7	23.8	12.0	1.5	13.5
Russian Federation⁽⁶⁾	6,315	4,144	37.9	51.2	10.2	0.7	10.9
Serbia/Montenegro⁽⁷⁾	—	1,104	80.8	15.3	3.7	0.2	3.9
Slovak Republic	1,961	4,207	17.3	57.9	23.3	1.5	24.8
Slovenia	1,099	936	32.3	39.6	24.2	3.9	28.1
Spain	11,588	14,880	24.2	59.4	13.2	3.2	16.4
Sweden	20,600	16,671	49.2	35.0	13.4	2.4	15.8
Switzerland	1,186	1,064	23.4	58.0	11.7	6.9	18.6
Turkey	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—	⁽⁵⁾—
Ukraine	1,285	1,204	8.9	63.4	23.8	3.9	27.7
United Kingdom	2,156	8,532	27.3	45.4	25.7	1.6	27.3

Waste

Mr. Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on projects her Department supports which aim to produce road fuel from waste material. [162255]

Mr. Morley: The Department does not support financially any projects which aim to produce road fuel from waste material.

Mr. Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the effect of new legislation on current methods of disposing of farm waste plastics. [162256]

Mr. Morley: Plastic packaging waste from farms is already subject to the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) which encourage the reuse of packaging where possible and require businesses to recover and recycle packaging waste to target levels.

Waste from premises used for agriculture is currently excluded from national waste management controls by section 75(7)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Draft regulations and an associated consultation document are being drafted for publication later in the spring and the consultation will include proposals for a producer responsibility scheme for increasing the collection and recycling of non-packaging agricultural waste plastic.

Currently the majority of agricultural waste plastic is disposed of by burial in un-licensed "farm tips" or by unregulated open burning with consequential risks to the environment and human health. The proposed regulations will prohibit the on-farm disposal of agricultural waste without a waste management licence or a registered licence exemption. Waste agricultural plastic will have to be disposed of or recovered in appropriately licensed or registered sites in line with other sectors of industry.

TRANSPORT

Airport Capacity (South-East)

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether comprehensive simulation of the airspace management implications of possible runway development options for the south east of England was undertaken prior to the publication of the Aviation

23 Apr 2004 : Column 680W

White Paper on 16 December 2003; and what plans (a) National Air Traffic Services and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority have to undertake such a simulation. [166544]

Mr. Darling: Pursuant to my answer of 19 April 2004, Official Report, column 307W, I referred to the level of airspace modelling work that the Department commissioned CAA-DAP and NATS to carry out as part of the SERAS Study in advance of the White Paper. The primary objective of this work was to simulate several airport development scenarios to assess whether the London airspace system could accommodate runway capacities of the order envisaged by the development options.

However, now that the White Paper has been published, it is necessary to move from simulations to develop a comprehensive redesign of London's airspace. Paragraph 12.26 of the White Paper confirms that the Government looks to CAA to make early progress in bringing forward a structured programme for this work. The White Paper also makes it clear that CAA will need to involve NATS in working up its detailed proposals.

Next Section

Index

Home Page