Leading article: A worthy environmental vision
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The raison d'etre of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee is to challenge government expenditure. So the committee is perfectly entitled to cast a beady eye over the growing numbers of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The scheme, it argues, needs a review to identify those sites which no longer need protection.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest is the kind of name that only a technocrat could love. It hardly generates feelings of warmth and protection from the ordinary public. But the scheme does represent one of the more far-sighted visions of public good to have emerged from post-war politics.
The idea was to designate certain areas as having special importance for their wildlife. But since the inception of the scheme 60 years ago, the number of SSSI sites in England has increased to 4,000, and spending on them has more than doubled from £35.6m in 2001 to £85.4m today.
Money well spent? Not in every case, as the committee reports; there are sites which have lost their lustre or their relevance. The Government is also struggling to keep all the sites in a "favourable condition".
It cannot be said, either, that the designation of a site necessarily protects it from development. We know from the experience of Twyford Down that all the protections in the world cannot save the "special" from being overridden by the "general" need. But that is, to some extent, the point of SSSIs. They are not absolute protections. They may seem less formidable than the Special Conservation and Protection Centres now defined under European Union regulations. But they do put down a marker which developers must challenge and landowners can call in aid.
Let the system be rationalised by all means. And let those SSSIs which no longer merit the protection be stripped of their designation. But to dismantle the system entirely would be a mistake. And for heaven's sake, can't we come up with a catchier and more inspiring name? National Preserves, perhaps, or Saved for the Future?
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments