Calls to review protected sites

Areas officially designated as England's greatest wildlife or geological sites may no longer be worthy of the title, the Government's spending watchdog has warned.

The influential Public Accounts Committee found that a Government agency was unable to demonstrate that all Sites of Special Scientific Interests (SSSIs) still demonstrated features of special importance.

Many of the 4,000 SSSI sites in England were first designated more than 60 years ago. Over half of these sites, by area, were said to be internationally important for their wildlife.
SSSIs are afforded legal protection - through restrictions on activities and development - which has helped conserve habitats and wildlife in England that would otherwise be at risk of extinction.

But Edward Leigh, Tory MP and PAC chairman, said there was scope for Natural England, an agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), to identify new sites and declassify existing ones.

In a new committee report titled Defra: Natural England's Role In Improving SSSIs, he warned: "The changing nature of biodiversity means sites may lose the special feature or features for which they were first designated, or may acquire new features worthy of conservation.

"New locations may provide a better opportunity for meeting specific conservation objectives. To make sure that public investment in SSSIs is directed to those sites and locations which offer the best value for money in conservation and cost terms, Natural England should establish a systematic approach to reviewing the designation of existing sites and to identifying and designating new sites."

The cross-party committee of MPs suggested that the current approach of designating individual locations may not be the most appropriate, as biodiversity responded to increasing climate and environmental pressures. Instead, "natural corridors" could be used to allow species to move between habitats.

The Government expects to meet its target to bring 95% of SSSI land area into a "favourable" or "recovering" condition by December 2010. However, it could be many years before some sites reach a 'favourable' condition and the committee urged Natural England to do more to monitor their progress.

Mr Leigh said: "It hardly inspires confidence that Natural England's performance in managing sites is based on out of date information and incomplete records. There are inconsistencies between sites in the information recorded. And, at June last year, the condition of a quarter of all sites had not been checked for a full six years."

http://environment.uk.msn.com/news/headlines/article.aspx?cp-documentid=148397299