Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Thank you for your letter of 13 January about
the supplementary evidence that Elliot Morley agreed to provide
following his oral evidence to the Committee's inquiry into the
marine environment on 7 January. I am sorry for the long delay
in responding.
Mr Jack asked how many times ENV Committee met
in 2003 and which issues were discussed (questions 289 and 290).
I am unable to disclose this as, under the Code of Practice on
Access to Information, Cabinet Committee business is confidential.
However, as Mr Morley noted in his evidence, ENV Committee only
meets when there is an issue to be discussed. The bulk of its
work is taken forward through correspondence. This provides an
effective means of considering sustainable development and the
Government's environmental policy and in a joined-up way. In addition
there is a number of fora, such as the Review of Marine Nature
Conservation (mentioned below), which involve Government departments
working together on specific or broad marine issues, often directly
involving outside interests as well. These mechanisms help to
deliver joined-up working.
Mr Drew asked for additional information about
the relationship between the Review of Marine Nature Conservation
and the Review of Development in Marine and Coastal Waters and
how these Reviews are being taken forward in parallel (question
317). The Review of Marine Nature Conservation was established
in 1999 in recognition of the fact that more needs to be done
to protect the marine environment. It is testing ways of integrating
nature conservation into key marine sectors. This includes an
examination of the potential of the current regulatory regime
to deliver effective marine nature conservation.
The Review of Development in Marine and Coastal
Waters was established in 2002 to identify opportunities for simplifying
the current complex marine and development control regime, consistent
with the principles of better regulation and sustainable development.
It is specifically focusing on the current institutional arrangements
for granting consents. Both Reviews are being taken forward in
parallel as key elements of the Government's Marine Stewardship
initiative. Officials working on both Reviews work closely together
to ensure that both reviews do not consider nature conservation
objectives and current institutional arrangements for granting
marine consents in isolation. Both Reviews are due to conclude
in the Spring.
Mr Jack asked about "before and after"
assessment of marine policy and the production of benchmarks as
part of the Irish Sea Pilot project to asses progress (question
334). The scope of the Irish Sea pilot project did not include
the establishment of benchmarks to measure the condition of the
marine environment although much valuable data has been collected
on the current landscapes and condition of the Irish Sea.
The UK is working through OSPAR to develop a
suite of ecological quality objectives to measure the state of
the marine environment and assess whether its condition is improving
or deteriorating. Ten ecological quality objectives are being
developed through OSPAR. The UK is leading on four of these, namely
seal population trends in the North Sea; utilisation of seal breeding
sites in the North Sea; local sandeel availability to black-legged
kittiwakes and the bycatch of harbour porpoise.
In addition, the UK's National Marine Monitoring
Programme is monitoring longer-term trends in the marine environment.
Defra is also developing its monitoring programme to produce integrated
assessments of the marine environment using a framework of environmental
indicators. The first assessment will form the State of the
Seas report that Defra will publish at the end of the year.
Mr Jack and Mr Lazarowicz asked about the delay
in designating Marine Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRAs),
the resources available to take this work forward and the relationship
between MEHRAS and Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (questions
352 and 353). Assembling the data and developing a rigorous and
robust methodology for identifying MEHRAs has taken a good deal
longer than the Government would have wished. Nonetheless, the
Government believes that it is important to get the designation
of MEHRAs right and to consult stakeholders as the methodology
was developed. This has inevitably taken time.
Further, a part of the delay has been the result
of resources being diverted to other high profile issues including
implementation of the Port Waste Reception Facilities Directive,
follow-up to the sinking of the Prestige, the development
of the Western Europe Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) and,
most recently, issues associated with the towing of the "ghost
ships" across the Atlantic to Hartlepool for dismantling.
However, the Department for Transport hopes to be in a position
to announce the MEHRAs and set out its proposals for associated
protective measures in March.
The UK played a lead role, at the meeting of
the International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection
Committee in July 2003, in securing agreement in principle to
the designation of the Western European PSSA. The Western European
PSSA covers a very large area and applies only a single, very
broad protective measure—ie a reporting requirement for
oil tankers carrying heavy grades of oil. Conversely MEHRAs are
highly localised and each can be accompanied by tightly focused,
targeted measures of specific applicability to that particular
MEHRA and its local circumstances. Consequently the Western European
PSSA is in no way a substitute for MEHRAs.
Ms Ruddock and Mr Jack also asked about maintenance
dredging and the Habitats Directive and the whether we have checked
the interpretation of other Member States in the Directive's application
(question 368). Defra has made informal enquiries, and are awaiting
advice, from a number of Member States on how they apply Article
6 of the Habitats Directive to maintenance dredging activities.
For those Member States who had previously excluded deep-water
channels from candidate Special Areas of Conservation for the
Estuary habitat type, we are also seeking confirmation that they
are amending the boundaries to include such channels. It would
not be right to submit further Estuary sites to the Commission
until we know how other Member States have or will be delineating
their site boundaries.
20 February 2004
| 
