Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

416468

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Porpoises: Conservation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Bridgend
tabling member printed	Mrs Madeleine Moon
uin	8969
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90<sup>th</sup> 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 90<sup>th</sup> 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.</p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. &amp; Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (<em>Phocoena phocoena</em>). <em>Biological Conservation</em> <strong>143</strong>, 267–279.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 8773 8774 8775 question first answered 09/09/2015 10:37:02 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	1490 label Biography information for Mrs Madeleine Moon

416471

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Porpoises: Conservation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Bridgend
tabling member printed	Mrs Madeleine Moon
uin	8773
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90<sup>th</sup> 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 90<sup>th</sup> 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.</p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. &amp; Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (<em>Phocoena phocoena</em>). <em>Biological Conservation</em> <strong>143</strong>, 267–279.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 8774 8775 8969 question first answered 09/09/2015 10:37:02 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	1490 label Biography information for Mrs Madeleine Moon

416472

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Porpoises: Conservation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Bridgend
tabling member printed	Mrs Madeleine Moon
uin	8774
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90<sup>th</sup> 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 90<sup>th</sup> 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.</p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. &amp; Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (<em>Phocoena phocoena</em>). <em>Biological Conservation</em> <strong>143</strong>, 267–279.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 8773 8775 8969 question first answered 09/09/2015 10:37:02 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	1490 label Biography information for Mrs Madeleine Moon

416473

registered interest
date	04/09/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	Porpoises: Conservation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	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.
tabling member constituency	Bridgend
tabling member printed	Mrs Madeleine Moon
uin	8775
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/09/2015 answer text <p>Predicted porpoise density at or above the 90<sup>th</sup> 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 90<sup>th</sup> 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>The designation of SACs is a devolved responsibility, and decisions with regards to the Swansea Bay area are for the Welsh Government.</p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>[i] Embling, C. B., Gilibrand, P. A., Gordon, J., Shrimpton, J., Stevick, P. T. &amp; Hammond, P. S. 2010. Using habitat models to identify suitable sites for marine protected areas for harbour porpoises (<em>Phocoena phocoena</em>). <em>Biological Conservation</em> <strong>143</strong>, 267–279.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice grouped question UIN 8773 8774 8969 question first answered 09/09/2015 10:37:02 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	1490 label Biography information for Mrs Madeleine Moon