Search Results

1-10 of 10 results for subject:Climate

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Dept for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the average temperature in England was in (a) August 1993 and (b) August 2003. - Including figures.

Asked by

Bill Wiggin (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 October 2003

Reference

131067; 411 c295W;411 c299W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Statement on if he will publish the Environment Agency's report on the serious flooding in autumn and winter 2000; and if he will make a statement. - Including ref to today publishing this report, copies to be placed in Library, copies of the regional reports will be placed in Library...

Asked by

John Grogan (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

19 March 2001

For answer on

20 March 2001

Answered on

20 March 2001

Mr. Grogan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the Environment Agency's report on the serious flooding in autumn and winter 2000; and if he will make a statement. [154898] Mr. Morley: I am today publishing this report, copies of which are being placed in the House Libraries. Copies of the regional reports will be placed in the Libraries by 30 March. I welcome publication of this report which I commissioned the Environment Agency to produce, in partnership with the other bodies responsible for responding to the flooding, particularly local authorities and the emergency services. The report shows that since last October we have seen the worst flooding for half a century, following the wettest autumn on record. Thankfully no loss of life was directly associated with the floods, though 10,000 properties suffered flooding--some repeatedly--and I again extend the Government's sympathies to all those who were affected. I endorse the key finding that the Agency, and those responsible for the emergency response, performed well. I am particularly pleased to note that the seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response, for which I called after the Easter 1998 floods, was delivered in most if not all areas. I am also pleased to note that in a number of localities the emergency response arrangements benefited from exercises conducted last summer between the Environment Agency, local authorities and the emergency services. The new flood warning codes, introduced by the Agency within weeks of the floods, also worked well. I want to thank the Agency, and all the other organisations and individuals involved, for their efforts in response to the flooding. This involved many hours of long, hard work, rapid decisions which needed to be made, and also individual acts of bravery, for which the country must express its gratitude. The effects of the flooding would almost certainly have been much worse were it not for their efforts. Nevertheless, the report identifies some further lessons to be learned, the key ones being: The flood warning arrangements worked well but there are some detailed lessons for further improvement. I have asked the Agency to provide me with their proposals for implementing changes by September 2001. Also, the report notes some deficiencies in the weather forecasts received by the Agency. A review will be taken forward by the Environment Agency in conjunction with the Met Office, to report by September 2001. There is a need for the current Home Office review of local authority emergency planning arrangements to take account of the lessons learned from the floods. There remains some confusion in the minds of the public about responsibility for measures to prevent flooding, and for responding to it. The key to sound action is planning, partnership and provision of information. Through the Ministry's High Level Targets, operating authorities are required to provide policy statement which will indicate flood risk locally and how it will be managed, and to describe local partnerships. Such statements are due to be completed soon. These statements will provide information on "assumed" responsibility which will provide a useful basis for determining if further action on attribution is necessary in specific instances and developing a sound local partnership. Provision of a "one stop shop" may then be possible by local agreement. We have a High Level Target in place for the Environment Agency to organise a programme of local and regional emergency exercises and should also conduct a national emergency exercise during the course of 2001. While local and regional exercises should continue, I have accepted the Agency's recommendation that it is unnecessary to conduct a national exercise this year. I shall consider with the Agency the timetable for a future national exercise. We need to determine the appropriate level of investment in flood and coastal defence. Substantial increases were made in the Comprehensive Spending Review and the 2000 Spending Review. An additional £51 million was announced in November, and we have also put together an £11.6 million package to fund the exceptional costs of the Environment Agency in responding to the flooding and in undertaking emergency repairs. However, I recognise that we need to be ready to consider whether further expenditure may be justified. We have already instituted additional research to identify in broad terms what future investment may be required so that this can be considered in future spending reviews. Other developments such as strategic catchment studies should assist in the future production of more realistic needs-based expenditure programmes. We have established a series of High Level Targets to ensure Government policy for flood and coastal defence is delivered by the operating authorities and others. One group of targets requires the Environment Agency to establish a database of flood and coastal defences and to record information on their condition, based on inspections undertaken by the operating authorities. The database is an important development, for which MAFF is currently contributing towards the cost; we will consider whether additional funding is needed. It is also necessary to ensure that inspections of defences are completed by the operating authorities accurately and to time. I am asking the Environment Agency to report on this, as part of their report on the inspections and assessment of flood risk required under the High Level Targets. The Environment Agency's report raises questions about the process for making investment decisions. I have asked the Agency to provide me with supporting evidence by September 2001 and I will consider with them, and the other operating authorities, whether changes are required. This issue will be relevant to the review, already under way, of the priority scoring arrangements for consideration of MAFF financial support for flood and coastal defence schemes. Also under way is a review of the current funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence. I shall ensure that relevant recommendations in the report are considered by the Review Steering Group. The Agency has also undertaken to carry forward further reviews and studies which I anticipate receiving with interest. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was right when, on 31 October 2000, Official Report, column 607, he referred to the effects of the earlier violent storm as a "wake up call". We can certainly expect climate change to mean that events of this type will occur more frequently in future. Another inevitable fact is that Governments--past, present and future--cannot prevent all flooding; but where it is sensible and sustainable to do so, we can take further action to reduce the risk. We can also take action to ensure that as a nation we are prepared to deal with the effects of severe weather, including but not limited to flooding, and that our key national infrastructure can withstand these effects. This is a matter on which we are working closely with local authorities and other key players through the Central Local Partnership. In summary, if it had not been for the effective response of the Agency and others, the flooding would have had much more serious effects than it did. There are still lessons to be learned, but we have all come a long way since the flooding three years ago.

Date

20 March 2001

Reference

365 c186-8W; 154898

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, What strategic measures he is taking to allow for agricultural changes induced by climate change. (Failed OPQ)

Asked by

Ian Gibson (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

16 November 2000

Reference

356 c778W; 137146

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, If he will make a statement on the effects of global warming and climate change on British food production. (Failed OPQ). - Includes figure.

Asked by

Jim Cousins (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 April 2000

Reference

348 c267W; 117743

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission. - Inc figures.

Asked by

Tony McNulty (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

8 June 1999

For answer on

9 June 1999

Answered on

9 June 1999

Mr. McNulty: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission. [86331] Mr. Morley: The International Whaling Commission's 51st Annual Meeting was held in Grenada from 24 to 28 May. I attended the meeting, together with officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands, as well as representatives of environmental organisations. At the meeting I re-affirmed the United Kingdom's opposition to whaling. I am pleased to say that efforts by Japan to secure a quota of 50 minke whales, despite the moratorium on commercial whaling, and to weaken the Southern Ocean Sanctuary were defeated by substantial majorities. There was once again strong criticism of Norway's and Japan's continued whaling activities. The Chairman of the IWC, the Commissioner for Ireland, announced that discussions with IWC members on the ideas put forward by Ireland in 1997 were continuing, although he had no real progress to report. The Irish proposals would involve a ban on all whaling, including scientific whaling, outside coastal waters, with the possibility that countries might authorise whaling under IWC rules within their own coastal waters for domestic consumption. The proposals also envisage a ban on international trade in whale products. In the ensuing debate I made it clear that the UK's ultimate aim remained a permanent, worldwide moratorium on all whaling other than aboriginal subsistence whaling. However, we recognised that this was not something that was likely to be achieved overnight, or that could be imposed on members of the IWC against their will. We were, therefore, prepared to consider ideas for reaching interim solutions on the way to our ultimate destination. But any arrangements of this kind would have to deliver very real benefits to whale conservation. In this context, we continued to have reservations about some aspects of the Irish proposals, in particular the possibility of renewed coastal whaling. I noted that it seemed, in any case, unlikely that the Irish proposals represented a realistic way forward, given the opposition by Japan to ending scientific whaling. In these circumstances it was important to consider other ways in which the IWC could move forward. In the UK's view these included: the creation of new regional sanctuaries; changing the emphasis of the IWC's scientific committee away from the management of whale stocks in the context of whaling towards a much broader exploration of whale conservation issues; continuing the IWC's efforts to assess fully the impact of environment change for cetaceans; greater involvement of the IWC in issues relating to small cetaceans; encouraging whalewatching as a benign, potentially very profitable and sustainable way of exploiting a natural resource; continued involvement of the IWC in welfare issues, including the encouragement of more efficient and humane killing methods, particularly in aboriginal subsistence whaling. I also reaffirmed that in the UK's view the IWC has an essential role to play as the only international body with worldwide responsibility for the conservation of whales and that we would continue to participate actively, and constructively, in its deliberations. Australia and New Zealand reported that consultations were continuing on the idea of a South Pacific Sanctuary, but that they were not yet in a position to put forward a formal proposal; the IWC is likely to revert to this topic next year. The meeting confirmed the central role that environmental concerns now play in the IWC's work. An impressive presentation by the US Commissioner demonstrated the scale of the potential threat posed to cetaceans by climate change and pollution. I emphasised that, in the light of our increasing understanding of these threats there was greater concern than in the past about the ability of whale populations to withstand direct exploitation; in our view this was a cogent reason to adopt a precautionary approach to cetacean conservation and management. The IWC agreed to provide core funding, including £100,000 drawn from its reserves, for two substantial programmes of research on the effects of climate change and pollution on cetaceans; it also urged other interested parties to contribute to these programmes. The IWC agreed a further 3-year aboriginal subsistence quota permitting inhabitants of St. Vincent and the Grenadines to take two hump back whales a year. During the meeting the IWC considered whether recent takes under this quota contravened IWC rules, which prohibit the killing of whale calves: it was not possible to reach a firm conclusion on this matter, as the rules in question are not entirely clear. However, the agreement to extend the quota amended the rules to remove any uncertainty, and the IWC also agreed a definition of the term calf for the purposes of this quota. In agreeing the quota the IWC also noted commitments by the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines to ensure that this hunt is properly regulated, to review and improve hunting and killing methods and to provide a more detailed statement of its aboriginal subsistence needs when seeking any further quota. As amended it is now absolutely clear that the taking of a cow and calf is forbidden. The IWC meeting was preceded by a workshop of scientific and veterinary experts which examined methods used to kill whales with a view to improving their humaneness. The UK delegation to the workshop was led by Professor Sir Colin Spedding, a previous chairman of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and an internationally recognised authority on welfare issues. The workshop produced an 11 point action plan to improve the effectiveness and humaneness of whale killing methods, including those used in aboriginal subsistence hunts. This was endorsed by the Commission in a resolution, which went on to encourage member governments to continue to submit relevant information to the IWC and to future workshops and to take steps, including the provision of appropriate technical assistance, to improve the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling. The Dall's porpoise hunt off the coast of Japan is the largest directed take of small cetaceans in the world. Recent information suggests that the level of catch may not be sustainable and the IWC adopted a resolution, put forward by the UK, expressing concern about the sustainability of the hunt, directing the IWC's Scientific Committee to carry out a full review of the affected stocks in 2001 and, in the meantime, inviting the government of Japan to reconsider the quota it sets for Dall's porpoises. A number of other issues were considered. There was a discussion on whalewatching, in which I emphasised the economic benefits of this activity, particularly in the Caribbean, and drew attention to the Guidelines of Whalewatching in the UK issued by the Government. A resolution was adopted drawing attention to the risk posed to consumers of whalemeat (including meat from small cetaceans) by the high levels of contaminants found in some samples, and requesting the IWC's Scientific Committee to monitor contaminant burdens in cetaceans and, where necessary, pass the information on to the World Health Organisation and appropriate national authorities. Other resolutions were agreed requesting the Scientific Committee to develop DNA methods for monitoring the origin of whalemeat as part of a control scheme for any future whaling and drawing attention to the continued threat posed to small populations of highly endangered whales by ship strikes, by-catches, and in a limited number of cases, whaling. Overall, this was a successful meeting for the UK. We achieved all our main objectives, and made progress towards our ultimate goals. My presence at the meeting underlined the importance that the Government attach to their policy of opposing whaling and to the role of the IWC.

Date

9 June 1999

Reference

332 c348-50W; 86331

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which Minister is in overall charge of the UK's strategy for meeting the challenge of climate change and sinkage in coastal areas.

Asked by

Lord Deben (Conservative)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

19 January 1999

Reference

323 c453W; 66045

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission.

Asked by

David Lock (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

1 June 1998

For answer on

2 June 1998

Answered on

2 June 1998

Mr. Lock: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission; and if he will make a statement. [44283] Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the consultative forum on whaling in respect of making permanent the existing moratorium on commercial whaling; [43429] (2) if he will make a statement on the Irish proposals on commercial whaling. [43430] Mr. Hancock: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Commissioner for Ireland's proposal to end the 12 year moratorium on commercial whaling; and what representations he has made on this subject. [43052] Mr. Morley: The International Whaling Commission's 50th annual meeting was held in Oman from 16 to 20 May. The United Kingdom delegation was composed of officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, assisted by officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and by representatives of environmental organisations. At this meeting our delegation emphasised that the UK remains strongly opposed to all whaling, other than some limited subsistence whaling by indigenous people. We made it clear that we would like to see all other forms of whaling, including so-called `scientific' whaling, brought to an end and a permanent, comprehensive international ban on whaling introduced. It is with these objectives in mind that we are participating in consideration of ideas put forward by Ireland at the IWC's last annual meeting in Monaco last October. These ideas are intended to provide the basis for a compromise solution acceptable both to countries opposed to, and those in favour of, whaling. There was only limited further discussion of the Irish proposals in Oman. The UK delegation made it clear once again that while we were prepared to discuss these proposals, and all other possible ways of improving the conservation of whales, we continued to have serious reservations about some aspects of them, in particular those concerning coastal whaling. We and a number of other countries also stressed that further progress on them was unlikely unless the two whaling countries, Norway and Japan, indicated a readiness to end pelagic, and in particular so-called `scientific', whaling and to accept a ban on international trade in whalemeat: this they declined to do. Nevertheless, the Irish Commissioner, who is the current chairman of the IWC, said that the proposals would remain on the table and that he would continue to try to advance them. Throughout the meeting the UK delegation stressed our strong support for the current moratorium on commercial whaling. We opposed a request by Japan for a quota of 50 minke whales, which I am pleased to say was again defeated, and we supported resolutions criticising Norway and Japan's continued whaling activities; although these do not conflict with the letter of the IWC's rules we and many others believe that they are contrary to their spirit and undermine the credibility of the IWC and of the moratorium. In recent years the UK has been arguing that environmental pollution and climate change may pose significant long term threats to whales and other cetaceans, and urging the IWC to devote more effort towards assessing these threats. At this meeting two significant resolutions were adopted. The first confirms that environmental issues are central to the IWC and directs the IWC's scientific committee to continue its work on the development of long term research programmes on the effects of pollution and climate change on cetaceans. The second deals with the financing of these programmes: it records an agreement in principle to find the necessary funds, drawing if need be on the IWC's financial reserves, and to consider establishing a dedicated Environment Research Fund. I very much welcome the increased emphasis that the IWC is now placing on this important area. The UK delegation again expressed our concern about the cruelty involved in killing whales. It was agreed that a workshop comprising scientific and veterinary experts would meet next year, immediately before the next annual meeting, to consider ways of improving the humaneness of whale killing methods. The UK will be playing a full role in the workshop. Small cetaceans continue to be threatened by human activities in many parts of the world. We took the lead in putting forward a resolution which drew attention to the number of beluga whales killed in subsistence hunts in West Greenland and to doubts among scientists that the current level of exploitation may not be sustainable. The IWC Scientific Committee will be examining this issue at its meeting next year. We also drew attention to the numbers of Dall's porpoise killed in directed takes in Japan. Other important issues were discussed at this meeting. We and a number of other delegations expressed concern at evidence presented to the IWC's Scientific Committee suggesting that illicit trade in whalemeat may be taking place, and a resolution was adopted reaffirming the need for close co-operation between the IWC and CITES on trade issues and calling on all IWC members to respect previous resolutions on illegal trade in whalemeat. There was a positive debate on whalewatching. The UK highlighted the continuing expansion of this popular tourist activity and underlined the importance of the IWC's role in preparing guidelines and overseeing development in this area. Finally, Japan's proposal to amend the IWC's rules of procedure to allow secret voting on policy issues was heavily defeated. Overall, I believe that this was a successful meeting for the UK. We achieved the majority of our objectives: in particular the moratorium on commercial whaling has not been weakened and there was further recognition of the increasing importance to the IWC of environmental issues. I will now be working with the environmental organisations and Government departments represented on the Consultative Forum on Whaling to formulate our objectives for the IWC's next annual meeting, which will take place in Grenada in June 1999.

Date

2 June 1998

Reference

313 c199-201W; 44283

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what steps he is taking to protect the coastline from the rising sea levels forecast in his document on climate change. - Inc ref to Review of the Potential Effects of Climate Change in the United Kingdom.

Asked by

Gordon Prentice (Labour)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

4 February 1998

Reference

26488; 305 c680-1W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessment he has made of the likely impact of (a) climate change, (b) ozone depletion, (c) air pollution and (d) industrial fishing on whale populations over the next 10 years. - Inc ref to IWC's Scientific Committee and Standing Working...

Asked by

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 January 1998

Reference

23400; 304 c496W;304 c490W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what representations he has received on the impact of climte change on (a) agricultural production and methods and (b) crop diseases and pest control. - Inc figs.

Asked by

Lord Stunell (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

18 November 1997

Reference

15590; 301 c117W

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher