STATEOF
NATURE

2023
Chris O’Reilly (rspb-images.com)

1

PARTNERSHIP

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

SUMMARY
The UK, like most other countries worldwide, has experienced asignificant loss of biodiversity. The trends in nature presented
here cover, at most, 50 years, but these follow on from majorchanges to the UK’s nature over previous centuries. As a result,the UK is now one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth.
The main causes of these declines areclear, as are many ways in which we
can reduce impacts and help struggling
species. The evidence from the last
50 years shows that on land and in
freshwater, significant and ongoingchanges in the way we manage our land
for agriculture, and the effects of climatechange, are having the biggest impacts
on our wildlife. At sea, and around ourcoasts, the main pressures on nature areunsustainable fishing, climate change andmarine development.

nature. Yet, despite progress in ecosystem
restoration, conserving species, andmoving towards nature-friendly landand sea use, the UK’s nature and wider
environment continues, overall, to decline
and degrade. The UK has set ambitious
targets to address nature loss throughthe Global Biodiversity Framework, andalthough our knowledge of how to do
this is excellent, the size of the response
and investment remains far from what isneeded given the scale and pace ofthe crisis.

More broadly there has been growing
recognition of the value of nature,including its role in tackling climatechange, and the need for its conservation
among the public and policymakers alike.

We have never had a better
understanding of the State of
Nature and what is needed
to fix it.

With each report our monitoring ofchange improves and we have never had
a better understanding of the state of#STATEOFNATURE

Capercaillie, Dave Braddock (rspb-images.com)

2

3

Summary

Terrestrial andfreshwater

19%
The abundanceof 753 terrestrial
and freshwater species
has on average fallen
by 19% across theUK since 1970.
Within this average figure,
290 species have declined
in abundance (38%)
and 205 species haveincreased (27%).

13%
The UK distributionsof 4,979 invertebrate
species have on
average decreased by
13% since 1970.
Stronger declines wereseen in some insectgroups which provide key
ecosystem functions suchas pollination (average
18% decrease in species’
distributions) and pest

4

Key findings

control (34% decrease).
By contrast, insect groups
providing freshwater
nutrient cycling initiallydeclined before recovering
to above the 1970 value(average 64% increase in
species’ distributions).

54%
Since 1970, thedistributions of 54%
of flowering plant
species and 59% ofbryophytes (mosses
and liverworts) havedecreased acrossGreat Britain.

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

2% (151 species) are extinct
in Great Britain and afurther 16% (almost 1,500
species) are now threatenedwith extinction here. In
Northern Ireland, 281 (12%)
of 2,508 species assessed arethreatened with extinction
from the island of Ireland.

MarineBy comparison, only 15%
and 26% of flowering
plants and bryophytes,
respectively, haveincreased. In Northern
Ireland, since 1970, 42%of flowering plant species
and 62% of bryophytes
have decreased in
distribution, compared to
43% and 34%, respectively,that have increased.

The abundance of 13
species of seabird has
fallen by an average of
24% since 1986.

Turtle dove, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.
com); Forester moth, Mike Read (rspbimages.com); Heath Spotted-Orchid,
Andy Hay (rspb-images.com); Ladybird
Spider, Ian Hughes (rspb-images.com);
Kittiwake, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com);
Grey Seal, Ben Hall (rspb-images.com);
Atlantic Yellow Nosed Albatross,
Steffen Oppel (rspb-images.com)

The situation is worse
in Scotland, where theabundance of 11 seabird
species has fallen by anaverage of 49% since 1986.
These results pre-date thepotentially major impactof the ongoing outbreak ofHighly Pathogenic Avian
Influenza.

24%

Appendices

are in decline in parts ofnorth-east Scotland andsouth-east England, but
are stable or increasing inother regions.

16%
10,008 species wereassessed using Red List
criteria.

UKOTs and CDs

UKOT and CDs
Varied picture for othermarine life.
We know less aboutchanges in species’
abundance anddistribution in UK seas.
Well-monitored species ofdemersal fish (those living
on or near the seafloor, 105
species) showed an averageincrease in abundance
during the 1990s andearly 2000s but have sincedeclined. Whales anddolphins (three species)
have shown little change
in average abundance
since the early 1990s.
Grey Seal abundance has
increased as they recoverfrom historical huntingpressure. Harbour Seals

UK Overseas Territories
and Crown
Dependencies.
94% of the species uniqueto the UK and its territories
are found on the Overseas
Territories. Across theOverseas Territories andCrown Dependencies, 11%of 6,557 species assessed
are threatened with global
extinction.

What do ourheadlines mean?
This report focuses on three measuresof biodiversity change: abundance(the number of individuals), distribution(the proportion of sites occupied) andextinction risk. These measures havebeen assessed for hundreds and in somecases thousands of species native to theUK, as the available data allow.

Black Guillemot,
Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

Our results show:•	The number of species that haveincreased or decreased in abundanceor distribution over time•	
The average change in abundance or
distribution across species over time•	The proportion of species at risk ofbeing lost from the country.
Here we present UK findings in mostcases. Where UK information is notavailable, we present results forGreat Britain and Northern Ireland
separately.

5

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

RESPONDING TO
THE CRISISIMPROVING SPECIES STATUS:
There is good evidence that conservation can be effective for individual species when it
can be applied to a large proportion of the population, and targeted conservation action
has set some species on the path to recovery. Halting and reversing biodiversity decline
is vital, but it is only the first step towards a healthy environment with resilient species
populations, thriving habitats and functioning ecosystems.

targeted conservation action has set somespecies on the path to recovery”

INCREASING NATURE-FRIENDLY FARMING,FORESTRY AND FISHERIES:In the UK a fifth of farmland is in agri-environment schemes, but only a part of this could
be considered as nature-friendly farming. 44% of woodland is certified as sustainably
managed and half of marine fish stocks are sustainably harvested. All three measures
have improved over the past 20 years, but there is a long way to go. Sustainable
management is a positive step but does not necessarily mean the same as well-managed
for nature. At a local level, many species benefit from nature-friendly farming, but the
impact of different schemes on species populations has been variable. The best available
information suggests that nature-friendly farming needs to be implemented at a muchwider scale to halt and reverse the decline in farmland nature. The increased proportionof sustainably harvested fish stocks appears to be having a positive impact, with theproportion of large fish in landings, an indication of population health, increasing since
2002.

nature-friendly farming needs to be implemented“
at a much wider scale to halt and reverse the decline
in farmland nature”

6

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

EXPANDING AND MANAGING PROTECTED AREAS:

The UK and many of the UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies
are party to a new set of international biodiversity targets under theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD): the Global Biodiversity
Framework. To support the delivery of these, each UK country has
committed to developing and implementing national biodiversity
strategies. In many cases, countries have developed (or are committed todeveloping) legally binding targets to restore nature. In this report, wehave grouped the CBD targets into the five broad areas discussed below.

“

Conservation response

11% of UK land is in protected areas (areas subject to a legal nature conservation
designation). However, within this only 44% of the measured attributes of terrestrial
and freshwater Areas or Sites of Special Scientific Interest are in favourable condition.
In protected areas on land, there is some evidence that target species or species ofconservation concern have more positive trends than outside them. Although 38%
of UK waters are designated as protected areas, we lack a comprehensive conditionassessment and management is not yet fully implemented at most sites. Work is
ongoing to designate marine protected areas and implement fisheries management
within them. This will contribute towards the 2030 target of 30% of land and sea undereffectively managed protected areas or other areas well-managed for nature.

“

Only 11% of UK land is in protected areas, and not all ofthese are well-managed for nature”

INCREASING ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION:
Restoration is taking place across a wide range of ecosystems, from peatlands to urban
forests to seagrass beds, with more than 5,000 hectares (ha) of degraded peatland being
restored each year. Despite this, only 14% of priority habitats, 7% of woodland and 25%of peatlands are assessed to be in good condition. Large areas of the UK seafloor do
not meet Good Environmental Status because of habitat disturbance from fishing.
Restoration and creation of carbon-rich habitats have clear co-benefits for climatechange mitigation and adaptation, as well as biodiversity, but realising these will requirea step-change in the rate and scale of restoration.

“

Only 25% of peatlands are in good condition”

CO-ORDINATING OUR RESPONSE:
Action to restore nature is best co-ordinated with action to mitigate and adapt to theimpacts of climate change because land-use scenarios suggest that wildlife is likely tobenefit from maximising nature-based solutions (for example, native woodland creationand peatland restoration) in order to achieve net-zero in the land sector. However, this willneed to be achieved whilst meeting people’s needs for food, energy and access to nature.
Access to nature supports human health and well-being but there is inequality, with people
in poorer socio-economic settings having less access to wildlife-rich natural spaces.

“

Access to nature supports human health and well-being”

The power of volunteers
It is through the collective efforts of thousands of skilled people, most of whom arevolunteers, that we can report on the state of nature. Without their enthusiasm andcommitment, we could not understand the pressures on nature, or whether ourefforts to address these pressures through conservation action have been effective.
7

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesGreen-veined white Butterfly, Paul Turner (rspb-images.com)

The UK’s peatlands are a prime example.
They are an enormous carbon store,
but three-quarters are damaged ordegraded, releasing the equivalent of 5%
of UK greenhouse emissions each year4.
Restoring peatlands and other systems toprotect their existing carbon stores will
improve our resilience to current climatechange, can help mitigate future change
and will boost nature.
Protecting and restoring healthy,functioning natural systems is essential,
not only for nature’s sake, but for people
as well3. The good news is that there are
decades of successful conservation practiceto draw upon, and for many habitats andspecies there is detailed evidence of what
actions work72. Research suggests thaturgent action can reverse some of thebiodiversity loss and damage of recent
decades5.

THE CASE FOR NATURE
Nature needs space to live and flourish, but around the globe we humans
have decreased and diminished those spaces. This is especially the casein the UK. There are substantial negative consequences of living in anature-depleted country. These include impacts on human health, anddirect costs associated with adaptation to lost and damaged ecosystemservices. For example, pollinating insects are worth millions of pounds toUK agriculture, and their population declines threaten food production1.
Recent years have seen severe flooding in the UK arising fromdevelopment in areas prone to flooding and climate change. There areenormous costs both of allowing continued degradation and repairingdamage2, so it is far more cost-effective to avoid causing damage in thefirst place. Where it has already occurred, restoring nature can cost lessin the long-term than bearing the costs of continued degradation3.
8

If we are to halt and reverse biodiversity
decline we need not only to increase
our efforts towards conservation andrestoration, but also to tackle the driversof biodiversity loss6, especially in relation
to our food system5. That means making
our food production more sustainable
and nature-friendly and adjusting ourconsumption to reduce demand for
products that drive loss of nature.

Contents
Summary3

Key findings

10

Historical change

30

Conservation
response

36

UK Countries

108

UK Overseas
Territories
and Crown
Dependencies

166

Appendices180

All of society needs to be involved in efforts
to halt biodiversity loss. Encouragingly,
as the recently launched People’s Plan for
Nature shows7, many people in the UK
are deeply committed to protecting andrestoring nature.

Pollinating insects
are worth millionsof pounds to UK
agriculture

PARTNERSHIP

2023
9

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

We present an objective assessment of the state of nature in the
UK. The metrics show how species status has changed over time
and the variation in trends among species. We focus on measuringchange over two periods: the medium term, up to 50 years; andshort-term trends, the last 10 years. The changes in the past 50
years follow extensive preceding changes to our land and seascapes(see Historical Change). The metrics we present are not directlycomparable to previous State of Nature reports, as we report acrossa wider range of species and some methods have been updated.

KEY FINDINGSIn the UK we have a wealth of data on
which to assess the state of nature.
This primarily comes from volunteerbased species monitoring and recording
schemes. Our species’ status metrics use
two data types: Abundance data fromstructured monitoring schemes in theUK, including those that monitor birds,
mammals, butterflies, moths and marine
fish. Our abundance metrics report the
average change in abundance acrossspecies. Distribution data from biologicalrecording datasets can now be used togenerate trends for thousands of species
across a wide variety of taxonomic groups(including vascular plants, lichens,
bryophytes and a number of invertebrategroups). These trends measure the change
in the proportion of occupied sites, so
our metrics report the average change
in distribution for these species. Unlessotherwise stated, figures were produced forthis report.
For many species, distribution is the mostappropriate way to measure status: for
instance, it would be impractical to countthe number of individual moss plants but
looking at changes in where they can befound tells us a lot about both the mosses
themselves and the pressures on theirhabitats. Change in distribution does nottell us whether a species’ range is shifting.
For example a species may be found in asimilar proportion of sites but those sites
are found farther north in the country
than previously. Our metrics focus on
species native to the UK as well as those
introduced at least 500 years ago.
Many of the same monitoring andrecording datasets used in this report
also underpin official UK and UK country
biodiversity indicators, which are
published annually for groups including
birds, butterflies and mammals, as well asother measures of biodiversity status. We
feature some of these indicators in State of
Nature 2023.
Change in abundance and change indistribution are different measures ofthe state of nature. Changes in these two
measures are often related, althoughchanges in abundance are likely to
be detected sooner and be of greater
magnitude than changes in distribution.
Additionally, in some cases, abundanceand distribution trends move in opposite
directions.
The term ‘wildlife’ is used throughout
this report to include all living organisms
in their many forms, from mammals
to lichens, plants to birds, fungi toinvertebrates. For a fuller description of
the methods used please see theMethods section.

Atlantic Puffin, Drew Buckley (rspb-images.com)

1011

Historical change•	Over the long term, 290 species (38%) had
strong or moderate decreases and 205(27%) had strong or moderate increases;
261 (35%) showed little change (Figure 1).
•	Over the short term, 282 species (38%)
had strong or moderate decreases while
273 species (37%) had strong or moderateincreases.

Within multispecies indicators like these,
there is substantial variation amongindividual species trends.

19702020

United Kingdom (753 species)

20102020

125

75

50

50

25
Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator

A)
125
125
100
100

2000

2010

2020

Little change
Moderate decrease
Strong decreasei

See page
184 to findout how tointerpret thisreportIndex
Index(1976(1976==100)
100)

1990

Moths
Moths
(493
(493
species)
species)

75
75
50
50
25
25
0
0

150
150
100
100
50
50
0
0

Index
Index
Index
(1970
(1970
(1970
= 100)= 100)= 100)

1980 This
1990 increase
2000 2010was
2020
127% 1970
to 164%).
drivenby150
the rapid recovery of some species
Generalist
150 very low numbers and the arrival
fromofbutterflies
Generalist
150(25
species)colonising
species. Note that speciesinbutterflies
100
Generalist(25
species)butterflies
Specialist
the100rare and colonising group makeup
(25
species)butterflies
Specialist
100
just
0.01% of the total number of individual(26 species)
butterflies
50
Specialist
10(26
species)birds
butterflies
50 in the UK .

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

B)

Moderate increase

Year

12

•	The abundance indicator for common
breeding birds declined by 14% (Figure
2C, UI: -17% to -10%). The UK Wild Bird
Indicator shows that within this group,

Strong increase01980•	The specialist butterflies8 indicator ended
18% below its starting value (Figure 2B,-18%; UI: -39% to +4%), with the majorityof this change in the 1970s. Generalist
butterflies have greater inter-annual
variation but overall have remained stable(Figure 2B, 10%; UI: -14% to +33%).

0

Uncertainty Interval

1970•	The long-term decrease in averageabundance of moths (-31%; UI: -44% to-18%) has not slowed; short-term declines
are 7% (UI: -13% to -2%) (Figure 2A).

Generalist
Generalist
butterflies
butterflies(25 species)(25 species)
Specialist
Specialist
butterflies
butterflies(26 species)(26 species)

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

(26 species)
50
00 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
0 1970C) 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
100 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Common100
breeding birds
Common100(125 species)
breeding
75
Common birds(125
species)75
breeding
birds(125
species)
75
50
50
50
25
25
25
0
0 19700 1970300
D)300 1970
250
300
250
200
250
200
150
200
150
100
150
100
50
100
50
0
50
0 19700 1970100 1970
100 E)
100
75
75
75
50
50
50
25
25
25
0

1980 1990 2000 2010 20201980 1990 2000 2010 20201980 1990 2000 2010 2020Rare orcolonisingRareorbreeding birds
colonisingRareor(38 species)
breedingbirds
colonising(38
species)
breeding birds(38
species)
Winteringwater birds
Wintering(16 species)
water
birds
Wintering(16
species)
water
birds
(16 species)

1980 1990 2000 2010 20201980 1990 2000 2010 20201980 1990 2000 2010 2020Mammals(23
species)
Mammals(23
species)
Mammals(23 species)

Smoothed indicator
Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator
Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothedindicator
Uncertainty Interval
Unsmoothedindicator
Uncertainty Interval

0 1970 1980
Uncertainty
1990Interval
2000 2010 2020
0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

100
Common1002: Change in average species’ abundance
Figureacross terrestrial and freshwater species in the
Commonbreedingbirds
UK by rarity, level of specialism or taxonomic(125group.
breeding
birds
species)
75(125 species)75

70970==100)
100)

25

Percentage of species

75

100

Index (1970 = 100)

100

Figure 1: Change in average
species’ abundance acrossterrestrial and freshwater
species (mammals, butterflies,
moths, landbirds and wetland
birds). The bar chart shows
the percentage of species
within the indicator thathave increased, decreased(moderately or strongly)
or shown little change inabundance (1970- 2020:
753 species, 2010-2020: 743
species).

Composite multispecies indicators can hideother important underlying trends. Here
we present trends in some major species
groups, which all contribute to the headline
abundance indicator.

Index
Index
Index
(1976
(1976
(1976
= 100)= 100)= 100)The UK abundance indicator for 753
terrestrial and freshwater species shows adecline in average abundance of 19% (Figure
1, Uncertainty Interval (UI): -30% to -9%)
between 1970 and 2021. Over the short-term
period (2010 to 2020), the decline was 3%(UI: -8% to +2%). We have no evidence thatthe rate of change in the last decade of theindicator is atypical of the changes seen inprevious decades.

Change in species’ abundanceby group

125
125
100
125
100
Moths
75
100
farmlandbirds have suffered particularly
(493
Moths
75
species)
9
(493
50
.
strong75 declines of on average 58%Moths
species)(493
50
species)
25 or colonising bird species (those50•	Rare
with
25
fewer
0 than 1000 pairs) showed on average
25
0 1970increasea strongin 2000
abundanceover the1980 1990
2010 2020
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
long term to 2020 (Figure 2D, 145%; UI:

Index
Index
Index
(1970
(1970
(1970
= 100)= 100)= 100)To examine this, we have allocated species
into abundance trend categories based on
the magnitude of population change. Ratesof change equivalent to at least a doublingor halving of the population size over 25
years were considered ‘Strong’ increases
or decreases. Rates of change equivalent toat least an increase of a third or a decreaseof a quarter over 25 years were considered‘Moderate’ changes.

Trends in species abundance largely derivefrom key volunteer-based monitoring
schemes such as the Breeding Bird Survey,
UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme, Wetland
Bird Survey, National Bat Monitoring
Programme, Rothamsted Insect Survey andbespoke species surveys.

Appendices

Pressures and responses

Terrestrial and freshwater species
Change in species’ abundance

UKOTs and CDs

Index
Index
Index
(1973/75(1973/75(1973/75= 100)= 100)= 100)

MarineUK countries

Index
Index
Index
(1995
(1995
(1995
= 100)= 100)= 100)

Terrestrial and freshwater species

Conservation response

Index
Index(1970(1970==100)
100)

Key findings

Summary50

13

Key findings

Summary

Historical change

Terrestrial and freshwater species•	Wintering waterbirds showed on averagean increase of 36% (Figure 2D, UI: 26% to47%) between 1975 and 2019. The indicatorrose rapidly in the 20th century but has
since steadily declined. Some species haveshifted their wintering ranges in response
to climate change, resulting in a smaller
proportion of each population winteringin the UK, while others are declining due
to poisoning from lead ammunition11.
•	Mammals show a small long-term decline
in average abundance, of 7% between
1995 and 2021 (Figure 2E, UI: -11% to -3%).
Within this average change some species
like Water Vole and Hazel Dormouse havedeclined dramatically, whereas several
bat species are recovering from severe
historical declines.

Status of UK priority species
One measure of the success of conservation
action is whether populations of priority
species have stabilised or recovered.
Each UK country has a list of species that
125

MarineThe UK Priority Species Indicator12 (Figure 3),part of the official UK Biodiversity Indicators,
shows the average change in species’
abundance for 228 priority species between
1970 and 2021. These species are a sample ofthe 2,890 species in the combined priority
species list for the UK, for which robust
abundance trends are available, and include
birds (103), butterflies (24), mammals (13)and moths (88). Seabirds are the only marine
species included in this indicator. By 2021,
the index had declined to 37% of its base-line
value in 1970. Over this long-term period, 19%of species showed a strong or weak increase
and 58% showed a strong or weak decline. In
the short-term, between 2016 and 2021, theindicator did not change.

19702021

20162021

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Pressures and responses

have been prioritised for reasons such as
rapid population decline. Taking theselists together there are 2,890 species fromall major taxonomic groups that are aconservation priority for one or more of the
UK countries.

Priority species (228 species)

Conservation response

Change in species’ distribution
Distribution change in plants
and lichens•	On average, vascular plant species’
distributions have decreased by 16%(Figure 4A, UI: -18% to -14%) between
1970 and 2019. Within this average, 54%of vascular plant species decreased in
distribution, 15% increased and 31%
showed little change. Species
adapted to low nutrient conditions
and wild plants of arable land haveshown strong declines (see Historical
Change section).

•	Lichens initially declined slightly in
distribution but on average have increased
this century, with the indicator being 15%(Figure 4C, UI: 2% to 27%) higher in 2021
compared to 1980. Within this average, 43%
of lichens decreased in distribution, 48%
increased and 9% showed little change.
In many parts of the UK, lichens werevery badly impacted by historic industrial
pollution13. Reductions in sulphur dioxide
pollution are allowing some species tobegin to recover. However, ongoing highlevels of nitrogenous air pollution meanthat recovery is skewed towards pollutiontolerant species.

•	On average, bryophyte species’
distributions have decreased by 19%(Figure 4B, UI: -22% to -16%) between 1970
and 2019. Within this average, 59% ofbryophytes decreased in distribution, 26%
increased and 15% showed little change.
Some bryophytes have benefited fromreduced sulphur dioxide air pollution, but
this has not been sufficient to stabilise
species’ distributions on average34.

100

100

Index (1970 = 100)

75
50
50
25

Percentage of species

75

25
Smoothed indicator

0

Uncertainty Interval

Strong increase0

Weak increase

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

2010

2020

Little change
Weak decrease
Strong decrease

Figure 3: UK Biodiversity Indicator C4a. Change in the abundance of priority species in the UK, 1970 to 202112.
Source: jncc.gov.uk/ukbi-C4a. The line graph shows trends in the index of relative abundance for 228 priority species.
The blue line with shading shows the smoothed trend with its 95% credible interval. The bar chart shows the percentage of
species within the indicator that have increased, decreased (weakly or strongly) or shown little change in abundance (1970– 2021: 228 species, 2016 – 2021: 215 species).

14

Tree lungwort and green satin lichen, Andy Robinson (rspb-images.com)

15

Key findings

Summary

Terrestrial and freshwater species

125
100
75

Vascular plants (1,419 species)

19702019
19702019

100
75
50
75
50
25
50
25
0
25 1970
0

1980

1990

1970
1980
1990
125
0
Bryophytes(995
species)
B)
1980
1990
125 1970
Bryophytes (995 species)
100
125
100
75

2000

2010

2020

2000

2010

2020

19702019

2020

19702019

2000

2010

100
75
50
75
50
25
50
25
0
25 1970
0

1980

1990

2010

2020

2000

2010

2020

Lichens (1,795 species)
1970
1980
1990

2000

2010

2020

19702019

1980

100
75
50
75
50
25

25 1970
0
0

1970
1970

Smoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

Smoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

1980

1990

2000
2010
YearUncertainty Interval
1990
2000
2010
Year
1990
2000
2010
Year

Smoothed indicator

1980

1980

100
75
100
75
50
75
50
25
50
25
0
25
0

100

100
75
100
75
50
75
50
25
50
25
0
25
Increase019702019

Lichens (1,795 species)

50
25
0

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

2020
2020
2020

Across 4,979 invertebrate species, there wasan average decrease in species’ distributionsof 13% between 1970 and 2020 (Figure 5A,
UI: -17% to -10%). This average change hides
substantial variation among individual
species: 33% of invertebrate species showedstrong or moderate decreases and 25%
showed strong or moderate increases; 42%
showed little change.
To help understand these patterns, insect
species groups were categorised by theecological functions they provide14. Somegroups provide more than one function andso are included in more than one indicator.
•	Pollinating insects (bees, hoverflies andmoths), which play a critical role in foodproduction, show an average decrease in
distribution of 18% (Figure 5B, UI: -21% to-14%) since 1970.

•	The average distribution of species
providing freshwater nutrient cycling(mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies andstoneflies) saw an initial decline followed
by a strong recovery ending 64% (UI:
42% to 87%) higher in 2021 compared
to 1970. This pattern may in part be
related to changes in river water quality15,
but although many measures of waterpollution have improved over the past few
decades, significant water pollution issues
remain, in particular in catchments linked
to intensive agriculture349.
Between 1970 and 2016 the distribution ofsmall mammals (mice, voles and shrews)
decreased on average by -29% (Figure 5C,
UI: -49% to -3%) and those of mid-sized
mammals (eg mustelids and hares) showed asimilar but not significant change of -15% (UI:
-30% to +2%)16.

•	Predators of crop pests (ants, carabid, roveand ladybird beetles, hoverflies, dragonflies
and wasps) showed an average decrease in
distribution of 34% (UI: -39% to -29%).

Percentageof species
Percentageof species
Percentageof species

1990

1970

100

0
19702019

125
100 C)Lichens (1,795 species)
125
100
75

2000

100
75
100
75
50
75
50
25
50
25
0
25
0
0

19702019

Bryophytes (995 species)

Distribution change in someanimal groups

100

Percentageof species
Percentageof species
Percentageof species(1970= 100)
Index(1970= 100)
IndexIndex(1970= 100)

19702019

Vascular plants (1,419 species)
Vascular plants (1,419 species)

UK countries

Pressures and responses

A)

125
100

0
125

(1980
= 100)
Index(1980= 100)
IndexIndex(1980= 100)

MarineConservation response

Percentageof species
Percentageof species
Percentageof species(1970= 100)
Index(1970= 100)
IndexIndex(1970= 100)

125

Historical change

Little change
Increase0
Decrease
Little change
Increase
Decrease
Little change
Decrease

Figure 4: Change in average species’ distribution of A) vascular plants,B) bryophytes and C) lichens in Great Britain. The bar charts show thepercentage of species within each indicator that have increased,
decreased or shown little change in distribution. The vascular plant data
and analysis are taken from the Plant Atlas 202053.

Ferns, Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

16

Caddisfly, RSPB (rspb-images.com)

17

Key findings

Summary

Historical change

Terrestrial and freshwater species

MarineA)

19702020

20102020

Invertebrates (4,979 species)

100

75

75

50

50

25

0

25

Strong increase
Smoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

Moderate increase
Little change0Moderate decrease

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Strong decrease

Year
200

B)

Freshwater
nutrient cycling(274 species)

Index (1970 = 100)

150

Pollination(1,345 species)
Pest control(951 species)

Smoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

0
1970

200

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

C)

150

Index (1970 = 100)

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Pressures and responses

Figure 5: Change in average
species’ distribution for A)
terrestrial and freshwater
invertebrates in the UK.
The bar charts show thepercentage of species
within the indicator thathave increased, decreased(moderately or strongly)
or shown little change indistribution; B) Insect species
grouped by ecological
function (pollination, pest
control and freshwater
nutrient cycling); C)mammals.

Extinction risk
Here we show species organised byInternational Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) Red List category of extinction
risk at a national scale. At the time of writing,no assessments for marine species had been
published other than for seabirds, although
one is underway for marine mammals.
Species assessed as Critically Endangered,Endangered or Vulnerable are classified as
threatened by IUCN and therefore deemed atrisk of extinction in Great Britain.
Since the 2019 State of Nature report, thenumber of taxa assessed using the IUCN
Regional Red List process334 in Great Britain
has increased from 8,431 to 10,008. At present
we cannot assess whether extinction risk ischanging over time because the vast majorityof our species have only a single Red List
assessment.

Of the extant taxa for which sufficient data
are available, 1,497 (16.1%) are classified as
threatened and therefore at risk of extinction
from Great Britain (Figure 6). In addition, 146
species are known and 52 considered likely
to have become extinct from Great Britain
since 1500, and a further five are only foundin captivity. Summarising these results by
the main higher taxonomic groups, 674
plants (21.5%), 202 fungi and lichens (11.4%),
145 vertebrates (39.2%) and 476 invertebrates(11.9%) are classified as being at risk ofextinction from Great Britain (Figure 6).
A separate summary of Irish Red List
assessments (for the whole island of Ireland)
found that 12% of assessed species thatwere found in Northern Ireland were at
risk of extinction, including 144 (9.8%)
plants, 11 (20.4%) vertebrates and 126 (13.9%)
invertebrates (see NI key metrics).

Number ofassessments% Threatened

10,008

16.1%

63

27.7%

Lichens

1,987

11%

Bryophytes

1,074

18.6%

Vascular plants

2,206

22.9%

Molluscs

187

10.2%

Millipedes and centipedes

92

4.8%

Crustaceans*

39

5.3%

Spiders

638

16.2%

Insects*

3,334

11.3%

Freshwater fish

35

24.2%

Amphibians and reptiles

13

30.8%

Birds

293

43.3%

Terrestrial mammals

47

26.2%

100

50

All
Non-lichenised fungi*

Extinct
Criticallyendangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Data
deficientNearthreatened
Least
concern100

Mid-sized mammals(9 species)
Small mammals(7 species)
50

Smoothed indicators

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

2010

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Figure 6: Summary of Red List assessment for Great Britain, showing the proportion ofassessed taxa in each Red List category. *Note that only 17% of insect species have beenassessed, 10% of crustaceans and less than 1% of fungi.

Uncertainty Interval

0

18

100

Percentage of species

Index (1970 = 100)125Conservation response

2020

19

Summary

Key findings

Terrestrial and freshwater species

MarineIn 2010, the UK Marine Strategy Regulations
were established to mandate measures that
achieve or sustain Good Environmental
Status (GES) in the marine environment via
the development of a comprehensive UK
Marine Strategy. This provides a framework
for assessing, monitoring and implementing
measures to achieve the UK’s vision of ’clean,healthy, safe, productive and biologicallydiverse’ ocean and seas.
The last assessment of GES in 2018106 revealed
a mixed picture in the environmental statusof marine mammal, bird and fish populations,

Historical change
MarineConservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Pressures and responses

and in food webs17. GES was not achieved
for seabirds, demersal fish communities andoffshore seabed habitats. While achievement
was uncertain for marine mammals, pelagic
habitats and intertidal habitats. An updated
GES assessment is due in 2024.

Marine fish
The abundance of marine fish and thecomposition of wider food webs havebeen influenced by commercial fishingand climate change in addition to naturalenvironmental changes, water qualitychanges, infrastructure and other humanactivities (eg, dredging, marine noise).
Since 1993, warming sea temperatures haveenabled a large proportion of smaller-bodied
pelagic fish species (eg, Sardine and Sprat)
to increase in abundance18. Fishing pressure
led to declines in a number of larger-bodied
species, such as North Sea Cod19.

Given that GES has not yet been achieved,
existing conservation measures haveclearly had limited success. Further efforts
will be required to ensure that the marine
environment is in good condition, in linewith the UK’s aspirations and commitments.

The abundance indicators (Figure 7) use datafrom a range of trawl surveys for around100 demersal fish species that live on ornear the seafloor (eg, Cod, Haddock, Saithe).
The abundance of demersal fish species inboth the Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea
increased on average in the early years ofthe 21st century but by 2021 had declined
back towards levels found in the early
1990s (Figure 7; Celtic Seas: 14%, UI: 6% to22%; Greater North Sea: -8%, -14% to -1%).
Little is known about the majority of noncommercial fish populations in UK waters,
and trends in commercial stocks should beconsidered against a backdrop of overfishingdating back to at least the 1880s21.

150

150

125

Celtic Seas
(96 species)
125

100

Greater
Celtic Seas
North Sea
(96 species)(91
species)Celtic Seas
(96 species) Greater
North Sea
(91 species)
Greater
North Sea
(91 species)

125
75
100
50
75
25
50

Index (1993 = 100)

Index
(1993 = 100)
Index (1993= 100)

150

100

75

50

25

0
25

Uncertainty Interval

Smoothed indicator

1995

2000 Smoothed
2005indicator
2010
0

Smoothed indicator

0

1995
1995

2000

Uncertainty 2020
Interval
2015

Year

Uncertainty Interval

2000
2005

Year

2005
2010

2010

Year

2015

2015

2020

2020

Ecoregion
Celtic Seas

Greater North Sea

Figure 7: Change in average species’ abundance for
demersal and bathypelagic fish species in the UK Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) areas of the Oslo Paris convention(OSPAR): Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea.
Processing Hake at sea, RSPB (rspb-images.com)

20

21

MarineConservation response

55°N

E

E

5°

10
°

W

5°

0°

W

10
°

Large copepods

°E
10

E
5°

0°

W
5°

10

°W
15

10

5°

5°

10

15

°E

50°N

E

50°N

0°

55°N

W

55°N

°W

60°N

°W

60°N

°W

Dinoflagellates

Small copepods

60°N

60°N

55°N

55°N

Kenstatis-

-

50°N

4
0
−4

°E
10

E
5°

°E
10

E

0°

5°

5°

10

°W
15

10
°E

5°

E

50°N

0°

50°N

W

55°N

5°

55°N

W

60°N

10
°

60°N

W

Meroplankton°W

Holoplankton

Kendalstatistic

0°

W
5°

°W
10

°W
15

°E
10

E
5°

0°

W
5°

°W
10

15

°W

50°N

Figure 9. The change in plankton lifeform
abundance of 6 functional groups between 1960
- 2019. Sea areas are coloured according to theresults of the Kendall trend test which indicates how
consistent the increase or decrease in abundance has
been. Fixed point stations are represented by filled
circles.

E

E

5°

10
°

0°

W
5°

°W

10

°W

50°N

W

E
10
°

50°N

15
°

E

0°

5°

5°

15
°

W

2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
Figure 8: UK Biodiversity Indicator: C5 Seabirds, showing the average change in abundance of 13 species
the indicator and associated 95%
of seabirds23. Source: jncc.gov.uk/ukbi-C5. The blue line with shading shows
50°N
Confidence Interval. The bar chart shows the percentage of species within the indicator that have increased,
decreased (weakly or strongly) or shown little change in abundance.
°W

1995

10

1990

W

1985

Strong decline

0

55°N

°W

W
5°

Weak decline

100

Confidence Interval

60°N

W

Little change

25
Unsmoothed indicator

Weak increase

15
°

25

Strong increase

E

50

15

W
10
°

°W

E
10
°

50
Dinoflagellates

75

60°N

22

15

E

50°N

5°

W
5°

0°

W
10
°

°W
15

Index (1986 = 100)

100

Percentage of species

75

10
°

100

An indicator of phytoplankton biomass
generated using55°N
satellite remote sensing
data (Figure 9) shows increases in someareas over the past 60 years25,26. Changes
in diatoms and dinoflagellates,
two groups
50°N
of phytoplankton underpinning marine
food webs, are associated with shifts introphic pathways and carbon cycling.
Small copepods
Meroplankton
Small copepods, a type of zooplankton
that are important prey for larval fish, haveshown long-term abundance increases in
60°N
some coastal areas
but decreases offshore.
The abundance of planktonic larvae (iemeroplankton), including sea urchinsand crustaceans,55°N
has increased in mostareas and is associated with rising sea
temperatures.
E

55°N

125
50°N

Appendices

DiatomsW

The marine food web is founded ontiny phytoplankton and zooplankton.
Plankton communities respond quickly
to environmental changes, making themHoloplankton
Large copepods
valuable indicators of ecosystem condition,although it can often be difficult to identify
specific underlying
causes of observed
60°N
changes.

E

15020132018

Plankton – the base of the food web

5°198655°N
2018

Seabird indicator (13 species)

UKOTs and CDs

15°

Regular seal surveys are possible when
they haul out onto land to moult or pup(Harbour Seal) or breed (Grey Seal) andregular monitoring has been carried out
for both species around UK coasts sinceat least the 1990s and 1980s
respectively.
Diatoms
Between 2016 and 2019 UK Grey Seal pup
production increased by approximately 1.5%
per year; 60°N
however, these changes were not
60°N

10
°

Since 1994, the Small Cetaceans in European
Atlantic Waters and the North Sea Survey(SCANS) has estimated cetacean abundance24.
Data from the fourth survey in 2022 arenot yet available; however, the 2016 survey
collected data for nine of the 28 cetacean
species which regularly occur in UK waters.
Sufficient data for three of these species(Harbour Porpoise, White-beaked Dolphin
and Minke Whale) are available to calculate
abundance trends in the Greater North Sea.
Populations appeared stable between the
mid-1990s and 2016, but due to the few time
points available for comparison, declines in
Harbour Porpoise and White-beaked Dolphin
could not be ruled out.

E

The last published seabird census covered
1998-2002 and reported over eight million
seabirds breeding in Great Britain and Ireland
annually22. The latest seabird census wascompleted at the end of the 2022 breeding
season. The results of this full survey ofnearly 12,000 known breeding colonies will
be published later in 2023.

experienced uniformly around Britain27.
There have been notable declines in partsof Scotland. Harbour Seals are counted
annually at colonies in England and east
Scotland and every five years in colonies ofnorth and west Scotland. It is estimated that
the UK population has increased since thelate 2000s, and is now close to levels seenprior to a population crash in 2002 causedby the phocine distemper virus. There aresome concerns about local population
declines however, with the 2019 count in
the Southeast England area showing a 25%
population decline compared to the meanof the previous five years. In addition tothis, populations along the east and northcoasts of Scotland and the Northern Isles
are ~40% below the pre-2002 levels.

5°

Marine mammals

0°

Breeding seabirds

The UK breeding seabird indicator, based on
annual monitoring at a subset of sites for 13
species between 1986 and 2019, shows anaverage decline in abundance of 24% (Figure823). In the short term the indicator has shown
little change between 2013 and 2019. Between
1986 and 2018, two species have declined
strongly (Arctic Skua and Kittiwake) whilea further five species have shown a weak
decline. The focus is on updating the seabird
indicator given growing pressures on our
seabirds, especially from the latest outbreakof Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI).
Further monitoring of the effects of HPAI willbe essential to understand the effects on UKseabirds and other wildlife.

UK countries

Pressures and responses

0°

Terrestrial and freshwater species

Historical changeW

Key findings

5°

Summary

23

Key findings

Summary

Historical change
MarineUK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Pressures and responses

Picture credit

Terrestrial and freshwater species

Conservation response

Scallop, Graham Eaton (rspb-images.com)

Marine benthos – life on the seafloor
Life on the seafloor around the UK is highly
diverse, with more than 10,000 species.
It is very challenging to obtain data andinformation about these organisms due
to where they live. However, for the firsttime in the State of Nature report, trends
in distribution between 2005 and 2021
have been modelled for 438 taxa using
citizen science records from the Seasearch
programme28 (Figure 10). This is a firstestimate of how coastal benthic organisms
are faring, and the opportunistic nature of
citizen science means the aggregated trend
is likely to be biased towards better recordedgroups, such as sea snails and red algae, withrecords from only more accessible locations.
Despite the overall increasing trend, sometaxonomic groups showed reducing
occurrence. For example the distributionsof starfish and related species decreased on
average.
Figure 10: Change in average
species’ distribution ofbenthic species from 2005 to
2021 combined from modelsof 438 taxa across 20 different
taxonomic groups. All records
were collected by the Seasearch
programme.

Benthic species (438)Index (2005 = 100)

100

75

50

25
Unsmoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

0
2005

2010

2015

Year

24

2020

Northern Starfish, Graham Eaton (rspb-images.com)

25

Key findings

Summary

Terrestrial and freshwater species

Historical change
MarineOther pressures and responses

The State of Nature report 2019 reviewed
the major pressures on the UK’s nature overthe past 50 years. Here we have summarised
these pressures and looked at recent trends
to see whether their impacts are likely tohave been continuing over the last decade(Figure 11). We focus on the direct driversof biodiversity change, rather than theunderpinning societal values and behaviours,
including production and the consumption
patterns that may drive them.

Pollution
Most air pollutants have declined substantiallysince 1970, but ammonia declined more
slowly and has increased again in the last few
years31.32. Despite these declines, 73% of thearea of sensitive habitats in England is still
exposed to damaging levels of acidification,and nitrogenous air pollution levels were
exceeded in 97% of the area of sensitive
habitats33 in England. Some species of lichensand moss have responded positively to
reduced air pollution34, but many continue todecline in distribution, as do vascular plants
adapted to habitats low in nutrients35.
Freshwater insect species have, on average,
shown a strong recovery in distribution
since 1990 following earlier declines (see Key
findings). This is likely in part to be due to

Key long-term drivers of change in nature
Biome

Long-term impact

Changes in the last decade

Intensive
agricultural
management(changing use ofland and sea)

Policy driven increases inagricultural productivity
have met increasedfood demand, but many
management practices have
had major negative impacts
on nature.

Climate change

Climate change
MarineOverexploitation(direct exploitationof organisms)
26

Climate change has caused
major changes to nature onland and at sea, including
range shifts, population
changes and disruption tofood webs. Climate change
also interacts with andexacerbates the impacts ofother drivers.

Past overfishing caused
declines in commercial
fish species and damage tobenthic habitats.

UKOTs and CDs

Appendicesimprovements river water quality from the
1990s onwards15,36. The proportion of lakes,
rivers and estuaries in the UK in good or highecological status has remained static at 36% in
the last decade37 and there are indications thatthe recovery of freshwater invertebrates has
slowed36.
51% of beached Fulmars in the North Sea havemore than 0.1g of plastics in their stomachs.
This reflects the abundance of floating litterand provides an indication of harm38.

Invasive non-native species
The number of invasive species has increasedin freshwater, terrestrial and marine biomes
in the last decade in line with ongoing trends
since 197039.

Through the Biosecurity for LIFE project, 95%of the UK’s internationally important seabird
islands now have biosecurity measures inplace. Non-native American Mink predate
many species, including endangered
Water Voles. There is a successful control
programme that now covers a large part of
Scotland, and a similar initiative has also
begun in East Anglia.

Habitat management
The UK has a rich diversity of habitats andecosystems. The condition of these and theway they are managed is also an importantdriver of our changing nature. See Ecosystemand habitat Restoration and Nature-friendly
farming, and sustainable fisheries and forestry.

Recent changes in key drivers of change

Key drivers ofchange (IPBES
driver if different)

Terrestrial
andfreshwater

UK countries

Pressures and responses

Pressures and responses

Figure 11: Summary of the key drivers of change
in nature in terrestrial and freshwater, and marine
biomes over the last 50 years. Summary of terrestrial andfreshwater drivers of change based on expert elucidation,
taken from Burns et al 201629. Changes reflect the relative
impact of each driver in explaining population change ina sample of 400 species from a wide range of taxonomic
groups. Summary of marine pressures is taken from the
UK National Ecosystem Assessment30.

Conservation response

Implications for nature

Report chapter

Total farming productivity continues toincrease40.
Volume of fertiliser used continues
to decline from a peak in the 1980s40.
The percentage of farmland in agrienvironment schemes has increased41.

Good evidence that well-designed agri-environment schemes can benefit
nature, but that current scales of roll out are inadequate for recovery44.

Nature-friendly
farming, andsustainable fisheries
and forestry (page50)

Temperatures on land are 0.5°C warmer
than 1981–2010 and 1.1°C warmer than
1961–90. Summers are 15% wetter than
1981–2010 and 17% wetter than 1961–9042.

Climate change is accelerating and the negative impacts on nature arelikely to increase.
While warmth-adapted species are likely to continue to expand their UK
distributions, montane species on the edge of their ranges in the UK will
be squeezed out. Nesting birds will become increasingly mismatchedwith peaks in invertebrate food sources essential for their chicks.
On land, well-designed nature-based climate mitigation measures arelikely to have positive impacts for nature45.

Sea temperatures are 0.1°C warmer than
1991–2020 and 0.7°C warmer than 1961–90.
Mean sea level is 16.5 cm higher than in1900 and is rising increasing quickly42.

At sea, future warming is likely to continue to shift primary andsecondary plankton production northwards. This may negatively affectocean carbon storage in the coming decades46 as well as having a knock-on
impact on the marine food web.

51% of marine fish stocks are now harvested
at or below maximum sustainable yield, orwithin an acceptable mortality range, up
from 23% 2009–201943.

The proportion of large fish per catch in the North Sea increased from alow of 4% in 2002 to 12% in 2012 but has more recently declined to 6%47.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration(Page 72), andNature, climate andpeople (Page 82)

Nature-friendly
farming, andsustainable fisheries
and forestry (page 50)
27

Summary

Key findings

Terrestrial and freshwater species

Emerging pressures
Transitioning to renewable energy•	All UK countries have committed to reach‘net-zero’ by 2045 (Scotland) or 2050
(England, Wales, and Northern Ireland)48.
•	
To meet these critical climate mitigation
targets large-scale installation ofrenewable energy is needed48 which comeswith its own trade-offs as well as somepotential co-benefits for nature261.
•	
The UK Government and devolved
administrations have committed
to effective spatial planning andprioritisation, which will be essential if
we are to achieve these goals while also
helping nature to recover.

•	See Nature, climate and people
for more details.

Historical change
MarineConservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Pressures and responses

Wildlife disease
Several plant and animal diseases threaten
our wildlife, including the ongoing impactsof Ash dieback, phocine distemper in seals
and trichomoniasis infections in finches.

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
The ongoing outbreak of Highly Pathogenic
Avian Influenza (HPAI) is the most serious theUK has ever recorded. A particularly virulent
form has been affecting bird populations in
the UK since 2021. Over the winter of 2021/22,
avian flu primarily affected overwintering
geese, as well as swans and ducks, somebirds of prey and domestic poultry. The
impact on the population of Barnacle Geesethat come from Svalbard to winter on the
Solway in Scotland was devastating, witharound a third of the population dying. The
breeding season of 2022 saw a much wider
number of bird species affected, especiallyseabirds, and also a number of individualsof various mammal species believed to haveeaten infected birds. In total over 70 bird
and mammal species have been affected49.
Eighteen of the 25 UK breeding seabird
species tested positive for HPAI in 2022 andacross RSPB reserves at least 15,000 birds
were recorded dead50 The full impact onseabird populations from the 2022 breeding
season is the subject of ongoing monitoring
and research. Impacts on seabirds are likely
to be particularly severe, as they would
normally have high adult survival rates andare slow to reproduce. For Great Skua andGannet, two of the species where observedmortality was greatest, the UK hosts 60% and
56% of the global populations respectively.
Initial estimates suggest a decline inoccupied Great Skua territories of morethan a half in Foula, Shetland, which is thelargest colony of this species in the world51.
The ongoing impact of avian flu is difficult
to predict, but this unexpected additionalpressure on our wildlife emphasises the needfor resilient ecosystems and abundant species
populations.

Funding for conservation
In recent years, public sector funding forbiodiversity conservation has declined,
both in absolute terms and as a percentage
of Gross Domestic Product52. This amounts
to a real-term decrease of 24% over the last
five years. Governmental expenditure on
international biodiversity conservation,
including in the UK’s Overseas Territories,
has increased steadily since 2000/01,
although in absolute terms this is typicallyaround 4% of the annual amount spent in the
UK. Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO)
expenditure on biodiversity has increased by
16% in real terms since 2010/11, although thisdecreased by 3% in real terms over the five
years to 2021.While public support for nature
conservation is strong (see for example,
People’s Plan for Nature), the Covid-19
pandemic led to a reduction in the amount offinancial support received by environmental
NGOs.

Over 70 bird and mammal species
have been affected by Highly
Pathogenic Avian Influenza
Northern Gannet, Ashley Cooper (rspb-images.com)

28

29

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

The State of Nature reports focus on recent changes in biodiversity.
But we have been shaping our landscapes and wildlife for millennia.
The UK’s biodiversity has been depleted by centuries of habitat loss,
development and persecution before the 1970 baseline. Historicaldeclines can mask the scale of the deterioration. Each new
generation views the world they grew up in as the reference, rather
than recognising that biodiversity is already depleted.
It is challenging to measure this depletion
precisely. Instead, we present three casestudies to illustrate longer-term change:change in vascular plant communities,
the biodiversity intactness index, and theimpact of marine fisheries.

HISTORICAL
CHANGE

Terrestrial and freshwater –plant species change
The third vascular plant atlas for the UK
and Ireland was published in 202353. Thishuge undertaking collected more than
30 million records from nearly 8,500
volunteer surveyors who undertook
botanical surveys in nearly all of the 3,983
10 x 10 km squares in the British Isles.
Comparing the current distributions ofspecies to records dating back to the 1930s,
the authors were able to estimate changes
in distribution across 1,419 native andlong-established non-native plant species
in Great Britain. On average, species
declined in distribution by 23% UI -21%
to -24%). More than half of these species
declined (54%), whilst only 15% increased.

Plants adapted to low fertility conditions(Figure 12) and low competition, andplants associated with cultivated land,
have shown the greatest declines sincethe 1950s. This is primarily due to changes
in agricultural practices (see Pressuresand responses section), including theconversion of semi-natural grasslands toarable, changes to grassland management(such as reseeding, fertilisation and more
intensive grazing) and the drainage of
wetland habitats. These species may also
have been negatively impacted by air
pollution. Plants of upland habitats have in
general experienced less severe changes in
distribution than in the lowlands, although
importantly many heathland and bog
specialists have declined due to burning,drainage, increased grazing pressure andincreased plantation forestry.
The impact of climate change can also
be seen in these long time-series. Somesouthern species have expanded theirranges northwards, whereas somenorthern species at the southern limitsof their global ranges in Britain haveretreated due to reduced snow cover andincreased competition with more warmthadapted species.

Vascular plant distributions
have declined on average by 23%
since the 1930s
Great Skua, Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

30

31

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Biodiversity Intactness
Index (1950 = 100)

100

High
Medium

75

Low
50

25
Unsmoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

0
1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Year
Figure 12: Change in average species’ distribution for vascularplants in Great Britain split by Ellenberg Fertility score, ameasure of the soil fertility to which each species is best adapted.

30 million
records collected from8,500 volunteer
botanical surveys

Taking an even longer-term approach, theBiodiversity Intactness Index (BII) attempts
to estimate the proportion of species stillpresent in an area and their abundance,
despite human impacts. This involves
comparing species richness and abundanceacross different levels of land-use intensity,with the least modified or utilised examples
of a habitat acting as a proxy for the species
assemblage in the absence of humanpressure. Data are collated from ecologicalstudies across the globe and the relationships
between land cover, land-use intensity,and species richness and abundance aremodelled. These models give an estimateof species diversity and abundance at nearundisturbed sites compared to similar areas
with high human activity. Currently around58,000 species are represented in the BII
dataset, covering a wide range oftaxonomic groups.

Figure 13: Estimatesof the Biodiversity
Intactness Index for 2010
for the world, the biggest
global economies, the G7
countries, and select othersmall, densely populated
post-industrial countries
in north-west Europe fora more direct comparison
to the UK104,404. The
error bars around eachestimate were generated
by refitting the models
leaving out each major
biome in turn.

Appendices

The most recent estimate of the global BII is
77% (Figure 1354). This is substantially lower
than the 90% level suggested as necessary tokeep within planetary boundaries needed tomaintain healthy functioning ecosystems55.
The BII varies globally and as anticipated islower in post-industrial countries. Amongst
the G7 countries, only Canada has a BII
above the suggested planetary boundary
threshold. The UK has a BII of 42%, whichis the lowest amongst the G7 countries by a
substantial margin; the four UK countries all
have similarly low estimates. The UK index isalso lower than other small, post-industrial,
densely populated countries in western
Europe, like the Netherlands and Belgium(Figure 13).

Proposedplanetaryboundary
World
Canada
Japan
USA

G7
countries

Germany
Italy
FranceUK
ScotlandEngland
Wales

Northern Ireland
Belgium
Netherlands
0

25

50

75

100

Biodiversity Intactness Index
Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

32

33

Summary

Key findings

Marine – fish landings andsystems change
Elsewhere in this report we highlightthe increasing proportion of large fishin a catch and of fish stocks exploited
within sustainable limits. (See Naturefriendly farming, and sustainable fisheries
and forestry). These are positive steps.
However, it is important to set these in
the context of the scale of change thathas occurred in marine systems aroundthe UK in the past 100 years and more.
There remain few, if any, areas in UK seas
untouched by commercial fisheries that
could be used as reference sites.
In a 90-year study in the English Channel,a measure of the average trophic level ofthe fish and invertebrate species caught
declined over time, with large, hightrophic level fish species like Cod being
replaced by smaller, lower trophic levelfish and invertebrates like Scallops56. Thisphenomenon has been termed ‘fishingdown the food web’57.
Alongside this reduction in the abundanceof commercially caught species there havebeen significant changes to the structureand functioning of ecosystems. These havebeen direct, from the removal of what areoften top predator species, and indirect,
from habitat damage caused by fishinggear, primarily bottom-trawls58.
Fishing down the food web has also been
observed in the Firth of Clyde, where theonly commercially viable fishery now isfor Nephrops, a small but economicallyimportant crustacean, whereas the area

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

was once important for Herring andwhitefish fisheries. The impact of bottomtrawl fisheries on the abundance of target
and other demersal species and on theseabed was observed in the Clyde as earlyas the 1880s, leading to a ban of bottomtrawls in the Firth and across the wholeof Scotland within three nautical miles ofshore in 188959,60. The three nautical mile
closure was repealed in 1984. Although
there is no direct evidence linking thetwo events, demersal fisheries collapsed
shortly afterwards, and it seems likelythat protection from bottom-trawling in
the Clyde helped to sustain landings ofdemersal fish in nearby waters until the
1980s59.
A similar situation has occurred on theeast coast of Scotland in the Firth of Forth.
Here rich mollusc beds were the target ofcommercial fisheries in the 19th century,in particular oysters. Now, low-diversity
soft-sediment communities dominate theseabed in the Firth. These communities areless productive and diverse, with reduced
mollusc biomass and species richness,
likely due to the damaging effects of earlier
bottom-trawling and dredging61.
The Restoration Forth project is starting
to address these declines. This project
aims to release 30,000 oysters and restore
four ha of seagrass by the end of 2024.
This is a small step towards restoring ahealthy resilient environment in the Firth.
However, if successful, this project could
act as a case study to illustrate the potential
benefits of ecosystem restoration.

Trawler fishing for Sandeels with Gannets & Kittiwakes, Chris Gomersall (rspb-images.com)

34

35

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

GLOBAL NATURERECOVERY TARGETS
In December 2022 the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
COP15 summit agreed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity
Framework62 (known as the Global Biodiversity Framework). It
confirmed a global mission to halt and reverse the loss of natureby 2030 and achieve recovery by 2050, so that nature will thrive,‘sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all
people’. This is in line with the Nature Positive goal demanded byorganisations worldwide in the years leading up to COP1563.

CONSERVATIONRESPONSE

The new Global Biodiversity Framework
includes four outcome-oriented goals toachieve by 2050, covering:

These are underpinned by 23 action targets
to be achieved by 2030, falling under threeheadings:(Goal A) Recovery of ecosystems, species
and genetic diversity;1)	Reducing threats to biodiversity(Goal B) Sustainable use and humanbenefits;(Goal C) Equitable sharing of benefits; and(Goal D) Implementation (Figure 14).

2) Meeting people’s needs throughsustainable use and benefit sharing3) Tools and solutions for
implementation and mainstreaming
In the following chapters we discuss
conservation action in the UK countries,
framed around one or a set of these targets
in each case, but touching on many ofthem. We summarise what action is being
taken, what we understand about the
impact of these conservation actions on
nature and people and, where possible, thefuture outlook.

In December 2022, the CBD COP15
summit confirmed a global mission tohalt and reverse the loss of nature by 2030,
and achieve recovery by 2050
Pasqueflower, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

36

37

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Global Goals for 2050
Goal A:

Goal B:

Goal C:

Goal D:

Outcomes forecosystems,
species and genetic
diversity

Sustainable use
and nature’s
contributions topeopleEquitable sharingof benefits fromgenetic resources

Means ofimplementation,
includingfinance2030 Mission
To take urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss to put nature on a path torecovery for the benefit of people and planet

Global Targets for 2030
Meeting people’s needs

Tools and solutions
Target 14: Mainstreaming

Target 1: Spatial planning

Target 9: Sustainable use ofwild species

Target 2: Ecosystem
restoration

Target 10: Sustainableproduction

Target 16: Sustainableconsumption

Target 3: Protected areas

Target 11: Nature’s
contribution to people

Target 17: Biosafety

Reducing threats tobiodiversity

Target 4: Recovery of
ecosystems, species andgenetic diversity
Target 5: Overexploitation

Target 12: Urban
environment
Target 13: Access andbenefit sharing

Target 6: Invasive nonnative species
Target 7: Pollution
Target 8: Climate change

Target 15: Business action

There is a consensus that it is vital for the
new global targets to be more effective
than their predecessors in driving action
to stop and reverse biodiversity loss.
Earlier CBD targets have been criticisedfor being imprecise, hard to measureprogress towards and having insufficiently
strong implementation mechanisms64.
The new framework is underpinned bycommitments to mobilise resources for
implementation, and to follow a cycleof planning, monitoring, reporting andreview. To avoid repeating past failures65,
countries agreed to these implementation
steps to drive the delivery of the global
framework at the domestic level.

The Global Biodiversity Framework targets
have been recognised by governmentsin the UK. The Welsh66 and Scottish
Governments67 have promised to bringforward legislation to introduce binding
nature recovery targets, and the UK
Government has recently done so forEngland through the Environment Act
202168. Northern Ireland is currently
drafting a new biodiversity strategy.
Statutory targets have been shown toincrease accountability, drive action andembed cross-sector responses in areasof environmental policy such as climatechange mitigation, waste and air quality69.
The response for nature needs to be given
the same priority.

Target 18: Subsidy reform
Target 19: Financial
resource mobilisation
Target 20: Capacity
building
Target 21: Knowledge anddata sharing
Target 22: Indigenous
peoples and local
communities
Target 23: Gender

Report chapters

Core targets

Improved species status

Goal A, T4

Nature-friendly farming and sustainable forestry and fisheries

T10

Protected areas

T3

Ecosystem restoration

T2

Nature, climate and people

T1, T8, T12

Figure 14: Summary of the goals and targets agreed within the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and how
these targets are discussed within this report.
Bittern, Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

38

39

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Conservation response

Protected
areas

Improved species status
Goal A of the Global Biodiversity
Framework commits parties to:halt human-induced extinctionsof threatened species; achievea ten-fold reduction in risk andrate of extinction; and maintaingenetic diversity and increase theabundance of native wild species
to healthy and resilient levels
by 205062.
Preventing extinctions, and reversing
declines in species' abundances anddistributions requires targeted actions for
specific species and broad measures toimprove environmental quality and tackle
drivers of nature loss70. This will in turnrequire actions from genes to ecosystems
and from local to global scales. A suite ofcomplementary actions is available, including
creating protected areas, changing habitat
management, restoring lost or degradedhabitat, improving connectivity among
populations, eradicating invasive species,
carrying out conservation translocations,protecting species and introducing
supportive legislative policies.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Headlines
In the UK, many previously common andwidespread species are continuing to decline.
However, there are many success storiesof species benefiting from conservation.
These include the reintroduction of theLarge Blue butterfly; bats benefiting fromprotection at their roost and hibernationsites, and the over 200 Bitterns now booming
in revitalised reedbeds. Understanding theimpact of conservation on the populations ofwidespread UK species remains challenging.
This is because conservation action is often
monitored at a site or project level. It is alsoa challenge to understand the scale at which
different interventions would need to be
applied to meet and exceed these targets.
If we are to improve the effectiveness ofconservation, it should be based on evidence.
Progress can be accelerated by sharing
successes and failures71.
It is important to remember that halting
declines and reducing extinction risk are
not the end goal of conservation. They area critical step towards species recovery, or
attaining the ‘healthy and resilient levels’stated in the Global Biodiversity Framework.

ActionImpactThere is good evidence that conservation iseffective for individual species when it can beapplied to a high proportion of the population,and targeted conservation action has set somespecies on the path to recovery.

Despite many examples of conservation impact
on individual species, the collective impact ofconservation actions across taxa in the UK is
not as well studied. This makes it harder to draw
conclusions at a larger scale.

Halting and reversing biodiversity decline isvital, but it is only the first step towards a healthy
environment with resilient species populations,thriving habitats and functioning ecosystems.

FutureWood White, David J Slater (rspb-images.com); Bittern, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com);
Brown long-eared bat, Daniel Hargreaves Bat Conservation Trust

RSPB Radipole Nature Reserve, Mike Read (rspb-images.com)

40

41

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Action – how is species
conservation conductedin the UK?

Conservation response

Historical change
Protected
areas

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

In recent decades, many effective
conservation tools have been developed72.
Figure 15 presents examples of species thathave been subject to interventions.
These include: targeted actions, suchas habitat restoration or management;
wider landscape interventions, like agrienvironment schemes; or legislativechange, providing an enabling policy
framework. The species reflect a variety ofSpecies and Great Britain
Red List status

UK Population
changeRed Squirrel – Endangered

biomes, taxonomies and life histories, withconservation actions implemented at a rangeof spatial scales by landowners, charities,
government and the public. These examples
focus on a single conservation action, but
in most cases more than one type of action
will be needed to fully restore species
populations. Equally, actions designed
to favour one target species often havebeneficial impacts on others73.

Widespread

Invasive
species
control

Conservation action for Red Squirrels takes place throughout the UK. For example,
Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels (SSRS) works with volunteers and landowners
to protect Red Squirrel populations from the non-native, invasive Grey Squirrel,
through targeted control in priority areas. Grey Squirrels outcompete Reds forresources and are a host for squirrelpox virus. This is asymptomatic in Greys, but
deadly to Reds. When Grey Squirrels move into a Red Squirrel territory, they usuallyreplace the native Red population within 15 years75. Without the work of SSRS, it islikely the Red Squirrel’s range in Scotland would have contracted considerably inline with national trends. Instead, red populations have remained largely stable, andeven increased in localised areas76.

29%

Rare

Fish
ladders

Unlocking the Severn, the largest project of its kind in Europe, is reconnecting
Twaite Shad to over 150 miles of spawning habitat by creating four fish passes
around otherwise impassable weirs. Tracked Shad were seen spawning upstreamof the third pass in the year after construction, as were Sea Lamprey, anotherthreatened species. There have also been wider benefits for other fish within the
Severn, with 25 different fish species recorded swimming through the fish passat Diglis.

576%

Rare

Protected
areas

Crawfish (or spiny lobster) was fished close to extinction in the 1970s and 1980s andis rated red on the Cornwall Wildlife Trust Good Seafood Guide. Populations haveincreased in south-west England since 2014. However, landings per unit effort (LPUE)
declined by 50% between 2016 and 2018, raising concerns about over-exploitation.
The species is a designated feature of six Marine Conservation Zones, but receives
no active management other than general restrictions that apply everywhere (ie,minimal landing sizes and prohibition of landing females with eggs). There are
numerous opportunities to support this species recovery by working with fishers to
avoid unsustainable levels of fishing. Recording has been largely limited to within
Marine Protected Areas, so it is not yet possible to assess the role of protected areas inrecovery or maintenance of populations.

37%

Twaite Shad, Jack Perks (rspb-images.com)

Picture credit

Nature, climate
and people

Conservation
actions and impact

decline inabundance
2008–202077

increase in
distribution
in England
2004–202078

Crawfish, Kate Lock

42

Appendices

Conservation
actions

Red Squirrel, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

Crawfish – Not assessed

UKOTs and CDs

Population
size/Range

contraction
in range
between1993 and201674

Twaite Shad – Vulnerable

UK countries

Figure 15: Species examples showing the range of conservation interventions for a range of taxa. See page 19 for moredetail on IUCN Red List categories.

43

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Conservation response

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Protected
areas

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

Species and Great Britain
Red List status

Population
changePopulation
size/Range

Conservation
actions

Skylark – Least concern

Abundance
declined by

Widespread

AgriEnvironment
SchemeScarceHabitatmanagement

ScarceLegislation
to reduce
air pollution

Rare

Translocation,
reinforcement56%

1970 – 201879
10-year trendof 8% decline

Skylark, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

Abundance
declined byDuke of Burgundy– Vulnerable

35%

1979 – 202184
10-year trend
little change

Duke of Burgundy,David Kjaer (rspb-images.com)

Range increased by

Wood Bristle Moss –Least concern
Picture credit

1699

hectads(10x10 km)(1995 – 2013)

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Conservation
actions and impact
Skylark populations have declined in line with intensification in farmmanagement81,82 but show more positive trends where higher-level agrienvironmental options are adopted in England, especially in pastoral systems83.
Take up of these schemes is currently not widespread enough to support species’
recovery in England.

Duke of Burgundy has recently been down-listed from Endangered to Vulnerable inGreat Britain85 and conservation at many sites is likely to have played an importantrole in this status improvement. For example, habitat management in the North
York Moors helped stabilise populations by providing open grassland to support thelarval foodplants Primrose and Cowslip, and the scrubby grassland patches utilisedby the species86.

Many bryophytes and lichens are negatively impacted by air pollution. The
European Union (EU) National Emissions Ceiling Directive (Directive 2001/81/EC)
compelled nations to work to reduce levels of various pollutants, including sulphur
dioxide. The resulting declines in SO2 have coincided with population recoveries ina range of epiphytic bryophyte species, including the Wood Bristle Moss87. Note thatammonia pollution is increasing and continues to have negative impacts on many
epiphytic lichens.

Bristle Moss, Claire Halpin British Bryological Society

Large Marsh Grasshopper– Near threatened8%decline inrange
1985 – 201088

The range of the Large Marsh Grasshopper declined rapidly in recent decades tojust two populations in southern England. To help the species re-establish, a small
number of adults from the remaining populations were collected in 2018. Some werereleased in a wetland site in Norfolk, others were reared in captivity with the helpof volunteer ‘Citizen keepers’. The young were subsequently released. Excitingly, in
2020, individuals born in the wild in Norfolk were confirmed breeding. This is thefirst sign that translocation may play a valuable role in this species recovery.

Large Marsh Grasshopper,
Jeroen Stel (rspb-images.com)

44

45

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Impact – species and habitats
An accurate assessment of conservation
effectiveness relies on high-quality
biodiversity data. Progress towards the
Global Biodiversity Framework target of aten-fold reduction in extinction risk will bemeasured using the global Red List Index89.
This is based on using repeated global Red
List assessments to assess changes in species
status. In this report, we summarise IUCNRed Lists for nearly 10,000 species, giving us
an unprecedented insight into the threat ofextinction for species in Great Britain.
However, we have less information about
how extinction risk has changed over time.
Only two groups, butterflies and bryophytes,
have been assessed more than once using
the latest IUCN criteria90. Of the 62 species
assessed in both the 2010 and 2021 butterfly
Red Lists, 16 changed status: 11 species
moved to more threatened categories andfive became less threatened. At least three ofthe latter, Duke of Burgundy (Figure 2), High
Brown Fritillary and Pearl-bordered Fritillary,
have been subject to direct conservation
action that is likely to have contributed totheir improved status85. There are plans torepeat many of the Red Lists for Great Britain
each decade to track changes in extinction
risk over time91.
Status improvements in Red List assessments
indicate, but do not directly estimate
conservation impact, and are not apparent
until formal re-assessment.

Conservation response

Protected
areas

Another approach is Green Statusassessment92,93, a complement to the IUCNRed List94. The Green Status considers
whether species are present, whether
populations are viable, and whether they
are performing their ecological functions,
across their entire historical range. These
factors are combined into a percentage score
which reflects how close a species is to its
fully recovered state. The assessment also
estimates the impact of conservation to date,
the anticipated impact of conservation in the
future, and the long-term recovery potential.
For example, Eurasian Otter is assessed
globally as Near Threatened (Red Status95)
and Largely Depleted (Green Status96), witha recovery score of 40%. Conservation has
likely benefited the species, and if continued
would increase the Green Status score to
54% in 10 years. Work remains to downscale
this global methodology for use at a national
scale.
While we have a wealth of information about
the effectiveness of individual conservation
actions (eg, ConservationEvidence.com),these are usually for a small number of
species within a defined area (see examples in
Figure 2). Recent research has demonstrated
that conservation action results in improved
population trends for individual target
vertebrate species97. However, less is known
about how conservation action affects nontarget taxa, and there are few large-scale
experimental studies98,99. This has led torepeated calls for a better understanding of
the impact of conservation100,101. Elsewhere

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Lymington yacht marina, Mike Read (rspb-images.com)

in this report, we highlight recent researchassessing the impact of conservationinterventions at a national or regional scale,for example protected areas102,103 or AgriEnvironment Schemes83.

Impact – people and planet –multi-taxa species recovery
projects
Ecosystem restoration and landscape-scaleconservation have a central role in tacklingthe nature and climate emergency. Multispecies conservation projects that embody
this concept include Back from the Brinkand the Solent Seascape Project in England,Species on the Edge in Scotland, Natur am
byth! Saving Wales’ threatened species in
Wales and Co-operation Across Borders for
Biodiversity which spans sites in Northern
Ireland, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.

These partnerships operate at multiple
sites and tackle an array of conservation
challenges including habitat loss, invasive
species impacts and disturbance, which
benefits threatened target species acrossmultiple taxa. Moreover, they engage local
communities, connecting people with nature.
Back from the Brink involved 59,000 people,
including over 10,000 who learnt new skills
and nearly 4,000 who volunteered their time.
Similarly, the Zoological Society of London
has been working alongside local residents
to restore nearly 40 km of waterways in theRiver Thames catchment since 2000. This has
generated multiple benefits for nature, butalso resulted in better water quality, reduced
threat from flooding, and has supported thewellbeing of people involved in the project
and the wider community. This project has
been expanded at other sites throughout
England and recently in Scotland as well.

Of the 62 species assessed in the 2010
and 2021 butterfly Red Lists, 11 species
became more threatened and fivebecame less threatened
46

47

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Future – what is the aim ofconservation?
Halting and reversing biodiversity decline
is vital, but it is only the first step towards
a healthy environment with resilient
species populations, thriving habitats andfunctioning ecosystems.
Although broad descriptions of what recovery
might look like have been proposed104,105, it
has proven challenging to use these ideas
to guide conservation in practice. Several
complementary concepts of recovery
are used in the UK, including Favourable
Conservation Status (FCS) in terrestrial
systems and Good Environmental Status(GES) (Figure 16) in marine systems. Good
Ecological Status (GES) is also used for
freshwater habitats.
FCS sets out what ‘good’ looks like forindividual habitats and species, based on
definitions of favourable natural range,area, population, and habitat structureand function. For most species, eventhose which are defined as Threatened on
Regional Red Lists, baseline data are notavailable for most of these parameters.
Filling these data gaps, and implementing
effective ongoing monitoring, is a priority
if there are to be meaningful attempts toProtected
areas

assess improvements in conservation statusover time. The concept is rooted in theinternational Bonn Convention, to which
the UK is signatory. By defining a species
recovered state, FCS can provide an end
point for Species Recovery Curves, a concept
describing a species progress from depleted
populations to full recovery, via improved
ecological understanding and management
intervention. Natural England has beendeveloping and publishing definitions of
FCS for a selection of species and habitats
in England following a methodology whichseeks to combine the best available evidence
and specialist expertise (Figure 16). The RSPB
has also been developing methodologies forthe definition of FCS for UK breeding bird
populations, and is collaborating with Natural
England and Durham University to developthese methods further. The ambitions within
the Natural England definitions form thebasis of bespoke FCS strategies that canguide strategic nature recovery actions and,through the new Environment Act powers,
development of Local Nature Recovery
Strategies.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

GES seeks to balance sustainable human use
with preventing deterioration, and securing
environmental protection and ecosystem
restoration. GES can only be achieved
through holistic ecosystem management,so the UK works closely with our European
neighbours through the OSPAR (Oslo Paris
Convention) process to develop indicatorsand targets. The UK Marine Strategy106
provides a framework for achieving GES
in our seas through 11 ‘descriptors’ of themarine environment: biodiversity, nonindigenous species, commercial fish, foodwebs, eutrophication, sea-floor integrity,hydrographical conditions, contaminants inthe environment, contaminants in seafood,marine litter, and underwater noise. A broad
suite of indicators linked to these descriptors
is monitored to evaluate progress towards

GES environmental targets. Indicators range
from plankton community change to beachlitter, to Kittiwake breeding success (Figure16).
For rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters,
Good Status (within the Water Framework
Directive, comprising Good Ecologicaland Good Chemical Status) takes a similar
approach, considering a wide range ofparameters that must all be brought to at least‘Good’ for the waterbody to be considered
to be in good overall health, and capable ofdelivering benefits for nature and for society.
All these processes are dependent uponrobust monitoring data and analysis toassess progress.

Figure 16: Examples of ways to define nature recovery.

In marine systems, GES goes beyond
individual species and habitats to define
when waters are healthy, biologically diverse,
clean and productive. In marine systems,

Halting and reversing biodiversity loss
is vital. But it is only the first step
towards a healthy environment withresilient species, thriving habitats
and functioning ecosystems

48

Conservation response

Hazel Dormouse

Sensitive fish species

MethodFavourable Conservation Status (FCS)Good Environmental Status (GES)

Scale

EnglandGreater North Sea/Celtic Seas

Targets

Return range and population size
to historic estimates of presence in
49 counties (1885) and 2.7 million
individuals (1993) and be assessedas Least Concern of extinction fromGreat Britain.

All sensitive fish species, thosethought most likely to be impacted
by fishing, should be increasing.

Hazel Dormouse, Ernie Janes (rspb-images.com) ; Sea lamprey, Jack Perks (rspb-images.com)

49Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Conservation response

Protected
areas

Nature-friendly farming andsustainable fisheries and forestry
Target 10 of the Global
Biodiversity Framework is
particularly relevant here andseeks to ensure that areas
under agriculture, aquaculture,
fisheries and forestry are
managed sustainably, including
a substantial increase inbiodiversity friendly practices thatwill support long-term resilienceand productivity of the systems
as well as help to conserve andrestore biodiversity.
This chapter outlines how the current andfuture state of nature depends on the degree
to which the fisheries, farming and forestry
sectors pursue nature-friendly or sustainableapproaches.

To meet Target 10 of the Global Biodiversity
Framework, approaches to fishing, farming
and forestry that support ecosystem
function and that are both sustainable
and nature-friendly should be prioritised.
Fishing, farming, and forestry are important
industries in the UK, providing food, fibre
and livelihoods. The geographic extent ofthese industries means that careful planningand sustainable management is essential tohelp halt biodiversity loss, and to mitigate
and adapt to the effects of climate change.
Marine fishing has long been a part of the
UK’s culture. However, overfishing andunsustainable fishing methods that result in
bycatch and that damage benthic (seafloor)
habitats have been major drivers of marine
biodiversity loss107,108, and there have long
been concerns about the sustainability of fishstocks107,109.
71% of the UK’s land is managed by farmers
and other land managers110. A combinationof technological advancements, use ofagro-chemicals and changing agricultural
policy has reduced the capacity of farmed
landscapes to support wildlife, resulting inwidespread biodiversity loss111.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Headlines

ActionImpactHalf of marine fish stocks are sustainably harvested.
Sustainable management is a positive step, but does notnecessarily mean the same as well-managed for nature. In the
UK a fifth of farmland is in agri-environment schemes, but
only a part of which could be considered as nature-friendly
farming. 44% of UK woodland is certified as sustainably
managed. All three measures have improved markedly overthe past 20 years.

The increased proportion of sustainably harvested marine
fish stocks appears to be having a positive impact, with theproportion of large fish in landings increasing since 2002.
Many terrestrial species have been shown to benefit fromnature-friendly farming at a local level, but the impact ofdifferent schemes on species populations has been variable.

The UK Fisheries Act 2020 has come into law, which aims touse our marine resources sustainably and protect ecosystemservices. The best available information suggests that naturefriendly farming needs to be implemented at a much wider
scale to halt the decline in farmland nature.

FutureRSPB Hope Farm, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com); Sea Bass, Graham Eaton (rspb-images.com);Common Roach, Jack Perks (rspb-images.com)

Forestry is economically important, andwoodland cover is gradually increasing in the
UK from a baseline of heavy deforestation.
Uniform planting of non-native tree
species and lack of effective managementin native woodlands have led to reductions
in woodland wildlife and an increased risk
to native tree species from new pests andpathogens112,113.

Troup Head RSPB reserve,
Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

Wildflower margins, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

50

51

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Action – extent andcondition
Sustainable use of natural resources is now
embedded in the UK’s global and national
policy commitments. Here we consider thecurrent extent and condition of UK fishing,farming and forestry practices in light ofthese statutory targets and goals.

Farming

UK fish stocks
Overexploited

50.9%

Sustainable

22.8%

Status unknown

Forestry

895,000 ha

60.5%

21.9%
65,000 ha

50,000 ha

1,850,000 ha

28.5%

54.8%
315,000 ha

510,000 ha

145,000 ha
20.7%

Area of each UK country in agri-environment
schemes. Bars show this area as % of Utilised
Agricultural Area.

46.7%

23.9%

Areas of certified woodland in each UK
country. Bars show % of all woodlandthat is certified.

Figure 17: Extent of nature-friendly farming and sustainable fisheries and forestry in the UK114. Percentage ofUK marine fish stocks (quota) harvested sustainably 2019 (source jncc.gov.uk/our-work/ukbi-b2-sustainable-fisheries). Area of each UK country in agri-environment schemes, (source: jncc.gov.uk/our-work/ukbi-b1a-agri-environment-schemes) and proportion of agricultural land covered by these schemes in each UK
country 2020. Area of woodland and percentage of woodland area certified as sustainably managed by country
in 2022 (UKWAS) (source: jncc.gov.uk/our-work/ukbi-b1b-sustainable-forestry).

52

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Marine fisheries

26.3%

1,210,000 ha

4.8%

Protected
areasConservation response

UK fishing vessels land around 400,000
tonnes of fish each year in the UK and an
additional 200-300,000 tonnes abroad. The
majority of UK landings by weight are in
Scotland (around 70%)109. The percentage ofUK quota-fish stocks fished at or below theirmaximum sustainable yield (FMSY), and/or within acceptable mortality range levels,
has improved from 9% in 1990 to 50.9% in
2019114. However, 26.3% of UK quota-fish were
overfished in 2019 (Figure 17).
The latest data for the Sensitive Fish
Indicator, which tracks changes in the
population status (occurrence, abundanceand condition) of fish and shellfish species atrisk of depletion, do not meet the UK target
of Good Environmental Status (GES) for theGreater North Sea. Over the last 50 years, 33%of the 48 species assessed show a significant
decline in occurrence, and in the short term
(last 10 years) 22% of the 51 species assessedshow a significant decline. Conversely, 56%of the species assessed show a significant
increase in occurrence over the long termand 57% a significant increase in the short
term116. For the Celtic Seas the latest OSPAR
assessment found that for the 26 sensitivefish species that could be assessed (out of
50 species in total), 12 met the long-term
threshold of ‘recovering’ and a further seven
showed no further decline117.

FarmlandFarmland wildlife is declining due to avariety of factors including agriculturalintensification since the 1950s and the useof pesticides118. Agriculture accounts for
11% of UK greenhouse gas emissions119,120.
These pressures damage public health andare impacting wildlife. In the UK between
1970 and 2020, farmland birds have declined
on average by 58%114. In response to these
impacts on nature, the UK Government anddevolved administrations have launchedvarious initiatives over the years, genericallyknown as Agri-Environment Schemes (AES),
to promote more sustainable and naturefriendly farming. In 1992, there were 0.3
million ha of land in the UK in AES, and by
2020 this had risen to just over 3.6 million
ha, accounting for 21% of farmland (Figure17), although given the requirements ofsome targeted schemes, not all this area
is considered to be under nature-friendly
farming. Higher-level schemes include theHigher-level Environmental Farming Scheme(Northern Ireland), Agri-Environment
Climate Scheme (Scotland), Glastir Advanced(Wales) and countryside stewardship or
landscape recovery tiers of Environment
Land Management schemes (England).
Each UK nation has its own agri-environment
scheme framework. The most recent agrienvironment scheme in Wales, Glastir,
supported land management to reducegreenhouse gas emissions, reduce flooding
and water pollution, halt biodiversity loss,
manage historic landscapes and access, andmanage and create woodland. Agreements
targeting species recovery will be covered by
the Sustainable Farming Scheme Optionaland Collaborative Layers due to be launchedbetween 2025 and 2029. In Northern
Ireland, DAERA Environmental Farming
Scheme has agreements which normallylast five years. The voluntary scheme ismade up of three levels, a Wider-Level
Scheme aimed at the countryside outsideenvironmentally designated areas; a HigherLevel Scheme primarily aimed at site-specificenvironmental improvements at importantsites or for priority habitats and species; anda Group-Level Scheme with additional advice
to support co-operative work by farmers inspecific areas. In England, the Countryside
Stewardship agri-environment scheme funds
land management to increase biodiversity,
improve habitat condition, expand woodland,
improve air and water quality and support
natural flood management; around 1.6
million ha of land are managed under thisscheme122. Post-Brexit, new agri-environment

53

Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Conservation response

Protected
areas

schemes have been introduced in England,
including Landscape Recovery which isdesigned to support large-scale projects
for environmental and climate benefits. In
Scotland, the Agri-Environment Climate
Scheme (AECS) is designed to promote land
management practices which protect andenhance the natural heritage, improve water
quality, manage flood risk, and mitigate
and adapt to climate change. It also helps toimprove public access and preserve
historic sites123.

The UK Woodland Assurance Standard(UKWAS) sets common woodland
management standards in the UK and isrecognised by both the Forest StewardshipCouncil and the Programme for theEndorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC).
In 2022, there were 1.4 million ha of certified
woodland across the UK, representing 44% of
the total woodland area, up from 36% in 2001
(Figure 17). The area of certified woodland has
increased in Britain since 2004, but not in
Northern Ireland124.

Forestry and woodland

However, despite increases in both woodland
cover and UKWAS certification in the UK,
woodland wildlife is decreasing112. This islargely due to woodland fragmentation,
habitat degradation and the lack of woodland
management such as coppicing. In 2020,
Forest Research published the first systematic
Woodland Ecological Condition (WEC)
assessment, covering all British woodlands:
native and non-native, semi-natural andplantation. Woodland stands were scoredagainst a single benchmark with 15 woodland
ecological condition indicators, including
amount of deadwood, veteran trees, open
space, diversity of tree species, ages andstructure. Scores were combined to provide
an overall assessment of favourable,intermediate or unfavourable. In GreatBritain, 7% of native woodland stands are infavourable condition, 92% are in intermediate
and 1% are in unfavourable condition125.

In 2022, woodland cover in the UK was
13% (3.24 million ha), up from 12% in 1998.
Woodland cover in England in 2022 wasabout 10% with an additional 4% coveredby trees outside woodland. Trees outside
woodland are an important feature,
particularly for wildlife, as they offer
additional foraging resources and facilitate
movements across often intensively managed
landscapes. At present, woodland cover in the
UK is approximately half native tree species
and half non-native, particularly in conifer
plantations. Ancient woodland is estimatedto cover around 2.5% of the UK’s land area
and we also have at least 123,000 ancient andveteran trees112.

UK countries

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Impact – species and habitats
Fisheries impacts

Bycatch and entanglement

Heavy marine fishing pressure leads to a fallin the proportion of large fish. Reducing thepressure should reverse this trend after a multiyear delay114. The effect of overfishing can beseen in the large fish indicator (Figure 18)114,
where large fish in the North Sea survey madeup only 6% of the catch weight in 2019. This is
below the value of 15% recorded in 1983, but
above the low of 2% in 2001. The indicator had
been steadily increasing after 2001, suggesting
fish populations were benefiting from moresustainable management, until a sharp decline
occurred in the indicator between 2016 and2019. In 2019, there was a substantial reduction
in large Cod and Saithe and an increase insmaller Haddock, Whiting and Dab114. Someinterannual fluctuations are expected due toenvironmental conditions and sampling effort,
but if this downwards trend continues it would
suggest that fish stocks remain overexploited(Figure 18).

One of the ways fishing can reduce its
impact is by addressing bycatch – where
non-target species are accidentally caught
in fishing gear. Bycatch in UK waters is
responsible for the injury and death of
between 2,200-9,100 Fulmars and 1,8003,300 Guillemots126 as well as thousandsof marine mammals and elasmobranchs(sharks, skates and rays) each year127.
Bycatch estimates for elasmobranchs
are hard to quantify due to the diversityof species involved and because someare caught and retained as part of mixed
fisheries. Current figures are likely tounderestimate the true scale of the issue
as data come from limited observations.
Cetaceans and Basking Sharks are
susceptible to entanglement in creel(pot) fishing gear, including at least six
Humpback Whales and 30 Minke Whales
each year128.

20

Percentage of catch weight of large(>= 50cm) fish

Summary

North Sea

15

10

5

Smoothed indicator

0
1983

1988

Unsmoothed indicator

1993

Confidence Interval

1998

2003
2008
2013
2018
Year
Figure 18: Percentage of large fish, by weight, in the North Sea. (Source: jncc.gov.uk/ukbi-d1a114.) The line graph shows the unsmoothed trend (points) and a LOESS smoothed trend(solid line) with the shaded area showing the 95% Confidence Interval around the smoothed
trend. The dotted line shows the target proportion.
Bluebell woodland, David Palmar (rspb-images.com)

54

55

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Many organisations are working withfishers, scientists and governments toaddress bycatch. This has involved working
with fishers to understand seabirds’ risk
to longlines to design effective mitigation
measures, and there is research in Cornwall
trialling the effectiveness of ‘looming
eyes’ buoys and predator-shaped kites
to discourage seabirds from gillnets. In
Scotland, there is currently a series of projects
underway to prevent accidental bycatch increels through the Scottish Entanglement
Alliance – formed of scientists, fishers,
NatureScot and NGOs.

Many organisations
are working withfishers, scientists
and governments toaddress bycatch
Impact of sustainable agricultural
management
Agricultural intensification is known to be
the major driver of biodiversity decline onland in the UK129. Yet many UK farmers dotake positive steps to conserve wildlife on
their land. In particular, a number of agrienvironment schemes (AES) encourage
improved environmental stewardship in
farming, with measures specifically designed
to help stabilise and improve populationsof farmland wildlife, including birds andinvertebrates. These include the provisionof over-wintered stubbles and planted wild
bird cover crops to provide seed in the winter,

Conservation response

Protected
areas

uncropped margins or those sown withnative plants on arable fields and sympathetic
management of hedgerows118.
Although AES are the primary policy
mechanism for addressing farmlandbiodiversity declines in the UK, theireffectiveness is mixed, both for biodiversity
generally130,131 and specific taxonomic
groups132-134. However, there is strong
evidence that well-targeted schemes,
accompanied by appropriate advice, haveincreased the abundance of multispecies
groups135,136,138 and single species such as Corn
Bunting139,140, although this is sometimes overlong time-scales141. Despite the importanceof these schemes, policy-makers still lack
empirical guidance on how much AES-typeprovision is needed to meet biodiversity
targets, with notable recent exceptions83.
A study in Northern Ireland compared
conventional and AES management
techniques on upland grassland. The AES
management maintained more diverseswards with a higher coverage of native plant
species, and was associated with greater
species richness and abundance of terrestrial
invertebrates compared to conventional
management138. The Department ofAgriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs(DAERA) is also monitoring the effectivenessof Environmental Farming Scheme
options for birds across Northern Ireland.
Previous studies have shown how targetedarable scheme options have increased theabundance of Yellowhammers, Tree Sparrows
and House Sparrows142.
Research in England contrasted farm systems
in three lowland regions with highertier, lower-tier and no AES provision. In
arable and pastoral regions, 57% and 59%
of farmland bird species had more positive
population growth under higher-tier AES

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

than on no AES farmland, but there was little
difference in the mixed farming region.
The lower-tier AES farmland showed little
difference in any of the regions. To increase
regional farmland bird populations by 10%
over 10 years, 47% and 26% of the farmed
landscape would have to be devoted tohigher-tier AES agreements in arable andpastoral landscapes respectively83.
Scotland hosts the UK’s main populationsof Corncrake, and the species’ continued
survival is due to hard work by crofters,
farmers, NGOs and government agencies.
Targeted AES bolstered Corncrakes fromfewer than 500 males in 1993 to 1,274 in
2014143, although this number has since
fallen. A recent study in northeast Scotland
found positive associations between
bird abundance and specific AES land
management options that met species
ecological requirements: in particular, water
margins for Reed Buntings, and speciesrich grasslands for Yellowhammers, whileplanting hedgerows improved plant diversity
and pollinator abundance144. AES measures,such as the provision of cover crops, benefit
seed-eating birds including Goldfinch, Linnet
and Yellowhammer145.

Well-targeted
schemes,accompanied byappropriate advice,
have increased theabundance ofmulti-species
groupsThe Welsh AES Glastir, and its predecessor
Tir Gofal, have had mixed outcomes forbiodiversity146-148. Further data collection isessential to see if key biodiversity groups,
including lowland and priority birds, begin toshow positive responses. A new Sustainable
Farming Scheme is being developed, due
to be launched in 2025. Sufficient fundingfor data collection, analysis and scientificreporting on AES effectiveness remains
essential to know if the right biodiversity
outcomes are being delivered.

Corncrake, Graham Goodall (rspb-images.com)

56

57

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Case study:

Protected
areas

Case study:

Natterjack Toad in range pond

RSPB Hope Farm, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

Natterjack Toad recovery
programme: monitoring to
inform site management

RSPB Hope Farm

The Natterjack Toad is rare in Britain,
found in around 60 locations. The species
has specialised habitat requirements andis associated with coastal sand dunes,
saltmarsh and sandy heaths. The longrunning Natterjack Toad breeding survey,
coordinated by Amphibian and Reptile
Conservation (ARC), aims to provide
an annual estimate of their breeding
population. Volunteers, including farmers
and other land managers, visit waterbodies
repeatedly through the breeding season,and record the occurrence and quantityof spawn, tadpoles and toadlets. Knowing
which pools are used for breeding, andwhere populations are thriving or need
help, allows ARC to provide tailored advice
that land managers can use to improve
the species’ prospects. Actions include
managing habitat in and around breeding
ponds to increase breeding success,
improving the availability and conditionof breeding, foraging and hibernation
habitats, and increasing connectivity
among colonies. Farmers can use various
options in AES to help them create andrestore Natterjack Toad habitat.

Conservation response

The RSPB purchased Hope Farm in 1999
as a demonstration and research site,
to examine the feasibility of runninga successful lowland arable farming
business whilst increasing wildlife value
through agri-environment measures.
More recently, the focus has broadened
to include wider environmental impacts
such as reduction of diffuse pollution andimproving climate regulation services.
From the outset, detailed monitoring ofwild birds, mammals, insects and flora has
been undertaken, alongside spatial recordsof crop yields, inputs and agronomy.
This facilitates comparison of the relative
benefits of different management
techniques on food production,
biodiversity, and climate change
mitigation. Between 2000 and 2012, crop
yields, relative abundance of 19 farmland
bird species, and CO2 and N2O emissions
related to crop production were recorded.
By diversifying crop rotation and using
10% of formerly cropped land to support
nature, food energy production dropped
to 90.4% of previous levels, breeding bird
populations increased by 177%, and GHG
emissions were cut by 9.4%153.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Impact of woodland management
While UK woodland cover has more thandoubled in the last 100 years, much of thiscomprises non-native species establishedduring large-scale afforestation in the middleof the 20th century. Plantations were frequently
established on heath, moor and peatland
habitats with strongly negative consequences
for open habitat wildlife, soil carbon andwater management. More recently, changes
to forestry standards and practice have begun
to reverse these impacts. For example, it ispossible to adapt commercial forestry to support
wildlife through practices such as continuous
cover forestry. The Forest StewardshipCouncil Ecosystem Service Certification adds
sustainability targets to certified woodland;wider adoption would improve forestry
sustainability.
Changes in woodland structure following theloss of traditional management techniques
have been identified as one of the drivers of
population decline of specialist woodland
birds81. Although new woodlands are being
established around the UK, it may take centuries

of development before they can support
specialised species found in ancient sites.
Actively managing existing woodlands
to have varied age structure, or speciestargeted woodland management throughAES can help to increase bird diversity
in the short term151. Currently, little is
known about the impact of broader AES
woodland management schemes, andwork is underway to assess the impactof the Woodland Improvement (WD2)
option under Countryside Stewardshipschemes152.

Impact – people and planet
The Nature Friendly Farming Network(NFFN) is a farmer-led independent
organisation, established in November
2017, uniting more than 1,600 farmers
across the UK who are committed to
managing their land for wildlife and public
good, at the same time as growing andproviding safe, healthy and nutritious
food. Ongoing work has had multiple
benefits for species and farmers118.

Over the past two decades, Natterjack
Toad populations have stabilised or
expanded at some sites where conservation
management has been well-resourced.
At other sites, populations have declined,
contracted in range, or become locallyextinct over the same period.
RSPB Hope Farm, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

58

59

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

FutureFisheries
The UK Government and devolved
administrations now have full responsibility
for managing fisheries in the UK’s Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) up to 200 nautical
miles from our coastline, subject to accessarrangements made under the Tradeand Co-operation Agreement. The UK
Government leads on international fisheries
quota negotiations from the overall Total
Allowable Catch (TAC). Since the last Stateof Nature report, the UK Fisheries Act (2020)
has come into law, and Scotland has a Future
Fisheries Management Strategy to 2030. The
UK Fisheries Act 2020 aspires to enhance
the sustainability of marine resources andprotect ecosystem services while continuing
to focus on economic considerations. Of theeight fisheries objectives set out in the Act,
five (sustainability, precautionary, ecosystem,
bycatch, and climate change) aim to enable
more environmentally-sensitive fishingpractices. These objectives should support thehealth of the marine environment and ensure
the long-term viability of the fishing industry.
A series of Fisheries Management Plans is
also being developed, and discussions areunderway that could reform how monitoringat sea is conducted. This could support thedelivery of climate-smart fishing, throughactions such as deployment of Remote
Electronic Monitoring (REM) with cameras
on vessels154.
Steps are being taken to implement
ecosystem-based fisheries management.
These include commitments to altermanagement of industrial fisheries for
Sandeels in the North Sea. Sandeels area small shoaling fish, vital to the healthof marine ecosystems – they have been
described as the most important forage
fish in the North Sea, as they are key tothe diets of seabirds, marine mammals

60

Historical change

Conservation response

Protected
areas

and larger fish. Climate change is themain pressure on Sandeels, but industrialscale fishing exacerbates declines. All the
UK administrations have recognised thaturgent measures are needed to protect the
species and the wider marine ecosystem.
Defra consulted on a closure of the English
waters of the North Sea while Scotland hasannounced plans to consult on a closureof Scottish waters to Sandeel fisheries. In
addition, Sandeel fishing off the North East
coast of the UK has been halted since 2000155.

The UK Fisheries
Act 2020 aspires
to enhance thesustainability ofmarine resources andprotect ecosystemservices while
continuing tofocus on economic
considerations
Farmland and woodland
There have been criticisms of AES
implementation in the UK. These criticisms
concern insufficient monitoring of AES
efficacy, and that the expected benefits fornature have not been realised156. Research isneeded to test and improve AES management
prescriptions, and assess whether
interventions benefit target taxa on land
directly under AES management, or mobile
taxa that move onto the land as resources
improve. Recent work has been undertaken
to design an effective survey methodology to
begin to meet these research needs156.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

The Future Agricultural Policy proposals inNorthern Ireland suggest that over time themajority of funding will move from direct
payments into the delivery of other measures
such as the new 'Farming with Nature' AES.
However, there have been significant delays
to this programme and its fate is uncertain.
Meanwhile, farmland birds continue todecline across Northern Ireland, with 35%
of species now on the Red List of highest
conservation concern. It is essential that a
new scheme is appropriately funded in orderto maintain the good that has been achieved
through nature-friendly farming practices
for priority habitats and species, whilst also
increasing nature restoration at a landscapescale and across the wider countryside.

UK countries are also now working to put
in place agriculture and environmental
legislation post-Brexit. For example, theambitious Environment Improvement Plan
target in England requires that 65 to 80%
of landowners and farmers adopt naturefriendly farming on at least 10-15% of theirland by 2030122. Reaching this target may beenough to halt species’ declines in lowland
landscapes83. Greater levels of AES provision
would be necessary for priority and specialist
bird species, and a greater area would likely
be required in upland farming systems.
Estimates suggest that between 36-50% of
woodland bird populations need to be underWoodland Improvement Grant management
to affect population trends151.

Since 2018 in England, the Department
for Food, Environment and Rural
Affairs (Defra) has been designing newdomestic agricultural policies. They have
reimplemented Countryside Stewardship,
and introduced two additional schemes,
the Sustainable Farming Incentive andLandscape Recovery157. The Sustainable
Farming Incentive will fund practices toimprove farm-level sustainability suchas integrated pest management, soil
stewardship and critical farmland wildlife
resources such as seed and flower-rich areas.
Landscape Recovery will fund large-scaleland use change projects including woodland
planting, and restoration of peatland,
species-rich grassland and rivers to support
species and biodiversity, address climatechange, improve water quality and publicaccess. This scheme is only in the pilot phase.
Defra funded 21 landscape recovery projects
in 2022 and plans to fund an additional 25
projects in 2023. This funding covers the
project development phase, with successfulprojects expected to use private finance toco-fund the delivery phase.

Targets set under the Environment Act
2021 require that nitrogen, phosphorus
and sediment pollution from farming will
each be reduced by 40% by 2038, yet it
remains unclear how action will be locallytargeted and encouraged, and whether the
reductions will be sufficient to enable therecovery of freshwater wildlife. Ultimately,
the future of many species associated withfarmlands and woodlands depends on thewidescale adoption of nature (and climate)positive practices by land managers in allparts of the UK and a shift to more nature
positive systems of farming and woodland
management overall.

61

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Conservation response

Protected
areas

Protected areasTarget 3 of the Global Biodiversity
Framework is the ‘30 by 30’ target,
which commits to protecting
30% of land and sea, a target towhich all four UK governments
have committed. This need not be
via legal designation, but priority
should be given to designatingareas of particular importancefor biodiversity and ecosystem
functions and services.
Protected areas are legally designated anddelineated sites where natural features
including species and habitats are safeguarded
and managed for the benefit of wildlife
and people. Protected areas are a key pillarof nature conservation and recovery, andconsiderable global momentum has formed
around their designation. The protectedarea target of the 2020 Aichi Convention on
Biodiversity agreement was one of the few tobe met, with countries collectively designating
17% of land and 10% of sea globally.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Headlines
Crucially, protected areas should also be
effectively managed, integrated into wider
landscapes, equitably governed, and provide
local communities with equitable access tobenefits; all these factors are key to ensuring
effective protected areas. Protected areasin the UK cover a range of protection levels
and spatial scales including: a core suite ofstatutory nature conservation sites, small
local community nature reserves, wide
expanses of ocean marine protected areas,
and landscape scale designations for cultural
as well as natural heritage.

ActionIn this chapter we focus on protected areas
designated primarily for nature conservation.
We illustrate their extent and condition andreview their impact on species and the wider
benefits to people. We then consider the mixof protected areas and other areas managed
for nature that may contribute towards
meeting our ‘30 by 30’ target.

ImpactFutureSand dunes, Ernie Janes (rspb-images.com)

62

UK countries

11% of UK land and freshwater is in conservation-focused protectedareas and within this only 44% of the measured attributes of Areasor Sites of Special Scientific Interest are in favourable condition.
38% of UK marine waters are designated as protected areas. We
currently lack a comparable comprehensive condition assessment
for all UK marine protected areas.

On land, species are on average more abundant and species
richness greater in protected areas, with some evidence of morepositive population trends for species of conservation concern.
Protected areas support habitat retention and restoration,
providing climate change mitigation via carbon sequestration andclimate change adaptation via, for example, flood management.

Work is ongoing (at different stages in different parts of the UK) to
implement fisheries management across MPAs and to designate
new protected areas, including Highly Protected Marine Areas.
The UK governments’ drive to reach the ’30 by 30’ target will see
new areas designated for nature and people. Critically, as wellas providing more space for nature these will need to be lesspressured and meet the other Lawton principles of sites that arebigger, better and more connected.

Otter, Jules Cox (rspb-images.com); RSPB Langford Lowfields Nature Reserve, Malcolm Hunt (rspb-images.com);
Gannet, David Tipling (rspb-images.com)

63

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Action – extent and conditionof protected areas
The UK has a variety of protected area
designations. On land, the main site level
designations for nature are Areas or Sites ofSpecial Scientific Interest (A/SSSIs), Special
Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special
Protection Areas (SPAs), Ramsar sites andNational Nature Reserves (NNRs). Taken
together, these sites cover 11% of UK land158(Figure 19A). In these sites the primary focus
is on nature conservation, but other activities
are permitted if they do not damage thenatural features. National Parks and Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty are landscapesConservation response

Protected
areas

designated for a range of purposes
including conserving natural beauty,
wildlife and cultural heritage; and providing
opportunities for public enjoyment,
understanding and recreation. Where there
is conflict between purposes, conservation is
supposed to take priority.

UK countries

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

A)

Scotland37%

protected areasat seaWales

50%protected areasat sea18%

At sea, significant progress has been made in
designating Marine Protected Areas (MPAs),
including new Marine Conservation Zones
and Nature Conservation MPAs, and the firstHighly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) wereidentified in 2023. Together with marinefocused SPAs and SACs, designated sites now
cover 38% of UK waters158.

11%

UK combined

38%

protected areas
on landprotected areas
on landprotected areasat seaNorthern
Ireland36%
protected areasat sea10%

England40%

protected areas
on land11%

7%

protected areas
on landprotected areas
on landprotected areasat seaB)

Condition of A/SSSI Features (%)
Favourable

England (11,715)

Unfavourable Recovering

Northern Ireland (1,113)

Unfavourable
Scotland (2,971)

Partially or Fully Destroyed

Wales (3,278)

Unknown

UK
0

RSPB Mersehead Nature Reserve, Alan Coe (rspb-images.com)

64

20

40
60
Condition of A/SSSI (%)

80

100

Figure 19: Protected areas in the UK. A) Extent of areas in the UK subject to a legal nature conservation designationon land and at sea, taken from UK Biodiversity Indicator C1, Tables C1i/C1ii158; includes A/SSSI, NNR, Ramsar, SAC,
SPA, MCZ and ncMPAs. Source: jncc.gov.uk/our-work/ukbi-c1-protected-areas. B) For the UK, the percentage ofarea (England) or features (Scotland, Wales and NI) of biological A/SSSIs in Favourable or Unfavourable recovering
condition in the UK taken from UK Biodiversity Indicator C1: Protected Areas. The country results are weighted by
the area of the A/SSSI network present in that country before combining. For each UK country a summary of thecondition of terrestrial and freshwater biological A/SSSI features in each country. The total number of features is given
in brackets in each case. Summary information was downloaded (England, NI), or the condition dataset downloaded
and summarised (Scotland, Wales) from country statutory agency websites159-162. Please note the baseline SSSI
assessment for Wales does not include the category ‘Unfavourable Recovering’.

65Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Currently, less than half of the area ormonitored features in UK A/SSSIs are in‘favourable’ condition (Figure 19B). A further
third are assessed as ‘recovering’, althoughsome features may take many years to reach‘favourable’ status. At a UK level, there has
been a substantial increase in the proportionof A/SSSIs in ‘unfavourable recovering’condition since 2005, but a small decline in
the proportion in ‘favourable’ condition in
the past few years158. In part, this is because
many of the pressures impacting designatedsites originate from the wider landscape andlandowners or site managers cannot easily
address them. For example, pollution fromagriculture and sewage overflows resultsin poor water quality affecting designatedfreshwater habitats. Natural England reported
in 2019 that 89.7% of SSSI river units were inunfavourable condition and NRW found in2020 that 60% of SSSI freshwater biodiversity
features were unfavourable. This highlights
that, in addition to site-level actions suchas habitat management, strong policies
are needed to manage off-site impacts likepollution or invasive non-native species
if the condition of designated sites is to be
improved.
The condition of terrestrial A/SSSIs, SPAs
and SACs is assessed using CommonStandards Monitoring in most UK countries.
Monitoring in Wales previously concentrated
on SAC features, but a more comprehensive
assessment of SAC, SPA and SSSI feature
condition was recently published160. However,information for 51% of sites was insufficient
to make an assessment.
Many sites elsewhere in the UK have not beenassessed recently either; for example, 78% ofEnglish SSSIs have had no site visit between
2015 and 2021.

66

Historical change

Conservation response

Protectedareas

We do not currently have a comprehensive
condition assessment for MPAs, partly as
many were only recently designated. At
the UK level in 2021, 11% of MPAs had fullmonitoring in place, and 75% had partial
monitoring, which may focus on featuresat higher risk164. In Wales, marine site-levelfeature condition assessments in 2018
reported 46% of features were in favourable
condition, 45% in unfavourable condition
and 9% were unknown163. The logisticaldifficulties and expense of monitoring
makes it challenging to assess the impact
of management and determine whether
sites are moving towards their objectives.
Monitoring offshore (more than 12 nautical
miles) MPAs is particularly resource intensive,
making full regular condition assessments
difficult to achieve.
Before 2022, few offshore MPAs had
fisheries management in place to reduce
disturbance to vulnerable habitats, withmanagement focused on a small number ofsites supporting the most vulnerable habitatfeatures or in deep water areas.
Bottom-trawling using mobile gear can beparticularly damaging to habitats such asbivalve reefs165,166, in some cases altering theentire composition of ecosystems and thefunctions they provide. Between 2015 and2019, bottom-trawling was still evident at 98%
of offshore sites designated to protect theseabed167.
Although over three-quarters of UK MPAs had
management partially or fully documented in2018, this had only been fully implemented in
10% of sites164.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Impact – species andhabitats
Here, we consider evidence from the UK
and ask, do UK protected areas support
more species, at greater abundances, than
the wider land or seascape, and do they
support species’ recovery?

Do protected areas on land
contain more species or greater
abundances of species?
Across a suite of over 1,200 invertebrate
species, (including ants, bees, hoverflies,
ladybirds, spiders, and wasps), an averageof 30 more species were found in 1 km
squares with high levels of protection
compared to unprotected areas103.
Similarly, 48% of bird species had a greater
likelihood of occurrence and higher
abundance as the extent of protectedareas in the surrounding area increased168.
There is good evidence that these trends
are stronger for rarer species and habitat
specialists; for example, protectedareas held almost double the number ofrare invertebrate species compared tounprotected areas103,168. Each additional 20%
coverage by protected areas in a landscapeequates to 5% greater abundance of birds ofhigher conservation concern102.

Although the patterns of higher species
richness or abundance in protected areas
may be explained by historically greater
losses in unprotected areas, protected areas
are generally sited in nature-rich areas169,170.
English landscapes containing protectedareas have a higher representation ofpriority species compared to unprotected
landscapes171. Similarly, an NRW
assessment found that in general species
assessed as threatened on Great Britain’s
Red Lists were well represented in Welsh
Protected Areas. For example, more than
80% of Red List bryophyte and lichen
species had at least one population in a
SSSI, and most have their entire Welsh
population protected172,173. Welsh SSSIs
support 234 threatened invertebrate
species, which result in 545 single-speciesfeatures, and 93 nationally important
invertebrate assemblages. 53% of IUCN
threatened species recorded from Wales
are represented as SSSI features174. At
the UK level, there is some evidence
that globally threatened species are lesswell represented across protected areas,
with only 31 of 187 globally threatened
species listed as notification features for
A/SSSIs. However,this may reflect thetiming of the threat assessment relative
to site notification, or simply lack ofsurvey data for these species at the time ofnotification175.

Between 2015 and 2019, bottom-trawling
was still evident at 98% of offshore sites
designated to protect the seabed 167

67Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Does protection lead to more positive
population trends?
While there is compelling evidence that
protected areas are richer in nature, evidence
regarding species trends is more mixed.
In some cases, protected areas do lead topositive population trends. For example,
trends for bird species of conservation
concern are more positive when there
is a high coverage of protected areas in
the surrounding area102. Similarly, sites
designated for a target species group,for example SPAs for birds168 or SPAs andRamsar sites for wetland birds176, havestronger positive associations with bothcurrent abundance and increasing trends inabundance.

Trends for bird
species ofconservation
concern are morepositive when there
is a high coverageof protectedareas in thesurrounding area
While protected areas are associated withhigher probabilities of occurrence forrarer, declining or habitat specialist birds,
protection does not completely halt declines
in abundance168. Recent trends in invertebrate
species’ distribution have contracted
at a similar rate in both protected andunprotected areas, even across a subset ofrarer species103. Likewise, for a range of plants

Conservation response

Protected
areas

and animals, trends in declining and priority
species are on average similar in landscapeswith and without protected areas171. The
extent to which population declines reflectsite-level issues, or drivers that lie beyondsite boundaries (eg, climate change, diffuse
pollution), is uncertain.

Impact of Marine Protected Areas
Compared with terrestrial protectedareas, we do not currently have the samelevel of understanding of the impacts of
UK MPAs on the occurrence and statusof species and habitats. Monitoring andmanagement of MPAs are currently seldom
fully implemented164, and enforcement
is challenging. However, many MPAs are
subject to the Habitats Regulations, and allactivities that need a marine licence (which
excludes fishing) must undergo a Habitat
Regulations Assessment. Regulation offishing activities that affect habitats andspecies, benefits the entire MPA, allowing
both commercially exploited species andbroader assemblages, particularly benthic
communities, to recover. Lyme Bay, with
its species-rich, disturbance-sensitive reef
habitats177, is one of the most thoroughly
studied MPAs in the UK. Trawl fisheries
have been excluded from the 200 km2 site
since 2008 and the area is managed in acollaboration between the local fishingindustry and conservationists to provide
benefits for both fishing and conservation.
A decade after the trawling ban, benthic
communities, fish and invertebrates
have all benefited. The number of species
and the diversity of ecological functions
they represent increased markedly in theprotected area but remained static in control
sites178. While the diversity and abundance ofcommercially exploited fish species increased
in all sites, it was to a greater extent within
the MPA179.

UK countries

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

In 2022 bylaws were passed to regulate
fisheries in four offshore MPAs in England180.
The most extensive of these is Dogger Bank:
covering 12,331 km2, the largest continuous
expanse of shallow sandbank in UK waters,
home to amphipods, Hermit Crabs, Starfish
and importantly Sandeels, a key food formany other fish, seabirds and cetaceans181.
An average of 623 hours of trawl fishing effort
per km2 per year occurred in Dogger Bank
between 2015 and 2019167. Now trawl fishingis prohibited across the entire site. In the six
months following the bylaw introduction,
only 13 hours of fishing were recorded182. A
programme is underway to instigate fisheries
management measures in all English MPAs
by the end of 2024. In Scotland, 27 MPAs
already have specific fisheries measures inplace, and measures for a further 39 MPAs
will be developed by 2024, in partnershipwith the fishing industry, other stakeholders,and other European countries.
New measures are also being developed toprotect biodiverse habitats such as seagrass,maerl and flame shell beds at key coastal
biodiversity locations.

A programme isunderway to instigate
fisheries management
measures in all
English MPAs by
the end of 2024

Sea bed at Lyme Bay, Dr Emma Sheehan

68

69

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Impact – people and planet
Carbon and protected areas
Healthy ecosystems generate many benefits
for people: providing sources of food, income
for local communities and opportunities
for recreation. Critically, they also provide
cost-effective climate change mitigation
through carbon capture and storage, and help
with adaptation to climate impacts such as
reducing the impact of storms, flooding or
coastal erosion.
Across nature-rich terrestrial habitats, 47%of carbon stocks are found within existing
protected areas183. Restoring degraded sites
in the network will protect carbon stocks
and, in some cases, increase them via
sequestration184. In marine environments,
MPAs offer not only a route to restore
habitats, species and functioning ecosystems,
but can also contribute substantially to
climate change mitigation if they protect andeffectively manage ‘blue carbon’ stores185,186.
Recent estimates suggest that around 200
megatonnes of carbon are stored in UK shelf
sediments187.

The English North
Sea MPA networkholds more carbon
stocks and provides
greater sequestration
than nondesignated areas

70

Historical change

Conservation response

Protected
areas

In the English North Sea the MPA networkholds more carbon stocks and provides
greater sequestration than non-designatedareas; 46% of stored carbon and 43% of carbon
sequestration occurs within MPAs, with 2.5%of the UK’s total blue carbon found in Dogger
Bank188.

Future – how to reach ourprotected areas targets?
A key question is how to best expand thecurrent protected area network and ensurethat they and other nature-rich sites aremanaged effectively to meet the new global
target of ’30 by 30’.
The expanded network needs to include
species and habitats of conservation concernthat are not yet covered by protected areas.
For example, UK MPAs do not include any
SPAs for Balearic Shearwater, despite aquarter of the global population using British
waters during migration and foraging. The
species is globally Critically Endangered
due to increasing pressures from bycatchin fishing gear, declines in fish prey andoffshore energy developments189,190.
Designations like Highly Protected Marine
Areas (HPMAs) are designed to achieve fullecosystem recovery. The first three HPMAs in
England were designated in July 2023, in total
covering nearly 1,000 km2. A consultation on
HPMAs in Scotland took place in early 2023.
Protecting 30% of the UK’s land and sea fornature by 2030 will require a mix of protectedareas and Other Effective Area-based
Conservation Measures (OECMs; Box 1); areas
where management benefits biodiversity,
even if conserving nature is not the primaryobjective. Flexibility in the network will
be key, as climate change may reduce thesuitability of existing protected areas, leading
to decline or extirpation of target species.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

There is strong evidence that terrestrial
protected areas help colonising or rangeshifting species, something that is becoming
commonplace in a changing climate. There isa positive association between protected area
extent and colonisation of new areas by birds,
and protected areas are more likely to becolonised by locally-novel pollinator species
compared to unprotected areas103. Hence
protected areas will be vital for nature in the
future, even if the species and habitats they
support change over time. To support climate
adaptation, new protected areas should
include both current climate refugia and thelikely future climatic niches for species andhabitats. New sites should be well connectedto the existing network.

The first three
HPMAs in England
were designated inJuly 2023, in total
covering nearly
1,000 km2

Box 1

 ther Effective Area-based
O
Conservation Measures(OECMs) are defined by the IUCN

as ‘A geographically defined areaother than a Protected Area, whichis governed and managed in waysthat achieve positive and sustained
long-term outcomes for the in situ
conservation of biodiversity withassociated ecosystem functions
and services and, where applicable,
cultural, spiritual, socio–economic,
and other locally relevant values’191.
Hence, they should achieve positive
biodiversity outcomes, even thoughbiodiversity conservation may
not be their primary objective.
Alongside protected areas, OECMs
have a role to play in delivering the‘30 by 30’ target in the new CBD
Global Biodiversity Framework.
OECMs have been applied in situations where
biodiversity outcomes are already being
delivered through inclusive approaches. They
are yet to be used on land in the UK but may
be relevant to long-term management andrestoration efforts driven primarily by carbon
or water objectives that can also measurably
benefit biodiversity. Six potential OECMs
have been suggested in UK waters, including
the Irish Sea cod box164. As with protectedareas, long-term protection, and effective
management and monitoring will be crucial
if UK OECMs are to count towards the ‘30 by
30’ target.

71

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Conservation response

Protected
areas

Ecosystem and habitat
restoration
Target 2 of the Global Biodiversity
Framework commits to ensuringthat 30% of degraded habitats areunder effective restoration by
2030 and to restore, maintain andenhance nature’s contribution topeople, through ecosystem-based
approaches and nature-based
solutions (NbS) to climate change.
The global biodiversity crisis is driven by arange of anthropogenic pressures and the
UK in particular has experienced significant
habitat loss, change and degradation during
the last century192. Against this context, recent
decades have seen a growing appreciationof the wider value of habitat or ecosystem
resilience, and the importance of ecosystemservices193. Both global and national policy
initiatives are encouraging restorationand protection of natural and semi-natural
habitats194-196.
Nature-based solutions involving ecosystem
restoration can provide important cobenefits for nature and people, including
flood alleviation, improved livelihoods andEcosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Headlines
biodiversity conservation184. Restoration
should therefore help ecosystems become
more resilient and enhance biodiversity,
which in turn should enable more effective
species conservation.
Ecosystem restoration holds the potential toenhance biodiversity, ecological function,and ecosystem services. When the pressureson an ecosystem are reduced, restoration canoccur naturally. It can also be managed andapplied at scales from local (eg, 0.25 ha197)
to landscape (eg, 250,000 ha198) and inenvironments as varied as urban199, marine201
or upland forest202. It can be challenging todecide on a specific goal or end-state forrestoring an ecosystem; however, there isincreasingly a move away from attempting
to preserve ecosystems as static entities
and a shift towards actions enabling better
adaptation to changing climatic conditions
and other external pressures.
This chapter illustrates the extent, condition
and rate of restoration of ecosystems
where possible and discusses the impactof restoration across a broad suite of
ecosystems.

ActionRestoration is taking place across a wide range of ecosystems, withmore than 5,000 ha of degraded peatland being restored each year.
Despite this, only 14% of priority habitats assessed are in goodcondition and only 7% of native woodland and 25% of peatlands arein good ecological status. Good Environmental Status has not beenachieved for seafloor habitats and is uncertain for intertidal andsoft sediment marine habitats.

Ecosystem restoration projects are underway and can improvespecies’ abundance and enhance biodiversity. Restoring natural
ecosystems can improve human wellbeing and aid adaptation to
the effects of climate change.

ImpactFutureThe rate of ecosystem restoration must increase to meet the agreed
nature and climate targets, although the full benefits of some
restoration projects may not be realised for decades or centuries.
Restoration projects co-developed locally are likely to lead to better
outcomes for both people and the environment.

Celtic rainforest woodland habitat, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com);
RSPB Radipole Nature Reserve, Mike Read (rspb-images.com);
RSPB Geltsdale Nature Reserve, Luke Blazejewski (rspb-images.com)

Beavers, Beaver Trust (rspb-images.com)

72

73

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Action – condition of
ecosystems and extent of
restoration

1.6
Broadleaved woodland

3.0

Protected
areas

2015125. Less than half of UK saltmarsh204 anda quarter of peatland are in good ecologicalcondition206. At the current restoration rates,
only a small additional extent of peatlandand saltmarsh will be in good condition by
2050 (Figure 20). None of the marine regions
assessed in 2018 met the Good Environmental
Status (GES) target of less than 15% of theseafloor subject to high levels of fishingrelated disturbance (Figure 21)205. GES was
also uncertain for intertidal and soft sediment
habitats during the last assessment in 2018200.

Here we present data on the extent andcondition of a range of terrestrial and marine
UK habitats. Reduction in anthropogenicpressures and restoration of these habitats
would have significant potential benefits
for nature and climate. 44% of UK woodlandis under sustainable management
certification203, and 7% of British woodland
was in good ecological condition at the lastassessment undertaken between 2010 and

Area (M/ha)Conservation response% Goodcondition

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

The Article 17 Habitats Directive reportcollated data on 77 UK habitats of European
importance. These are habitats considered
to be rare, endangered or vulnerable inEurope204. The majority of the UK’s habitatsof European importance are marine (51%) by

50%
UK Marine
Strategy
Framework
Directive
sub-region

31%

planted per year

7

Celtic Seas

48%

25

30%
projected
to 2050

5,000 harestored per year

Appendicesarea, which reflects the country’s significant
proportion of marine territory compared toland area. The remainder comprise wetlands(26%), heathlands (15%), woodlands (3%),
grasslands (2%), with freshwaters, coastal
areas and rock (1%). Of these, 77 assessed
habitats, 62 are in unfavourable to bad
condition, eight inadequate and only six infavourable condition. Here, unfavourable
to bad condition refers to a habitat thathas undergone major negative changes instructure or function and/or quality209.

Assessment area

7,000 ha*UKOTs and CDs

Nature, climate
and people

Progress against the UK target was assessedin sub-divisions of each UK Marine Strategy
Framework Directive sub-region (the Celtic
Seas and Greater North Sea); and in UK
waters in adjacent OSPAR regions (see Figure21)205. An updated OSPAR assessment will be
published in 2023.

ActionGreater
North Sea75%

% area of cells
predicted to
be exposed to
disturbancecategories 5-9

Assessment
againsttarget(<15%)Southern
Celtic Seas

75

Not achieved

Nothern
Celtic Seas

31

Not achieved

Southern
North Sea48

Not achieved

Northern
North Sea

50

Not achieved

EnglishChannel75

Not achieved

subdivision75%

Peatland0.05

UK countries

50

53%
projected
to 2050

45 ha

Figure 21: Percentage of seafloor predicted to be subject to higher levels of disturbance (category 5-9) by fishing205
Source: UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy 2018, adapted from OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017.

restored per year

Saltmarsh
Figure 20. The extent, condition and rate of recovery or creation of select habitats on land. Woodland: extent and rate ofplanting203, and condition125; Peatland extent, condition and rate of recovery206,207; Saltmarsh: extent and rate of recovery208,
and condition204. *Woodland condition figure covers all native woodland.

7475Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Impact – species and habitats
There are many ecosystem restoration
initiatives in the UK including woodland,grassland, saltmarsh and marine habitats. In
this section, we consider the impacts such
restoration projects have on the species thatlive there.

WoodlandWoodland restoration can involve a rangeof measures including planting or fostering
natural regeneration of native tree species,
reducing excessive grazing and browsing
pressure from livestock and deer, eradicatingor controlling invasive non-native species
such as Rhododendron ponticum, andthinning or coppicing to open the woodland
canopy.
Examples of restoration projects include:
the National Forest for Wales; the Heartof England Forest, which aims to create
a continuous 12,000 ha woodland acrossWorcestershire and Warwickshire; the Celtic
Rainforest along Britain’s Atlantic coastline;
the Woodland Trust seeking to treble the areaof native woodland in favourable ecologicalcondition by 2030112; and the Caledonian
Forest Restoration Project, which aims to
restore the ancient woodland of the Scottish
Highlands. Woodland restoration has positive
impacts on a variety of UK species. For
example, diversifying woodland structure andage, increasing the proportion of native tree
species, and increasing the area of canopy
openings can benefit bird species such as
the Willow Warbler, Marsh Tit and Redstart151.
Coppicing in native woodlands and clearfelling small areas in commercial woodlands
can increase butterfly diversity andabundance210. However, restoration schemes
must balance the requirements of species
aided by increased management with those76

Historical change

Conservation response

Protected
areasthat benefit from a minimum intervention
approach. For example, woodland thinningpromotes common and adaptable bat species,
but rarer species need old-growth woodlandfeatures such as standing dead trees andcavities211.

Grassland
In the UK, grassland restoration forconservation involves a range of techniquesand management strategies to improve
habitat quality including: sowing native grass
and wildflower seeds, controlled grazing,invasive species control, and scrub clearance
and tree removal. These techniques havepositive impacts on a range of species,
including birds, insects, and plants. For
example, allowing natural regeneration ofgrasslands or sowing grass and wildflower
seeds into arable fields in southern England
improved moth abundance and species
richness212. Similarly, restoring landfill sites
to grasslands and then managing them bymowing or grazing benefits a variety ofbird communities213. Lapwing, Redshankand Curlew populations all benefit from therestoration and management of lowland
wet grassland by encouraging naturalhydrological conditions and processes(sometimes supported by the use of dams andweirs), maintaining swards through seasonalgrazing and mowing, and by mechanicallyremoving shrubs and trees to remove perches
for avian predators214.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Intertidal and marine habitats
A recent report identified opportunities forthe restoration of six marine and coastal
habitats and species in Wales: intertidal
mudflats, coastal saltmarshes, seagrassbeds, Horse Mussel beds, Honeycomb
Worm reefs, and Native Oyster habitats215.
The report outlined various restoration
management techniques, includingtransplanting and seeding of vegetation,
removal of invasive species, and installationof artificial structures. This would haveseveral positive impacts, including provisionof supporting habitat for a variety of floraand fauna, increased fish populations,and improved water quality throughthe removal of pollutants and nutrients.
Restoration is expected to promote natural
hazard regulation and increased resilience,
as intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats
attenuate waves, reducing erosion at thecoast and expenditure on coastal defence
infrastructure215.
Saltmarshes provide valuable habitat fora wide range of plant and animal species.
Restoration techniques include managing
grazing pressure, removing invasive species
and managed realignment. Saltmarsh
systems are particularly important for hosting
nationally and internationally importantbird species, providing resources andhabitat needed for breeding, wintering andmigratory staging, sometimes supporting
huge populations of wintering wildfowl208. In
the UK, saltmarshes also play an importantnursery role for some species of fish,
including several commercially important
species216. In addition to these biodiversity
benefits, restored saltmarshes provide
important ecosystem services, including
coastal protection and carbon sequestration.

Case study:

RSPB Wallasea Island Nature Reserve,David Wootton (rspb-images.com)

Wallasea Island
The Essex coast in south-east Englandhas lost 91% of its intertidal salt marsh in
the last 400 years due to land claims for
agriculture, increasing coastal erosion andsea-level rise. Wallasea Island was enclosed
in sea walls and used for grazing marsh
until it was drained and converted to arable
land in the 1930s. Between 2009 and 2016,
the Environment Agency and the RSPB
undertook a managed realignment on thesite to restore intertidal habitat, creating
more space for sea water in the estuary.
More than 3 million tonnes of earth werebrought by boat from the tunnels of a large
rail infrastructure project in London to help
create a 115 ha intertidal area of saltmarsh,islands and mudflats. The reserve covers
more than 740 ha, two-thirds of whichhave now been transformed from arable
farmland to saltmarsh, mudflats, lagoons
and grazing marsh. Wallasea Island is now
a wildlife-rich habitat and a popular site
for people to visit, with 30,000 visitors in
2020405.

77

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Impact – people and planet

Conservation response

Protected
areas

Case study:

Urban ecosystem restoration
Biodiversity, tree cover, clean air and cleanwater are threatened in UK urban areas217,218.
Connection and access to nature for urban
citizens is unequal and diminishing. Evidenceshows access to good quality greenspaces
varies greatly depending on where we live,
and that the most economically deprived areas
often have less accessible public greenspace219.
Ecosystem restoration in urban environments
faces multiple challenges in terms of land use
and urban planning, including knowledge
gaps leading to obstacles in evidence-based
implementation as well as regulatory andfinancial barriers that hinder buy-in220,221.

In 2022, 93% ofparticipants surveyed
who took part in
activities inTiny Forest said it madethem feel refreshed andrevived. 97% said theyfelt close to nature

78

Black Mountain Primary Tiny Forest© Earthwatch Europe

Earthwatch Europe,
Tiny Forest
The Tiny Forest movement is a novel
urban greenspace intervention, where adiverse mix of 600 native trees and shrubs
are planted in a 200m2 area, following the
Miyawaki method developed in the 1970s
in Japan.
Earthwatch Europe has planted a networkof over 200 Tiny Forests across the UK
since 2020 with partners, communities,businesses and schools. The aim is toensure Tiny Forests are for everyone andseek, where possible, to plant Tiny Forests
in areas of multiple deprivation (currently
50% of Tiny Forests in England are in themost deprived 30% of areas222. Tiny Forests
provide access to nature and uniquelearning opportunities about ecosystemservices and biodiversity provided by trees.
Communities are engaged in planting,looking after, and monitoring the forestsfor environmental and social benefits
provided by trees. Nearly 3,500 citizen
scientists took part in surveys in 2022
across 80 Tiny Forests223 investigating
carbon storage, flood management, thermal
comfort and invertebrate biodiversity.
A network of citizen science volunteers
and university academics are increasing
knowledge and understanding of tree
planting methods in small, underused sites
in urban areas most in need of improved
greenspace for people and wildlife. 93%of participants surveyed who took part in
activities in Tiny Forest in 2022 said it madethem feel refreshed and revived, while 97%
said they felt close to nature.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Ecosystem restoration as a naturebased solution to climate change
Ecosystem restoration on land and at sea canbe an effective nature-based solution to climatechange, offering a myriad of benefits to people
and the planet. The Nature, Climate and People
chapter of this report covers diverse naturebased solutions for a range of habitats, but here
we highlight ecosystem restoration of peatlands
as a key opportunity for nature-based solutions.
UK peatlands include blanket bog, raised bog
and fenland habitats, with blanket bog covering
12% of the UK’s land area, representing 10-15%
of the global extent of this habitat. This includes
the Flow Country in North Scotland, thelargest and most intact blanket bog in Europe.
Peatlands are the largest terrestrial carbon
store in the UK. While near-natural peatlands
are a significant store, and ongoing sink, forcarbon, degraded sites release carbon and thus
contribute to climate warming. Three-quartersof UK peatlands are damaged or degraded by arange of pressures, including acidification from
nitrogen deposition, overgrazing, burning,draining, and afforestation with commercial
timber plantations. National funding from
Scotland and Wales’ National Peatland Action
Programmes, and England’s Nature for Climate
fund is supporting peatland restoration at large
scales, including by ‘Moors for the Future’ in thePeak District and ‘Cooperation Across Borders
for Biodiversity’ in the Garron Plateau SAC in
County Antrim.

Initial results fromblanket bog restorationsuggest the water table isrising, and invertebrates
and bird assemblages aregradually converging
with those found innatural bog

Case study:

RSPB Forsinard Flows Nature Reserve,
RSPB (rspb-images.com)

RSPB at Forsinard National
Nature Reserve
Work in the Flow Country includes
restoration projects by the RSPB at
Forsinard NNR over the last 25 years,
which included felling 2,593 ha of nonnative forestry with the aim of restoring
natural bog habitat224. Using large-scale
trials, the RSPB has tested new fellingand drain blocking techniques, triallingand implementing the best restoration
practices. Initial results suggest the watertable is rising, and invertebrate and bird
assemblages are gradually converging withthose found in natural bog. Near-naturaland restored peatlands not only store
carbon but also help maintain water quality
and aid in flood management, by slowing
runoff during storm events. Quantifying
these benefits to people can be difficult, as
valuations are influenced by many different
factors such as habitat connectivity, andhydrological benefits are highly dependent
on circumstances throughout thecatchment. The Flow Country is currently
under consideration for World Heritage
status, which could bring significant social,
cultural and economic benefits to the area.

79Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Future – what is restoration
aiming for?
Ecosystem restoration works for wildlife,
people and as a tool for climate change
mitigation. However, restoration can be alengthy process with outcomes dependent
on multiple factors. In some cases, projects
may produce noticeable results within a few
years, but in many cases, it may take decades
or even centuries to secure all the benefitsof restoration. The timescales involved in
restoration efforts can make it challenging
to monitor progress, and this has important
implications for policy. Restoration projects
need long-term planning and investment, as
well as adaptive management strategies thatallow flexibility in approach if progress stalls.
There is still much to learn about the mosteffective approaches to restore functioning
and resilient ecosystems, and there aremany viewpoints on how best to achievethis, including the much-debated conceptof rewilding. Some of these knowledge gaps

Conservation response

Protected
areas

can be addressed with large, long-term
restoration projects such as in Cairngorms
Connect in Scotland.
Critically, the current monitoring andreporting of habitat condition in the UK isinsufficient to enable the UK government
to ascertain whether it is on track to meetits statutory targets. Although informationon habitat quality and restoration rates isincomplete, current rates of restoration
are inadequate to restore 30% of degradedhabitat by 2050. To meet the interim 2030
target of 30% of degraded habitat undereffective restoration, it is essential to work
more closely with local people who live
or work near the habitats or landscapes
under restoration. If a shared restoration
plan is co-developed between local people
and practitioners, it is likely to lead tobetter outcomes for both people and theenvironment225.

native woodland, including species palatableto deer such as Birch and Aspen. There are
early signs that this is benefiting woodlandassociated species, including birds such as
Willow Warbler and moths such as Coxcomb
Prominent and Lesser Swallow Prominent.

Cairngorms Connect
Cairngorms Connect is the UK’s largest habitat
restoration project, covering 60,000 ha in the
Cairngorms National Park. This is a long-term
ecological restoration project with a 200-year
timeframe, which aims to restore habitats
such as native woodland, peatlands and rivers.
Neighbouring landowners have united overa shared vision for landscape restoration,
including collaborative deer control that enables
native woodland to regenerate. As a result, there
has been a marked expansion in the area of

80

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

One of the key aspects of Cairngorms Connect
is its focus on involving and collaboratingwith local people. Engaging with local
communities is key to achieving conservation
goals and ensuring local people benefit fromthe project. Cairngorms Connect works closelywith local communities, including farmers
and landowners, to develop conservationplans and initiatives that are compatible with
their needs and interests. The project also
provides opportunities for local people toparticipate in its conservation efforts throughvolunteering and citizen science programmes.
These help to build a sense of ownershipand pride in the local environment, while
increasing public awareness ofconservation issues.

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

The concept of rewilding
The idea of ‘rewilding’ has become increasingly prominent in UK conservation inrecent decades. It can also be controversial, provoking a range of reactions, including
among farming communities and other rural stakeholders226. While useful attempts
have been made to provide a unifying definition of rewilding [eg,227], it remains
a contested concept that is applied to a wide variety of different practices – notleast in the media228. These range from large-scale habitat restoration and species
reintroductions and other conservation translocations to the greening of urban spaces.
This variety has led some to argue that the term ‘rewilding’ does not carry significant
meaning, or that it is indistinguishable from other forms of ecological restoration229.
Despite overlap, however, most definitions of rewilding are characterised by sharedunderlying principles. Carver et al.227 define these as follows:
1.	Rewilding utilises wildlife to restore
trophic interactions.

6.	Rewilding requires local
engagement and support.

2.	Rewilding employs landscape-scaleplanning that considers core areas,
connectivity, and co-existence.

7.	Rewilding is informed by science,
traditional ecological knowledge,
and other local knowledge.

3.	Rewilding focuses on the recoveryof ecological processes, interactions,and conditions based on reference
ecosystems.

8.	Rewilding is adaptive and dependent
on monitoring and feedback.

4.	Rewilding recognises that ecosystems
are dynamic and constantly changing.

Case study:

Red Squirrel, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

UK countries

5.	Rewilding should anticipate the effects
of climate change and where possible
act as a tool to address impacts.

9.	Rewilding recognizes the intrinsic
value of all species and ecosystems.
10.	Rewilding requires a paradigm shift
in the coexistence of humans andnature.

While these principles are not universally applied, they outline characteristics common
to most conceptions of rewilding: an emphasis on dynamic processes rather thanstatic assemblages of species; a focus on increased spatial scale to enable large-scale
processes to take place; lower levels of ongoing human management of ecosystems; anincreased tolerance of uncertainty, enabling and accepting unexpected outcomes; and an
acceptance that people and communities should be at the centre of rewilding approaches.

81Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Conservation response

Protected
areas

Nature, climate and people
Our response to the biodiversity and climate
crisis cannot be separated from the multitudeof ways people use our land and sea. As asociety we must integrate our responses tothe full set of international and domestic
nature targets, whilst addressing the impactsof climate change and reducing future
emissions, and providing the food, fuel andhealth benefits we derive from nature.

These needs are acknowledged in
the Global Biodiversity
Framework, which includes
targets to: i) ensure that all areas
are under biodiversity-inclusive
spatial planning (Target 1); ii),
minimise the impact of climatechange on biodiversity andincrease its resilience, adaptationand mitigation including naturebased solutions (Target 8) and; iii)
increase the quality of, and access
to, green and blue spaces close topeople (Target 12).

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Headlines
Simultaneous achievement of these multiple
goals is not straightforward, requiring
an evaluation of the benefits and costs
associated with each action. Moreover,action we take domestically could lead tounintentional impacts on nature overseas.
An example of this ‘offshoring’ would be
importing food from highly biodiverse
landscapes in other countries as aconsequence of nature consevation measures
implemented in the UK. Here we explore
how these multiple goals interact with three
examples: at sea, considering the role ofmarine spatial planning in balancing climate
mitigation and nature restoration; in urban
environments, looking at how the health andwellbeing benefits of natural spaces relate
to biodiversity; and on land, examining theimplications of land-based climate change
mitigation and adaptation for climate, natureand food production.

ActionImpactIn addition to committing to the Global Biodiversity Framework,
all UK governments have made legally binding targets to reachnet-zero by 2045 or 2050, with associated ambitious targets for tree
planting and renewable energy generation. Targets have also beenset, in some places, to increase people’s access to quality natural
spaces.

Major increases in renewable energy capacity include a UK target
for 50GW from offshore wind power by 2030. Robust spatialplanning is critical to protect and restore nature at the sametime. Nature is vital for human health and wellbeing but accessis unequal and the attributes of natural spaces that provide thesebenefits are not fully understood.

Land-use scenarios suggest that wildlife is likely to benefit frommaximising nature-based solutions to achieving net-zero in theland sector, but that there will be trade-offs with current foodproduction priorities and other land-uses.

FutureDove Gardens community garden initiative, Rob Carmier (rspb-images.com); Windmill offshore
of Blyth, Andy Hay (rspb-images.com); Tractor tour, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

Offshore wind farm, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com)

82

83

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Action – extent of anticipatedland and sea-use change
In addition to committing to the post2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, all UK
governments have made legally binding
targets to reach net-zero by 2045 (Scotland)or 2050 (the rest of the UK)230-232,409. Meeting
this goal requires mitigation to reduce
further greenhouse gas emissions. However,
responding to climate change also includes
adaptation, which involves coping with, andpreparing for, the impacts of current andfuture climate change. Both adaptation andmitigation will entail substantial land andsea-use change (Figure 22).
Adaptation efforts can include restoring
natural processes, such as river basin
management to reduce flooding and storm
damage. For wildlife, adaptation involves
providing a resilient network of natural
habitats, with more, larger, and betterconnected sites, to accommodate theinevitable range-shifts driven byclimate change alongside preventing the
spread of invasive non-native species.

Conservation response

Protected
areas

Land-based mitigation efforts focus on
restoring carbon-rich habitats, such as
peatlands, and creating habitats, particularly
woodland (Figure 22). The impacts ofwoodland creation for both climate andnature will also vary over decades andcenturies as woodland matures, and depend
on a range of factors, such as the tree species
involved, the soil types, the level of ground
disturbance, whether forest expansion is via
planting or natural regeneration233 and what
habitats are being replaced to make space fortrees233-236.
Other mitigation efforts involve changes
to electricity generation, and the UK iscommitted to a vast increase in renewableenergy capacity (Figure 22). Through the
British Energy Security Strategy237, the UK
Government announced an ambition for
50GW of energy from offshore wind by 2030,
representing a near fivefold increase acrossthe course of this decade. Further expansion
is likely beyond 2030, with the Climate
Change Committee recommending a further
doubling of capacity by 2050238.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

UK 30,000 increase tree cover from 13 to 17% by 2050*239.
England 7,200 (to 2042**)240
Scotland 14,000244

Tree planting targets(ha per year)

Wales 5,000***246
Northern Ireland 900247

UK Increase from 11 to 50 GW by 2030237
Scotland Increase from 2.2 to 11 GW245, and Scottish
Government currently consulting on further increases
Wales Generate electricity equal to 70% of consumption fromrenewable sources by 2030406

Offshore windcapacity target (GW)

Northern Ireland Increase from 0 to 1 GW; 80% of consumption
by 2030248

England Everyone should live within a 15-minute walk of green
or blue space241
Scotland Increase the proportion of adults who live within a fiveminute walk of their local green or blue space242
Wales No one should live more than a six-minute walk (300m)
from their nearest natural green space243.

Access to nature

Northern Ireland Draft Biodiversity Strategy proposes that by
2050, 90% of households have publicly accessible quality natural
space of more than 2 ha within 400 m of their home and at least
one site of more than 20 ha within 2 km410.

Figure 22: Targets for tree planting, offshore wind energy capacity and people’s access to nature,
for the UK and UK countries. Not all countries have a target in each area.
* The UK country commitments do not currently sum to the UK total. Figures cover all types of forest,
including plantation forestry.
** Full target is 180,000 ha over 25 years.
*** Full target is 43,000 ha of new woodland by 2030, and 180,000 ha by 2050.
† The target relates to energy generation across all renewable sources, not only offshore wind.

These shifts in land and sea usage are in thecontext of a UK human population predicted
to grow by four million by 2050249, withan increased proportion of people living
in towns and cities. Population changes
necessitate substantial house building targets
and targets for increased access to local

natural spaces, making urban greening apriority. This is important for people, but also
for nature, as well-designed natural spaces
in towns and cities support animal dispersal
across the landscape.

RSPB Haweswater Nature Reserve, RSPB (rspb-images.com)

84

85

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Impact – species and habitats
Offshore wind and marine spatialplanning
The UK and devolved governments have set
ambitious but necessary targets for renewableenergy generation, with a very large
proportion met by offshore wind (Figure 22).
Meeting these targets is critical for nature andpeople, given the extensive and increasing
ecosystem-level impacts of climate change,
including in the marine realm250. However,poorly planned offshore wind projects canhave wide-ranging impacts on the alreadydegraded marine environment. The projectedmajor increase in deployment will create
additional pressures in these ecosystems.
The most studied potential impacts ofoffshore wind are on seabirds: from direct
collision251, displacement from foraging
areas252,253, or as a barrier to important flightpaths, either during migration, or regularly
when breeding adults are provisioning
chicks at their nests256. Impacts on migratingbats is also a significant concern but far lessinformation is available than for birds257,258.
There is also clear evidence that noise, inparticular from construction activity such as
pile driving, has short-term, negative impacts
on cetaceans259 and fish260. There are also
potential negative impacts from
artificial light.
The potential impacts of offshore windfarms
on benthic and fish communities are lessclear261. Some fish, and other taxa that makeuse of magnetic or electrical environmental
cues, have exhibited changes in their
behaviour in relation to the electrical fields
around subsea cabling262 and as a result of
operational noise263. Beyond the immediate
disturbance to the seabed and potential
associated carbon emissions during

86

Historical change

Conservation response

Protected
areas

construction, introducing hard substrates
like turbine foundations to soft sediment,
habitats may alter species’ communities byacting as artificial reefs. Over time, these
reefs may support a diverse, but altered,benthic community264,265. This, coupledwith prohibited or otherwise reduced
fisheries effort, may result in increased local
abundance of many fish species266. Increasedfish densities within windfarms may attract
seabirds, heightening collision risk268.
Moreover, fisheries efforts may be displaced
to areas outside the windfarm, so impacts on
broader fish populations are unclear267.
One area of active research is theimplications of the broad physical changes
the turbines have on water currents andwind conditions. Ocean stratification may
be impacted and even break down in thepresence of turbines traversing the watercolumn. This can lead to increases in primary
production and downstream impacts to thewider food chain269.
Research on offshore windfarm impacts
has focused on the fixed-base turbines
used in most existing windfarms. Floating
wind turbines, without a solid foundationon the seafloor, offer the opportunity tosite windfarms in much deeper water andtherefore in a larger proportion of ourseas. With careful planning and impact
assessment processes, this greater flexibility
in installation locations could help to avoid
the most sensitive areas. However, as floating
wind turbines are a newer technology, thepotential impacts are less well understoodand the uncertainties greater.
The necessary development of offshore windmust consider the potential impacts whenidentifying sites and planning construction,
especially given the global importance of

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

UK waters for seabird populations270. Largely
driven by anthropogenic pressures, suchas climate change, fisheries and invasive
non-native species, we have already seen an
average decline of 24% in well-monitoredseabird species in the UK (see Key findings),
including a 49% decline in Scotland (seeScotland section). These declines were
measured prior to the recent and ongoingoutbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian
Influenza (see Pressures and responses
section). Added to existing pressures, offshore
wind installations must take particular
account of the state of our seas and leave
wildlife populations resilient to unanticipatedfuture challenges.
A series of initiatives is being developed
which could enable the offshore wind
sector to become the catalyst for nature
positive developments in the UK. Measures
are being taken to address the impacts ofoffshore windfarms, alongside addressing
the legacy of human activities at sea. The
Offshore Wind Evidence and Change
Programme (OWEC) aims to strategicallyaddress ecological evidence gaps for moresustainable development of offshore wind.
This is funding projects such as tracking
year-round seabird movements to build
a more complete picture of how they use
the seas, and the POSEIDON project, whichis reviewing environmental risks across
UK waters to better advise future planning
frameworks. Defra is currently developing the
Offshore Wind Environmental Improvement
Package (OWEIP), which includes identifying
mitigation standards to increase the useof mitigation to reduce offshore windfarm
impacts271.

Marine spatial planning
Robust marine spatial planning needs to
be at the forefront of delivering nature
conservation and the green industrial
revolution. This supports the expansionof renewables such as offshore wind andtidal energy to meet our climate targets,
encourages sustainable fisheries and fishingcommunities, whilst minimising the impacts
on nature and taking advantage of potential
co-benefits. Ensuring that offshore windand other developments are targeted in theright areas is one of the ways that we canguarantee the essential energy transition
best supports the entire marine environment
to move towards Good Environmental
Status. A prime example of this is theseabird sensitivity mapping tool developed
for Scotland which incorporates seasonalvariation in seabirds’ distributions272.
The development process now recognisesthat cumulative impacts of multiple offshore
installations need to be considered in
the planning process. However, there aremany outstanding uncertainties requiring
further research. In 2020, the governmentled Scottish Sectoral Marine Plan for
Offshore Wind was published273. This planconsiders a wide range of potential social,economic and environmental impacts
and describes a set of potential new areas
for offshore wind development to reachthe 2030 10 GW expansion target. There is
now an ongoing sectoral plan for offshore
wind in Scotland and the Marine Spatial
Prioritisation Programme (MSPri) in England.
Spatial planning tools are currently underconsideration in Wales to support the Welsh
National Marine Plan and in the Offshore
Renewable Energy Action Plan for Northern
Ireland274.

87

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Impact – people and planet;
health and wellbeing benefitsof natural spaces
Access to nature and green space has many
benefits to mental and physical health275-277
and can reduce socio-economic based
inequalities in health measures277. The
National Survey of Wales demonstrated
a positive relationship between mental
wellbeing and both frequency of visits togreen and blue spaces, and the greenness ofparticipants’ home area278. In England, thePeople and Nature Survey found more than
90% of adults who had visited green andnatural spaces in the past 14 days agreed thattime spent outdoors is good for their physicaland mental health279.
However, access to nature is not equal acrossthe UK, both in terms of physical distance todifferent types and qualities of green and blue
spaces280, but also in terms of barriers to use,
whether these be safety concerns, cultural
norms or accessibility281. One recent study
found that the quality of urban freshwater
habitats was better in more affluent
areas282. Access to nature close to home isvery important and 88% of households inGreat Britain do have access to a garden283;
however, this varies by socio-economic
status and ethnicity. London has the lowest

Conservation response

Historical change
Protected
areas

garden access (79%), and in that city 66% ofland in the wealthiest areas is either private
gardens or public outdoor space, comparedto 45% in the poorest areas284. In addition
to gardens, around 72% of people in GreatBritain live within 15 minutes’ walk of apublic park283. In England, a new government
indicator suggests that 62% of people live
within a maximum of 1 km of green space285.
Since 2002, the Woodland Trust has collated
data on woodlands close to people’s homes.
The most recent assessment found that 67%
of the population lives within 4 km of a
20 ha wood and a further 23% would do so
as well, if additional woodlands were madeopen to the public. However, only 16% of the
population has access to a smaller woodland(2 ha) within 500 m of their home286. This
assessment looked only at the distance tonearby woodland as the crow flies. It did notaccount for whether the woods were linked
to the nearby population by a path or road. A
recent review published by Natural Resources
Wales highlights the range of evidence fromstudies which demonstrate the positive
associations between exposure and accessto coastal and marine environments andbenefits to physical and mental health287.

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

relationships. In other words, do these
health benefits increase in richer andmore biodiverse natural spaces? A recent
systematic review found that 14 of 24
studies observed some positive relationshipbetween the richness or diversity of thenatural environment and mental healthor mental wellbeing288. For example, therestorative benefits of parks in Bradford was
associated with their biodiversity289, andhigher bird abundance was associated withlower incidence of depression, anxiety andstress290. However, 17 studies also foundnon-significant relationships and two foundnegative relationships288, suggesting the link
is not yet fully understood. There is somesuggestion that measures of the abundanceof certain species groups, such as birds, may
be more important than species richness291.
A better understanding of these relationships
would allow us to better assess the cobenefits and potential trade-offs of managing
land for people and for nature, in both urban
and rural settings.

Despite the health and wellbeing benefitsof access to nature it is less clear whatrole biodiversity plays in nature-healthAccess to nature and greenspace has many
benefits to mental and physical health.
It can reduce socio-economic based
inequalities in health measures
275-277

Corwen community garden, Richard Bowler (rspb-images.com)

8889

Summary
Improved
species status

Key findings

Historical change

Nature-friendly farming, andsustainable fisheries and forestry

Future – integratingclimate and nature responses
on land
The UK’s finite land area must provide food,energy, construction and other materials
for people, as well as contributing to climatechange adaptation and mitigation, andbiodiversity conservation. Successfullybalancing these multiple demands canbe difficult. Nature-based solutions are asuite of methods that may help maximise
the potential benefits of climate change
mitigation and adaptation for both people
and nature; critically they must provide
measurable benefits for biodiversity292.
Examples of key nature-based solutions in
the UK include both preventing greenhousegas emissions from peatland and increasing
sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxideby creating woodland and other naturaland semi-natural habitats. Peatlands holdenormous amounts of carbon, which is kept
safe when habitats are in good condition.
There are potentially substantial co-benefitsof nature-based solutions183, but poorlydesigned projects can result in tradeoffs between climate change mitigation
and biodiversity conservation293. This isparticularly the case with afforestation onorgano-mineral soils (also termed ‘shallow
peat soils’), that may lead to negative
outcomes for both net carbon sequestration235
and nature. Recognition of this has led to
new guidance being issued for Englandpreventing woodland planting on peat deeper
than 30 cms294, given that even ambitious
levels of nature-based solutions proposedby the Climate Change Committee would
only sequester a few years’ worth of current
emissions by 2100.

Conservation response

Protected
areas

The potential impact of nature-based
solutions on the production of UK’s food,goods and services should also be considered,whilst avoiding moving the impacts ofproduction overseas. One way to begin tounderstand these synergies and trade-offs
is by modelling alternative future scenarios.
Given the complex mix of factors at play andthe uncertainties of any model, they cannot
tell us precisely what will happen in the
future. However, the scenarios can help us
understand the potential effects of different
approaches to climate change mitigation andland management, and facilitate discussions
around the major societal decisions in whichgovernments and communities are engaged.
The RSPB Land Use Scenarios Projectfocused on understanding the implicationsof nature-based climate change mitigation(woodland creation, peatland restoration,
low carbon farming practices and otherclimate mitigation measures) for climate,nature and food and timber production295.
From the nine scenarios modelled to2050, all but the baseline scenario saw big
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions fromagriculture, forestry and other land use, withthe more ambitious application of naturebased solutions leading to larger emissions
reductions (Figure 23). It was clear, however,that net zero is a challenging target.

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Nature, climate
and people

Ecosystem andhabitat restoration

High NbS

Medium NbS

Timber and biomass fuel production
Bird population size
Food production
Climate change mitigation

Baseline

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Relative change in greenhouse gas emissions compared to baseline 2015
Figure 23: Subset of exploratory future climate mitigation scenarios295 showing the projected impact onfood production, timber and biofuel production, birds and climate (greenhouse gas emissions). Medium
nature-based solutions are termed ‘Balanced pathway’ in the paper and are based on a scenario from theCommittee on Climate Change239. High nature-based solutions are termed ‘Nature-based Solutions’ in thepaper.

widespread application of effective agrienvironment schemes could help offset
the loss of habitat for farmland wildlife83.
Researchers are currently making thesescenarios more comprehensive. They are not
only considering the spatial requirementsof onshore renewables but also using“participatory methods” to model futurescenarios at the landscape scale. Participatory

methods involve actively involving andengaging various stakeholders, such as local
communities, experts, and organisations, inthe decision-making process. This approachallows for a collaborative and inclusive
approach to compare and contrast resultsfrom both local (landscape scale) and national(top-down) perspectives.

On average, across models, birds werepredicted to respond positively to climate
mitigation scenarios, though farmland birds
are expected to lose habitat. Furthermore,scenarios which reduce greenhousegas emissions also tend to reduce foodproduction. A combination of moderatelevels of dietary change, food waste
reduction and yield growth could offset
this drop in food production295, and more

Farmland, Sam Turley (rspb-images.com)

9091

Crynodeb

Canfyddiadau allweddol

CYMRU

Newid hanesyddol

Ymateb cadwraeth

Gwledydd y DU

UKOTs a CDs

Atodiadau

Gyda dros 2,000 km o arfordir, coedwig law dymherus gyda
bryoffytau, cennau a ffyngau, a mynyddoedd rhostir Eryri(Eryri) a Bannau Brycheiniog, mae gan Gymru gynefinoedd
pwysig gyda bywyd gwyllt unigryw324. Mae’r amgylchedd morol
yn chwarae rhan hanfodol, gan gynnwys cytrefi adar môr obwysigrwydd rhyngwladol oddi ar Sir Benfro a Phen Llŷn. Yn 2018,
amcangyfrifwyd bod 31% o arwynebedd tir Cymru wedi’i orchuddioâ chynefinoedd lled-naturiol235. Gydag 88%326 o dir Cymru yn cael
ei ddefnyddio ar gyfer amaethyddiaeth, mae natur yn agored i
newid mewn arferion ffermio. Yn ogystal, mae gorchudd coetir
yng Nghymru wedi cynyddu bedair gwaith ers 1918, yn bennaf
oherwydd plannu conwydd anfrodorol236.

RSPB Ramsey Island , Nathan Lowe (rspb-images.com)

92

93

Crynodeb
Cymru

Canfyddiadau allweddol
Yr Alban

Newid hanesyddol

Gogledd Iwerddon

Gostyngiad o 20% ar gyfartaledd yn amlderrhywogaethau
Mae’r doreth o 380 o rywogaethau daearol a dŵr croyw ar
gyfartaledd wedi gostwng 20% ledled Cymru ers 1994. O
fewn y duedd gyffredinol hon, mae 140 o rywogaethau wedi
prinhau (37%) a 107 o rywogaethau wedi cynyddu (28%).
Rhywogaeth gwyfynod ar gyfartaledd a ddangosodd ydirywiad cryfaf; 43%.

Mae fflora Cymru yn newid yn fawr

42%

Ers 1970, mae dosbarthiad 42% o rywogaethau planhigion blodeuol
a 44% o fryoffytau (mwsoglau a llysiau’r afu) wedi gostwng ledledCymru, o’i gymharu â 40% a 46% o rywogaethau planhigion blodeuola bryoffytau yn y drefn honno sydd wedi cynyddu yn eu dosbarthiad.
Mae planhigion blodeuol sy’n gysylltiedig â chynefinoedd ucheldirol
wedi prinhau ar gyfartaledd, tra bod llawer o fryoffytau epiffytig yn
gwella o effeithiau llygredd diwydiannol blaenorol.

Patrymau newidiol amrywiol yn ydosbarthiad rhywogaethau infertebratau

33%

Gwledydd y DU

UKOTs a CDs

Atodiadau

LloegrPenawdau

20%

Ymateb cadwraeth

Dangosodd dosbarthiad Cymru o 3,036 o rywogaethau
infertebratau dueddiadau cyferbyniol; gostyngodd
dosbarthiad 993 o rywogaethau (33%) a chynyddodd
dosbarthiad 953 o rywogaethau (31%).

CANFYDDIADAU ALLWEDDOL
Oherwydd bod data penodol i Gymru yn caelei gwmpasu’n fwy tacsonomig nag mewn
adroddiadau Sefyllfa Byd Natur blaenorol,roeddem yn gallu cynnwys dangosydd cyfun
ar gyfer niferoedd ar gyfer 380 o rywogaethau
daearol a dŵr croyw am y tro cyntaf. Mae’r
dangosydd hwn yn cwmpasu’r cyfnod 1994
i 2021, sy’n llawer byrrach na’r cyfnod 50
mlynedd rydym yn adrodd arno ar gyfer y
DU a Lloegr, a dylid dehongli’r canlyniadau
a gyflwynir yma gyda hyn mewn golwg.
Er enghraifft, efallai na fydd y dangosydd
yn dal yr effaith o ganlyniad i ddwysáu
rheolaeth amaethyddol yn ail hanner yr
20fed ganrif. Yn gyffredinol, gallwn adrodd
ar gyfran lai o rywogaethau ar lefel Cymru
nag y gallwn ar gyfer y DU. Er enghraifft,
dim ond hanner y 220 o rywogaethau adarsy’n bresennol yng Nghymru y gallwn eu
cynnwys yn y dangosydd helaethrwydd
rhywogaethau (Ffigur 24), o’i gymharu âthri chwarter o rywogaethau adar y DU yn
y dangosydd helaethrwydd rhywogaethau’r
DU (Ffigur 1). Mae tueddiadau o ran niferoedd
yn seiliedig ar newidiadau mewn nifer
yr unigolion ar safle sy’n cael ei fonitro,
mesur sy’n adlewyrchu maint poblogaethrhywogaethau. Mae tueddiadau dosbarthu ynseiliedig ar newidiadau yn nifer y safleoedd
lle mae rhywogaeth yn bresennol. Gallairhywogaeth y mae ei chwmpas wedi newid
ddal i fod â dangosydd dosbarthiad sefydlog
os yw cyfanswm yr arwynebedd a feddiannir
wedi aros yr un fath. I gael dehongliad
llawnach o fetrigau newid rhywogaethau
a gyflwynir yma gweler yr adran Pwysau.
Mae’r newidiadau a ddisgrifir yma yn
dilyn newidiadau helaeth i’n tirweddau
a’n morweddau yn gynharach yn yr 20fed
ganrif a chyn hynny (gweler yr adran Newid
hanesyddol).

Mae 18% o rywogaethau dan fygythiad18%

O’r 3,897 o rywogaethau sydd wedi’u hasesu gan ddefnyddio
meini prawf y Rhestr Goch, mae 18% (663 o rywogaethau) dan
fygythiad o ddiflannu o Gymru.

Cadarnle adar y môr
Ychydig iawn o newid a welwyd ar gyfartaledd ers 1986
yn y niferoedd o saith rhywogaeth o adar môr sy’n cael eu
monitro’n rheolaidd, mewn cyferbyniad â’r gostyngiadau
cyfartalog mewn rhai rhannau eraill o’r DU.
Fodd bynnag, mae’r canlyniadau hyn yn rhagddyddio’r
achosion presennol o ffliw adar pathogenig iawn.

Am y tro cyntaf, rydym yn gallu cyflwyno dangosydd niferoedd rhywogaethau amlddosbarth ar gyfer Cymru, oherwydd bod mwy o ddata ar gael. Yn y dyfodol hoffem
ddatblygu mesurau cyflenwol ychwanegol i gyflwyno asesiad mwy cyflawn o gyflwr
natur.
94

Ynys Feirig, David Wootton (rspb-images.com)
Lapwing, Andy Hay (rspb-images.com); Harebell, Michael Harvey (rspb-images.com); Lackey, David Kjaer (rspb-images.com);
Large Heath Butterfly, John Ibboton; Fulmar, Richard Carlyon (rspb-images.com)

95

Newid yn helaethrwydd
rhywogaethau
Mae’r dangosydd yn dangos gostyngiad
mewn amlder cyfartalog o 20% (Ffigur 24,
Cyfwng Ansicrwydd (UI): -30% i -9%) rhwng
1994 a 2021. Dros y 10 mlynedd diwethaf(2010–2020), y gostyngiad oedd 4% (UI: -11% i+2%).
O fewn dangosyddion amlrywogaeth fel
y rhain mae amrywiad sylweddol rhwng
tueddiadau rhywogaethau unigol. I archwilio
hyn, rydym wedi dyrannu rhywogaethau i
gategorïau tueddiadau yn seiliedig ar faint y

Dangosyddion helaethrwydd
rhywogaethau fesul grŵp•	Ers 1994, dangosodd 140 o rywogaethau(37%) ddirywiad cryf neu gymedrol adangosodd 107 o rywogaethau (28%)
gynnydd cryf neu gymedrol; Ychydig onewid a welwyd mewn 133 o rywogaethau(35%).

Mae natur gyfansawdd dangosyddion
amlrywogaeth yn golygu y gallant guddio
amrywiadau pwysig mewn tueddiadau rhwng
rhywogaethau unigol, a grwpiau rhywogaethau.
Yma, er mwyn helpu i ddeall newidiadau yn
y prif ddangosyddion helaethrwydd yn well,rydym yn ei gyflwyno wedi’i ddadgyfuno i
grwpiau rhywogaethau mawr.

•	Yn y 10 mlynedd diwethaf (2010-2020),
dangosodd 160 o rywogaethau (43%)
ddirywiad cryf neu gymedrol a dangosodd
122 o rywogaethau (32%) gynnydd cryf
neu gymedrol; ychydig o newid a welwydmewn 94 rhywogaeth (25%).

Cymru (380 rhywogaeth)

20102020

12525Dangosydd wedi’i lyfnhau

175
175

Dangosydd heb ei lyfnhau

0
1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year

125
125
100
100
75
75

GwyfynodGwyfynod(232(232
rhywogaeth)rhywogaeth)

50
50
25
25

2005

2010

2015

2020

Cynnydd cymedrol
Fawr o newid

Adar dŵr yn
gaeafu (31rhywogaeth)

100

50

0

B)

Gweler tudalen
184 i ddarganfod
sut i ddehongli’r
adroddiad hwn

2000

D)

150

Cynnydd cryf

1980
1980

1990
1990

2000
2000

2010
2010

2020
2020

1995
200

200
200

Gostyngiad cymedroli

Adar tir fferm(15
rhywogaeth)

50

A)

1970
1970

Gostyngiad cryf

Ffigur 24: Newid yn amlder rhywogaethau cyfartalog
ar draws rhywogaethau daearol a dŵr croyw yng
Nghymru, yn seiliedig ar dueddiadau penodol Cymru
o ran adar (108 o rywogaethau), gloÿnnod byw (33rhywogaeth), mamaliaid (saith rhywogaeth) a gwyfynod(232 o rywogaethau). Mae’r siart bar yn dangos canran y
rhywogaethau o fewn y dangosydd sydd wedi cynyddu,
gostwng (yn gymedrol neu’n gryf) neu wedi dangos
fawr ddim newid yn eu niferoedd (1994 – 2020: 380 orywogaethau, 2010–2020: 376 o rywogaethau).

100

0

0
0

0

Cyfwng Ansicrwydd

Adar eraill(33
rhywogaeth)
Adar coetir(29
rhywogaeth)

150

150
150

Mynegai
Mynegai(1978(1978==100)100)

Mynegai (1994 = 100)

50

50

C)

1995

Canran y rhywogaethau

75•	
Mae’r dangosydd helaethrwydd ar gyfer 232
o rywogaethau gwyfynod mwyaf cyffredin
Cymru yn dechrau yn 1970 ac ar y cyfan
yn dangos gostyngiad mewn niferoedd
cyfartalog o 43% (Ffigur 2A, UI: -54% i-32%). Dros y 10 mlynedd diwethaf, roedd ydangosydd 4% yn is yn 2020 o’i gymharu â2010 (UI: -13% i +5%).

100

75

100

25

Atodiadau

Lloegrnewid yn y boblogaeth, dros y cyfnodau hir athymor byr.

19942020

UKOTs a CDs

Mynegai (1994 = 100)Daearol a dŵr croyw

Gogledd Iwerddon

Gwledydd y DU

Ymateb cadwraeth

Mynegai (1994 = 100)

Yr Alban

Newid hanesyddol

150
150
100
100

Glöynnod
Glöynnod byw
byw
cyffredinol
cyffredinol (21(21rhywogaeth)rhywogaeth)

50
50

Glöynnod
Glöynnod byw
byw
arbenigolarbenigol (10(10rhywogaeth)rhywogaeth)

Mynegai (1998 = 100)

Cymru

Canfyddiadau allweddol

Mynegai
Mynegai(1970(1970==100)
100)

Crynodeb

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

E)

Ystlumod(6
rhywogaeth)

150

100

Dangosydd wedi’i lyfnhau

50

Dangosydd heb ei lyfnhau
Cyfwng Ansicrwydd

0
0

0
1970
1970

1980
1980

1990
1990

2000
2000

Year
Year

2010
2010

2020
2020

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year

Ffigur 25: Newid yn amlder rhywogaethau cyfartalog ar gyfer rhywogaethau daearol adŵr croyw yng Nghymru yn ôl dewis cynefin, lefel arbenigedd neu grŵp tacsonomig.

9697•	Mae’r dangosydd niferoedd ar gyfer chwerhywogaeth o ystlumod yn dechrau ym
1998 ac yn gyffredinol mae’n dangos
cynnydd o 76% ar gyfartaledd (Ffigur 25E,
UI: +72% i +80%), wedi’i ysgogi’n bennaf
gan gynnydd mawr mewn dwy rywogaeth
98

Atodiadau

Lloegro ystlumod sy’n ymadfer ar ôl prinhad
hanesyddol. Mae’r tueddiadau hyn yn debyg i’rrhai a geir ledled y DU ac maent yn debygol o
fod yn gysylltiedig â newid deddfwriaethol sy’nrhoi mwy o amddiffyniad i fannau clwydo agaeafgysgu328.
•	Mae data ar wahân yn dangos329 bodhelaethrwydd eog yr Iwerydd (Salmo salar)wedi gostwng yn sylweddol ledled Cymru yn
y degawd diwethaf, ac yn 2021 aseswyd hollstociau afonydd fel ‘mewn perygl’ (91%) neu‘mewn perygl yn ôl pob tebyg’ (9%).

Newid yn nosbarthiad
rhywogaethau
Planhigion a chen•	Mae’r dangosydd dosbarthiad ar gyfer 1,186
rhywogaethau o blanhigion fasgwlaidd yn
dangos gostyngiad o 4% (Ffigur 26A, Cyfwng
Ansicrwydd (UI): -6% i -2%) rhwng 1970 a 2019.
O fewn hyn roedd amrywiad sylweddol rhwng
tueddiadau rhywogaethau unigol. Gostyngodd
dosbarthiad 42% o rywogaethau, tra bod 40%
o rywogaethau yn dangos cynnydd mewn
dosbarthiad. Dim ond 18% o rywogaethau
a ddangosodd ychydig o newid. Dirywiodd
rhywogaethau cysylltiedig â chynefinoedd
ucheldirol yn ogystal â glaswelltiroedd
asidig a chalchaidd ar gyfartaledd, tra bod
rhywogaethau sy’n gysylltiedig â choed
llydanddail a choetiroedd conwydd wedi
cynyddu53.
•	Mae’r dangosydd dosbarthiad ar gyfer 776 orywogaethau bryoffyt (mwsoglau a llysiau’rafu), gyda data Cymreig penodol, yn dangos
dim newid ar gyfartaledd (Ffigur 26B, +3%;
UI:-3% i +8%). Roedd hyn yn cuddio’r ffaith
bod dosbarthiad bron pob rhywogaeth wedi
newid. Gostyngodd dosbarthiad 44% orywogaethau, tra bod 46% o rywogaethau’ndangos cynnydd mewn dosbarthiad. Dim ond
10% o rywogaethau a ddangosodd ychydig onewid. Mae mwsoglau epiffytig (y rhai sy’n
byw ar blanhigion eraill), wedi gweld codiadau
cyfartalog arbennig o gryf yn gysylltiedig gyda
gostyngiad mewn llygredd sylffwr deuocsid.

•	Dangosodd y dangosydd
dosbarthiad ar gyfer 1,304
o rywogaethau cen, gyda
data penodol i Gymru,
gynnydd cyfartalog o
13% rhwng 1980 a 2021
(Ffigur 26C, UI: 4% i 26%).
Gostyngodd dosbarthiad
43% o rywogaethau, trabod 50% o rywogaethau
yn dangos cynnydd
mewn dosbarthiad.
Mewn sawl rhan o’r DU,
effeithiwyd yn ddrwg
iawn ar gennau gan
lygredd diwydiannol
hanesyddol330. Mae
gostyngiadau mewn
llygredd sylffwr deuocsid
yn caniatáu rhai
rhywogaethau i ddechrau
gwella354. Fodd bynnag,
mae lefelau llygredd aer
nitrogenaidd uchel apharhaus yn golygu y gall
adferiad fod yn gogwyddo
tuag at rywogaethau a all
oddef hyn.

A)

125
125
125
100
100

19702019
19702019
19702019

Planhigion fasgwlaidd (1,186 o rywogaethau)
Planhigion fasgwlaidd (1,186 o rywogaethau)
Planhigion fasgwlaidd (1,186 o rywogaethau)

100
75
75

100
75
75
75
50
50

75
50
50

50
25
25

50
25
25
25
0
0 1970

25
0
0
2000
2000

2010
2010

2020
2020

1970
1980
1990
2000
125 B)Bryoffytau (776 o rywogaethau)
125
Bryoffytau (776 o rywogaethau)

2010

2020

0 1970

125
100
100

100
100

1980
1980

1990
1990

Bryoffytau (776 o rywogaethau)019702019
19702019
19702019

100
75
75

100
100
100
75
75
75
50
50

75
50
50

50
25
25

50
25
25
25
0
0 1970

25
0
0
2000
2000

2010
2010

2020
2020

125
125

1970
1980
1990
2000
Cennau (1,304 o rywogaethau)
C)Cennau (1,304 o rywogaethau)

2010

2020

125
100
100

Cennau (1,304 o rywogaethau)

0 1970

1980
1980

1990
1990

100
75
75

0

19702019
19702019
19702019

100
100
100
75
75
75
50
50

75
50
50

50
25
25

50
25
25
25
0
0 1970Dangosydd wedi’i lyfnhau

Cyfwng Ansicrwydd

Dangosydd wedi’i lyfnhau

Cyfwng Ansicrwydd

Dangosydd
lyfnhau1980 wedi’i
1990

0 1970

1980

1970

1980

Ansicrwydd
2000Cyfwng
2010
2020
1990 Year2000
2010
2020
Year
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year

25
0
0

Cynnydd

CanranCanranCanrany rhywogaethau
y rhywogaethau
y rhywogaethau•	Ar gyfartaledd, ychydig o newid y mae
adar dŵr sy’n gaeafu yn ei ddangos rhwng
1994 a 2019 (Ffigur 25D, +8%; UI: -6% i22%). Cododd y dangosydd yn gyflym
yn negawd cyntaf yr 21ain ganrif ond
mae wedi gostwng yn raddol ers hynny.
Mae poblogaethau adar dŵr gaeafu wedi
ymateb i hinsawdd sy’n newid, gyda
phoblogaethau gaeafu yn symud yn
gyntaf i ddwyrain y DU ac yna i gyfandir
Ewrop wrth i dymheredd y gaeaf gynyddu,
gan agor ardaloedd gaeafu a fu unwaithyn anghroesawgar, yn nes at eu mannau
magu326.

UKOTs a CDs

CanranCanranCanrany rhywogaethau
y rhywogaethau
y rhywogaethau•	Mae’r dangosydd helaethrwydd ar gyfer
rhywogaethau adar tir fferm yn dangos
gostyngiad mewn niferoedd cyfartalog
o 29% ers 1994 (Ffigur 25C, UI: -36% i-23%). Mae hyn yn debyg i’r patrymau
a ddangosir ym mhob un o wledydd
eraill y DU ac eithrio’r Alban327, er bod ydangosydd yn dechrau ar ôl y prif gyfnod oddwysáu rheolaeth amaethyddol. Mae adary coetir ac adar eraill wedi gweld cynnydd
cyfartalog o 33% (UI: +27% i +39%) a 42%(+32% i +52%) yn y drefn honno. Fodd
bynnag, mae’n bosibl y bydd cynnydd yn yboblogaeth yn gwyro tuag at rywogaethau
adar coetir preswyl a chyffredinol, gyda
phryderon cadwraeth parhaus ar gyfer
arbenigwyr coetir fel y Gnocell Fraith Leiafac ymfudwyr traws-Sahara (ee Telor yCoed).

Gwledydd y DU

CanranCanranCanrany rhywogaethau
y rhywogaethau
y rhywogaethau•	Bu gostyngiad mewn glöynnod byw
arbenigol o fwy na’u hanner ers 1993
(Ffigur 25B, -54%, UI: -76% i -32%). Maeglöynnod byw cyffredinol yn dangos
mwy o amrywiad rhyngflynyddol ond yn
gyffredinol maent wedi aros yn sefydlog(-5%, UI: -21% i 12%).

Gogledd Iwerddon

Ymateb cadwraeth

Mynegai
Mynegai
Mynegai(1970(1970=(1970100)= 100)= 100)

Yr Alban

Newid hanesyddol

Mynegai
Mynegai
Mynegai(1970(1970=(1970100)= 100)= 100)

Cymru

Canfyddiadau allweddol

Mynegai
Mynegai
Mynegai(1980(1980=(1980100)= 100)= 100)

Crynodeb0
Cynnydd
Fawr o newid
Fawro newidGostyngiad
Cynnydd
Gostyngiad
Fawr o newid
Gostyngiad

Ffigur 26: Newid yn nosbarthiad rhywogaethau cyfartalog ar gyfer A)
planhigion fasgwlaidd, B) bryoffytau ac C) cennau yng Nghymru. Mae’r siart
bar yn dangos y ganran o rywogaethau o fewn y dangosydd sydd wedi cynyddu,
gostwng neu wedi dangos fawr ddim newid mewn dosbarthiad.

99

Yr Alban

Infertebratau

Er mwyn archwilio’r amrywiad mewn
tueddiadau dosbarthiad rhywogaethau,dyrannwyd tueddiadau i gategorïau yn
seiliedig ar faint y newid dosbarthiad.
•	Ers 1970, dangosodd 33% o rywogaethau
ostyngiadau cryf neu gymedrol adangosodd 31% gynnydd cryf neu
gymedrol; ni ddangosodd 36% fawr onewid.
•	Ers 2010, dangosodd 41% o rywogaethau
ostyngiadau cryf neu gymedrol a
40% gynnydd cryf neu gymedrol; niddangosodd 19% fawr o newid.
Er mwyn helpu i ddeall y patrymau newid
dosbarthiad hyn yn gliriach, cafodd
grwpiau rhywogaethau eu categoreiddio
yn ôl y swyddogaethau ecolegol a ddarperir
ganddynt331. Mae rhai grwpiau yn darparu
mwy nag un swyddogaeth ac felly yn cael eu
cynnwys mewn mwy nag un dangosydd.
•	Mae pryfed peillio (gwenyn, pryfed
hofran a gwyfynod), sy’n chwarae rhanhanfodol mewn cynhyrchu bwyd, yn
dangos cynnydd cyfartalog o 14% mewn

Gogledd Iwerddon

Gwledydd y DU

Ymateb cadwraeth

UKOTs a CDs

Atodiadau

Lloegrdosbarthiad (Ffigur 27B, UI: +3% i +25%) ers
1970. Nid yw’r cynnydd cyfartalog hwn yn
nosbarthiadau pryfed peillio, gan gynnwys
gwyfynod, yn negyddu’r gostyngiadau
mewn niferoedd a ddangosir yn Ffigur 2.
Ar gyfartaledd, mae cyfran y safleoedd yceir rhywogaethau gwyfynod ynddynt yncynyddu ond mae nifer yr unigolion ar
gyfartaledd yn gostwng332.
•	Dangosodd grwpiau o bryfed (morgrug,
carabid, chwilod crwydr a buchod cochcwta, pryfed hofran, gweision y neidr
a gwenyn meirch) sy’n rhagflaenu
rhywogaethau sy’n niweidio cnydau
bwyd ostyngiad cyfartalog o -12% yn eu
dosbarthiad (UI: -26% i +2%).
•	Gwelodd dosbarthiad cyfartalog
rhywogaethau sy’n cynnal cylchredmaetholion dŵr croyw (clêr Mai, pryfed
pric, gweision y neidr a phryfed y cerrig)
ostyngiad cychwynnol ac yna arwyddiono adferiad a ddaeth i ben 9% yn uwch yn
2020 o’i gymharu â 1978, er gyda Chyfwng
Ansicrwydd mawr (UI: -24% i +51%). Gall y
patrwm hwn fod yn rhannol gysylltiedig
â newidiadau yn ansawdd dŵr afonydd333,
ond er bod llawer o achosion o lygredd dŵr
wedi gwella dros y degawdau diwethaf,
mae problemau llygredd dŵr sylweddol ynparhau, yn enwedig mewn dalgylchoedd
sy’n gysylltiedig ag amaethyddiaeth
ddwys349.

A)

125

19702020

20102020

Infertebratau (3,036 o rywogaethau)

100

100

75

75

50

50

25

Canran y rhywogaethau

Mae’r dangosydd dosbarthiad ar gyfer 3,036
o rywogaethau o infertebratau daearol adŵr croyw, gyda data sy’n benodol i Gymru,
yn dangos dim newid mewn dosbarthiad
cyfartalog rhwng 1970 a 2020 (Ffigur 27A,
-4%, Cyfwng Ansicrwydd (UI): -12% i +4%)

Newid hanesyddol

Mynegai (1970 = 100)

Cymru

Canfyddiadau allweddol

025

Cynnydd cryf
Dangosydd wedi’i lyfnhau

Cyfwng Ansicrwydd

Cynnydd cymedrol
Fawr o newid

0

Gostyngiad cymedrol

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Gostyngiad cryf

Year

B)

150

Peillio (995 orywogaethau)
Cylchred maetholion
dŵr croyw (198 orywogaethau)

125

Mynegai (1970 = 100)

Crynodeb

100

Rheoli plâu (517o rywogaethau)
75

50

25
Dangosydd wedi’i lyfnhau

0
1970

1980

1990

Cyfwng Ansicrwydd

2000

2010

2020

Year
Ffigur 27: Newid yn nosbarthiad rhywogaethau cyfartalog ar gyfer A)
Infertebratau daearol a dŵr croyw yng Nghymru. Mae’r siartiau bar yn dangos
canran y rhywogaethau o fewn y dangosydd sydd wedi cynyddu, gostwng (yngymedrol neu’n gryf) neu wedi dangos fawr ddim newid mewn dosbarthiad. B)
Rhywogaethau pryfed wedi’u grwpio yn ôl swyddogaeth ecolegol (peillio, rheoli
plâu a chylchrediad maetholion dŵr croyw).

White-footed Hoverfly, Nick Upton (rspb-images.com)

100

101

Crynodeb
Cymru

Canfyddiadau allweddol
Yr Alban

Newid hanesyddol

Gogledd Iwerddon

Ers adroddiad Sefyllfa Byd Natur 2019,
mae’r nifer y dosbarthiadau a aseswyd yn
ffurfiol gan ddefnyddio proses Rhestr Goch% dan fygythiad

Y cwbl7448

8%

Diflanedig

Ffyngau a chennau*

1457

5.7%

Mewn perygl
difrifol

Planhigion

2341

10.3%

Mewn perygl

Infertebratau*

3323

4.9%

BregusFertebratau

327

34.4%

Data’nddiffygiol
Dan bethbygythiad
Dan ddimbygythiad

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Ffigur 28: Crynodeb o Restrau Coch Cenedlaethol Prydain Fawr ar gyfer rhywogaethau sy’n bresennol yng Nghymru,
gan ddangos cyfran y rhywogaethau a aseswyd ym mhob categori Rhestr Goch, yn ôl grŵp tacsonomig eang. *Ar lefel
Prydain Fawr dim ond grwpiau dethol o infertebratau sydd wedi cael eu hasesu a llai nag 1% o rywogaethau ffyngau.

Toad, Richard Bowler (rspb-images.com)

102

UKOTs a CDs

Atodiadau

Asesiadau Rhestr Goch yr IUCN sy’n benodol i Gymru

Ranbarthol yr IUCN334, y gwyddys ei bod
wedi digwydd yng Nghymru, wedi cynyddu
o 6,500 o rywogaethau i 7,448. Ar hyn obryd ni allwn asesu a yw’r risg difodiant yn
newid dros amser oherwydd dim ond unasesiad Rhestr Goch sydd gan y mwyafrif
helaeth o rywogaethau. O’r dosbarthiadau
sy’n bodoli, y mae digon o ddata ar gael ar
eu cyfer, mae 579 (8.0%) yn gymwys fel rhai
dan fygythiad ac felly maent mewn peryglo ddiflannu o Brydain Fawr (ar y raddfa y
gwneir asesiadau Rhestr Goch arni) (Ffigur
28). O’r gwahanol grwpiau tacsonomig, mae
236 (10.3%) o blanhigion, 76 (5.7%) o ffyngau achennau, 109 (34.4%) o fertebratau a 158 (4.9%)
o infertebratau yn gymwys fel rhai sydd dan
fygythiad.
Nifer yrasesiadau

Gwledydd y DU

LloegrRisg difodiantAsesiadau Rhestr Goch Prydain Fawr
Yma rydym yn dadansoddi asesiadau Rhestr
Goch Yr Undeb Rhyngwladol dros Gadwraeth
Natur (IUCN) ar gyfer Prydain Fawr i ddangos
cyfran y dosbarthiadau y gwyddys eu bod
wedi digwydd yng Nghymru, sy’n gymwys
ar gyfer pob un o’r categorïau bygythiad
safonol. Mae dosbarthiadau yr aseswyd eu
bod mewn Perygl Difrifol, Mewn Perygl
neu Ddiamddiffyn yn cael eu dosbarthu’nffurfiol fel rhai sydd dan fygythiad. Dim ond
asesiadau a gymeradwywyd yn ffurfiol gan
y corff cadwraeth natur statudol comisiynu
sydd wedi’u cynnwys.

Ymateb cadwraeth

Er mwyn cynyddu cymaroldeb rhwng grwpiau a gwledydd tacsonomig, rydym yn
cyflwyno asesiadau Rhestr Goch yr IUCN a gynhaliwyd ar lefel Prydain Fawr; fodd
bynnag, mae nifer o grwpiau tacsonomig wedi’u hasesu ar gyfer risg difodiant ar
raddfa Gymreig. Mae’r rhain yn dangos:
Grŵp(nifer o asesiadau)

Dan fygythiad yng Nghymru

Diflanedig
yng Nghymru

CanranRhif

Rhif

Cyfanswm

18%

663

95

Cennau (1,316)

18%

208

22

Rhydau (214)

21%

40

7

Bryoffytau (850)

18%

146

26

Planhigion
fasgwlaidd (1,467)

18%

256

38

Mamaliaid (39)

33%

11

2

Ymlusgiaid acamffibiaid (11)

18%

2

0

Adar o Bryder
Cadwraethol Cymru
Er nad yw’n bosibl pennu eto sut mae risg
difodiant yn newid dros amser ar gyfer y rhan
fwyaf o’r tacsa, mae pedwar asesiad wedi’u
gwneud o dueddiadau yn y niferoedd a’r
dosbarthiad o adar yng Nghymru ers 2002,
y mwyaf diweddar yn 2022352. Mae’r rhain
yn defnyddio cyfres gyson o feini prawf iddyrannu pob un rhywogaeth sy’n digwydd
yn rheolaidd fel Coch, Ambr neu Wyrdd; yPrif feini prawf ar gyfer y Rhestr Goch yw
gostyngiad o fwy na 50% dros 25 mlynedd, neu
gyfnod hwy fel y mae’r data’n caniatáu. Roedd
yr asesiad diweddaraf yn dangos o blith 220 orywogaethau a aseswyd, fod 60 (27%) bellach
ar y rhestr goch, o’i gymharu â 27 (12%)

yn asesiad 2002. Er bod rhai newidiadau –ychwanegiadau i’r rhestr Ambr yn bennaf–
yn deillio o ddata gwell, roedd llawer oganlyniad i dueddiadau sy’n dirywio. Mae’r
cwymp cyflym mewn niferoedd o ydfrainsy’n bridio a Phibyddion Du sy’n gaeafu yng
Nghymru yn golygu eu bod wedi symudo Wyrdd i Goch ers 2016. Cyhoeddwyd
Rhegen yr Yd a Bras yr Yd yn ddiflanedig fel
adar magu yng Nghymru, sy’n golygu bod
11 rhywogaeth o adar wedi’u colli o Gymru
ers 1800. Mae gwelliannau statws mewn
14 rhywogaeth, gan gynnwys Cambig,
Barcud Coch a’r Fronfraith, wedi galluogi’rrhywogaethau hyn i symud o Ambr i Wyrdd.

103

Crynodeb
Cymru

Canfyddiadau allweddol
Yr Alban

Newid hanesyddol

Gogledd Iwerddon

Gwledydd y DU

Ymateb cadwraeth

UKOTs a CDs

Atodiadau

LloegrMorol
Adar môr
Mae’r dangosydd helaethrwydd ar gyfersaith rhywogaeth o adar môr yng Nghymru
yn dechrau ym 1986 ac ar y cyfan nid
yw’n dangos llawer o newid net mewn
helaethrwydd cyfartalog hyd at 2019 (Ffigur
29, -3%; Cyfwng Ansicrwydd (UI): -8% i+2%). Darlun cymysg sydd i adar y môr yng
Nghymru. Mae Gweilch y penwaig wedi
125

cynyddu dros y cyfnod. Fodd bynnag, mae
Gwylanod cefnddu lleiaf a gwylanod coesddu
wedi dirywio. Mae poblogaethau yn agored
i bwysau amrywiol, gan gynnwys newid yn
yr hinsawdd, argaeledd ysglyfaeth/bwyd,
colli cynefinoedd ac ysglyfaethu. Tra bodrhai poblogaethau wedi dangos cynnydd yn
y blynyddoedd diwethaf, maent yn parhau i
fod yn agored i newidiadau yn y dyfodol gan
eu bod wedi’u crynhoi mewn nifer fach ogytrefi335.
19862018

Adar môr(7 rhywogaeth)

20082018

100

Mynegai (1986 = 100)

75
75
50
50
25
Dangosydd wedi’i lyfnhau

25

Canran y rhywogaethau

100

Dangosydd heb ei lyfnhau

0

Cyfwng Ansicrwydd

Cynnydd cryf0

Cynnydd cymedrol

1985

1990

1995

2000
2005
Year

2010

2015

2020

Fawr o newid

Ffigur 29: Newidyn niferoedd
cyfartalog
rhywogaethau
ar draws saithrhywogaeth oadar môr gyda
thueddiadau
penodol i Gymru.
Mae’r siart bar yn
dangos canrany rhywogaethau
o fewn ydangosydd sydd
wedi cynyddu,
lleihau neu
wedi dangos
fawr ddim
newid mewn
helaethrwydd.

Gostyngiad cymedrol
Gostyngiad cryf

Pysgod dyfnforol
Nid oedd digon o ddata yn nyfroedd glannau
ac alltraeth Cymru i gynhyrchu dangosydd
helaethrwydd cadarn ar gyfer pysgod
dyfnforol, felly dyma ddangosydd sy’ndefnyddio data o gydran Cymru, Iwerddon a’r
Môr Celtaidd o Barth Economaidd Neilltuedig(EEZ) y DU. Rhwng 1993 a 2021 cynyddodd ydangosydd 8% (UI: 1% i 15%), gan awgrymuo bosibl adferiad rhai rhywogaethau
o ddirywiad blaenorol. Dylid nodi bod
llawer o stociau o rywogaethau pysgod
a physgod cregyn sydd wedi’u targedu’nfasnachol yn cael eu hasesu a’u rheoli dros
raddfeydd daearyddol mawr ac efallai nad yrhywogaethau a gynhwysir yn y dangosydd
yw’r rhai sy’n cael eu pysgota’n nodweddiadol
gan fflyd Cymru mewn niferoedd sylweddol.

125

100

Mynegai (1993 = 100)

Newid yn nifer y rhywogaethau

Lloegr, Cymru,
Gogledd Iwerddon,
Moroedd Celtaidd(86 rhywogaeth)

75

50

25

Dangosydd wedi’i lyfnhau
Dangosydd heb ei lyfnhau

0

Cyfwng Ansicrwydd

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year
Ffigur 30: Newid yn amlder rhywogaethau cyfartalog ar gyfer
rhywogaethau pysgod dyfnforol yng Nghymru, Lloegr a Gogledd
Iwerddon ac elfen Moroedd Celtaidd EEZ y DU o 1993 i 2021.

Mamaliaid morol
Mae poblogaeth y Morloi Llwyd yn nyfroedd
Cymru wedi dangos tuedd ar i fyny mewn
cynhyrchiant morloi bach dros y tymor hir,gyda chynnydd yn niferoedd y boblogaeth335.
Yng Nghymru, ystyrir bod poblogaeth

Ecoranbarth
Moroedd Celtaiddy Dolffin Trwyn Potel o amgylch Bae
Ceredigion yn sefydlog dros y tymor hir
ac mewn cyflwr ffafriol254, ond credir bod
helaethrwydd wedi gostwng o bosib dros y
degawd diwethaf336.

Bottlenose Dolphin, Richard Carlyon (rspb-images.com)

104

105

Crynodeb

Canfyddiadau allweddol

Cymru

Yr AlbanDangosyddion
bioamrywiaeth swyddogol
Cymru
O dan Ddeddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau’r
Dyfodol (Cymru) 2015, mae Llywodraeth
Cymru yn cynhyrchu ystod oddangosyddion Llesiant Cenedlaethol.
Mae carreg filltir yn y Ddeddf ‘i wrthdroi’r
dirywiad mewn bioamrywiaeth gyda
gwelliant yn statws rhywogaethau ac
ecosystemau erbyn 2030 a’u hadferiad clir
erbyn 2050’. Mae dangosyddion yn cael
eu datblygu i adrodd ar hyn, gan gynnwys
Dangosydd 44 – statws amrywiaeth
fiolegol yng Nghymru (Ffigur 31). Mae
hwn ar hyn o bryd yn cael ei ystyried ynddangosydd ‘arbrofol’ sy’n ceisio mesur
tueddiadau mewn dosbarthiad rhywogaeth
blaenoriaethol Cymru (Adran 7). Fe’i
defnyddir i fonitro cynnydd gyda’r garreg
filltir. Nid yw’r dangosydd yn cynnwys
unrhyw rywogaethau morol ar hyn obryd ac mae hefyd yn hepgor grwpiau orywogaethau a gwmpesir gan gynlluniau

125

Newid hanesyddol

Gogledd Iwerddon

PwysauFel mewn mannau eraill yn y DU, mae byd
natur yng Nghymru dan bwysau. Mae rheoli
tir amaethyddol wedi’i nodi fel y ffactor mwyaf
arwyddocaol sy’n gyrru newid poblogaethrhywogaethau yn y DU341. Gyda 90%339 oarwynebedd tir Cymru yn cael ei ddefnyddio
ar gyfer amaethyddiaeth, mae dros 50% oorchudd tir Cymru yn laswelltir wedi’i wellaa ddominyddir gan rygwellt351. Mae natur ardraws yr ucheldiroedd a’r iseldiroedd wedi bod,ac yn parhau i fod, yn agored i arferion ffermio
megis rheoli glaswelltiroedd a rhostir yn fwy
dwys, colli amrywiaeth cynefinoedd ar raddfa’r
dirwedd, pori da byw dwys gyda mewnbwn
uchel, ac effeithiau ar rywogaethau arbenigol fel
y rhai sy’n gysylltiedig â dirywiad cynefinoedd
amaethyddol megis tir âr dwysedd isel.

Rhywogaethau â blaenoriaeth(113 o rywogaethau)

20112016

100

Mynegai (1970 = 100)

75
75
50
50
25

Canran y rhywogaethau

100

25
Dangosydd wedi’i lyfnhau

0

Cyfwng Ansicrwydd

Cynnydd cryf0

Cynnydd cymedrol

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

2010

2020

Fawr o newid
Gostyngiad cymedrol
Gostyngiad cryf106

Gwledydd y DU

UKOTs a CDs

Atodiadau

Lloegrmonitro strwythuredig (adar, mamaliaid,
glöynnod byw a gwyfynod). Rhwng 1970 a
2016 bu gostyngiad o 13% yn y dangosydd.
Mae cynlluniau i ddatblygu’r dangosydd hwn
ymhellach ac ymchwilio i ddangosyddion
helaethrwydd rhywogaethau cyflenwol.

19702016

Ymateb cadwraeth

Ffigur 31: Y
dangosydd
arbrofol sy’nmesur tueddiadau
yn nosbarthiad
113 o rywogaethau
â blaenoriaeth yng
Nghymru (ffigur
wedi’i gymeryd oSmart et al. 2022337).

Mae’r Cynllun Ffermio Cynaliadwy newydd,
sy’n yn cael ei ddatblygu ar hyn o brydac i fod i ddechrau yn 2025, yn anelu at
fynd i’r afael â rhai o’r effeithiau arferion
amaethyddol presennol. Mae sefydliadau
cadwraeth natur yn galw am y cynllun iwneud y mwyaf o gyfleoedd i adfer natur ynogystal â storio carbon a lleihau’r defnydd oblaladdwyr a maetholion sy’n llifo i afonydd.
Mae dosbarthiad planhigion fasgwlaidd wedi
gostwng llai yng Nghymru o’i gymharu gyda
rhannau eraill o Brydain Fawr ar gyfartaledd,
ond o fewn hyn mae cryn dipyn o symud,
gyda thros 40% o ddosbarthiad rhywogaethau
yn cynyddu neu’n gostwng yn y drefn
honno. Mae dosbarthiad planhigion sy’ngysylltiedig â chynefinoedd iseldir wedi aros
yn gymharol sefydlog ers 1970, ac mae’r rhai
sy’n gysylltiedig â choetiroedd conwydd wedi
gweld cynnydd cyflym. Mae rhywogaethau
planhigion fasgwlaidd sy’n gysylltiedig
â chynefinoedd ucheldirol fel corsydd arhostiroedd wedi prinhau’n gyson, er yn
fwy graddol ar gyfartaledd nag yn Lloegra’r Alban, a dangosodd rhywogaethau sy’ngysylltiedig â glaswelltir calchaidd ddirywiad
serth, fel mewn mannau eraill ym Mhrydain.
Mae dirywiad yr olaf yn adlewyrchu trosi
glaswelltir parhaol i ddefnydd tir arall achyflwr gwael y glaswelltir, er enghraifft
oherwydd newidiadau mewn pwysau pori(tanbori a gorbori), rhywogaethau anfrodorol(Cotoneaster) a llygredd53.
Gwelir patrwm tebyg o newid ar gyfer
bryoffytau, a Chymru yw’r unig ran o Brydain
Fawr lle mae rhywogaethau mwsogl a llysiau’r
afu yn dangos cynnydd hirdymor mewn
dosbarthiad cyfartalog. Fodd bynnag, mae’r
cynnydd cyffredinol hwnnw’n cuddio rhai
dirywiadau sylweddol mewn cynefinoedd
bryoffytau arbenigol. Mae bryoffytau
epiffytig, a’r rhai sy’n tyfu ar goncrit, tarmac achynefinoedd artiffisial eraill, wedi cynyddu’nsylweddol iawn ledled Prydain353 fel mae
llygredd sylffwr deuocsid wedi dirywio, ac yn
gyffredinol y tueddiad yng Nghymru oedd

cynnydd rhwng 1970 a thua 2000. Ers 2000,
mae dosbarthiad rhai rhywogaethau wedi
parhau i gynyddu, ond mae dosbarthiadau
ar gyfartaledd wedi gostwng oherwydd
gostyngiadau ymhlith llawer o arbenigwyr
gweundir, rhostir, trylifiadau a chreigiau
ucheldirol. Efallai bod y newid cyffredinolo 1970 i 2020 ychydig ar i fyny, ond mae
hynny’n cuddio dirywiad mewn llawero rywogaethau354,355. Mae lefelau cysonuchel o amonia atmosfferig, yn bennaf o’r
diwydiant amaethyddol, uwchlaw’r trothwy
critigol ar gyfer bryoffytau a chennau ardraws 69% o Gymru356. Mae pwysau eraill
sy’n effeithio ar ddŵr croyw a chynefinoedd
daearol yng Nghymru yn cynnwys llygredd arhywogaethau anfrodorol goresgynnol.
Ar raddfa DU canfuwyd bod newid hinsawdd
yr ail ysgogydd pwysicaf o newid mewn
rhywogaethau ac y mae’n debygol mai hwn
hefyd yw yr achos yng Nghymru341. Mae
helaethrwydd cannoedd o rywogaethau owyfynod wedi gostwng yn sylweddol yng
Nghymru yn yr 50 mlynedd diwethaf a newidhinsawdd wedi cael ei amlygu fel pwysau
mawr ar boblogaethau gwyfynod357. Tra’i bod
yn debygol bod effaith net newid hinsawdd
ar wyfynod yng Nghymru yn negyddol, maehefyd yn debygol o fod wedi cefnogi cynnydd
mewn rhywogaethau eraill, yn ogystal
ac effeithio ar ffenoleg rhywogaethau (yramseriad o ddigwyddiadau tymhorol).
Mae’r newid yn yr hinsawdd hefyd yn cael eiamlygu fel pwysau allweddol ar fywyd morol
yng Nghymru, ochr yn ochr â phroblemau
ansawdd dŵr, gan gynnwys sbwriel yn ymôr. Er eu bod yn hollbwysig i gynlluniau
i liniaru’r newid yn yr hinsawdd, mae gandargedau uchelgeisiol i gynyddu’r ynni
adnewyddadwy sy’n cael ei gynhyrchu ar ymôr358 y potensial i gael effaith niweidiol arfywyd morol os na chânt eu cynllunio, eu
rheoli a’u monitro mewn modd sensitif.

107Summary

Key findings

WALES

CLICK HERE FOR THE WELSHLANGUAGE VERSION

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesWith over 2,000 km of coastline, temperate rainforest withbryophytes, lichens and fungi, and the moorland mountains of
Eryri (Snowdonia) and Bannau Brycheiniog (Brecon Beacons), Wales
boasts important habitats with some unique wildlife324. The marine
environment plays a vital role, including internationally importantseabird colonies off Pembrokeshire and the Llŷn Peninsula. In 2018,
it was estimated that 31% of Wales’ land area was covered in seminatural habitats325. With 88%326 of Welsh land used for agriculture,
nature is vulnerable to change in farming practices. In addition,
woodland cover in Wales has quadrupled since 1918, mostly due toplanting non-native conifers326.

RSPB Ramsey Island , Nathan Lowe (rspb-images.com)

108

109

SummaryWales

Key findings
ScotlandHistorical change

Northern Ireland

Average 20% decline in species’ abundance
The abundance of 380 terrestrial and freshwater species has
on average fallen by 20% across Wales since 1994. Within
this general trend, 140 species have declined in abundance(37%) and 107 species have increased (28%). Moth species on
average showed the strongest decline: 43%.

The flora of Wales is greatly changing

42%

Since 1970, the distributions of 42% of flowering plant species
and 44% of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) have decreased
across Wales, compared to 40% and 46% of flowering plantand bryophyte species respectively that have increased in
distribution. Flowering plants associated with upland habitats
have on average declined, whereas many epiphytic bryophytes
are recovering from the effects of previous industrial pollution.

Variable patterns of change in the
distributions of invertebrate species

33%

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

EnglandHeadlines

20%

Conservation response

KEY FINDINGS
Owing to greater taxonomic coverage ofWales-specific data than in previous Stateof Nature reports, we were able to include
a combined abundance indicator for 380
terrestrial and freshwater species for the
first time. This indicator covers the period
1994 to 2021, which is much shorter than the
50-year period we report on for the UK andfor England, and the results presented here
should be interpreted with this in mind. For
example, the indicator may not capture theimpact resulting from the intensificationof agricultural management in the second
half of the 20th century. We can generally
report on a smaller proportion of species
at a Wales level than we can for the UK. For
example, we can only include half of the 220
bird species present in Wales in the species’

abundance indicator (Figure 24), comparedto three-quarters of UK bird species in the
UK species’ abundance indicator (Figure 1).
Abundance trends are based on changes in
the number of individuals at a monitored site,a measure that reflects species population
size. Distribution trends are based on changes
in the number of sites where a species ispresent. A species whose range has changed
could still have a stable distribution indicator
if the total area occupied has stayed the same.
For a fuller interpretation of the metricsof species’ change presented here see thePressures and responses section. The changes
described here follow extensive changes toour land and seascapes earlier in the 20th
century and before (see Historical change
section).

The Wales distributions of 3,036 invertebrate species showed
contrasting trends: the distributions of 993 species declined(33%) and the distributions of 953 species increased (31%).

18% of species are threatened
Of 3,897 species that have been assessed using Red List
criteria, 18% (663 species) are threatened with extinction
from Wales.

18%
Seabird stronghold
The abundance of seven regularly monitored species ofseabird has showed little change on average since 1986, in
contrast to average declines in some other parts of the UK.
However, these results pre-date the current outbreak ofHighly Pathogenic Avian Influenza.

We are for the first time able to present a multi-taxa species’ abundance indicator for
Wales, due to increased data availability. In future we would like to develop additional
complementary measures to present a more rounded assessment of the state of nature.
110

Ynys Feirig, David Wootton (rspb-images.com)
Lapwing, Andy Hay (rspb-images.com); Harebell, Michael Harvey (rspb-images.com); Lackey, David Kjaer (rspb-images.com);
Large Heath Butterfly, John Ibboton; Fulmar, Richard Carlyon (rspb-images.com)

111

WalesKey findings
ScotlandHistorical change

Northern Ireland

Terrestrial and freshwater
Change in species’ abundance
The indicator shows a decline in averageabundance of 20% (Figure 24, Uncertainty
Interval (UI): -30% to -9%) between 1994 and2021. Over the last 10 years (2010–2020), thedecline was 4% (UI: -11% to +2%).
Within multispecies’ indicators like these
there is substantial variation between
individual species’ trends. To examine
this, we have allocated species into trend
categories based on the magnitude of
population change, over the long and theshort-term periods.

UK countries

Conservation response

UKOTs and CDs•	Since 1994, 140 species (37%) showedstrong or moderate declines and 107
species (28%) showed strong or moderateincreases; 133 species (35%) showed littlechange.
•	In the last 10 years (2010–2020), 160
species (43%) showed strong or moderate
declines and 122 species (32%) showedstrong or moderate increases; 94 species(25%) showed little change.

Species’ abundance indicators
by group
The composite nature of multispecies’
indicators means they can hide importantvariations in trends among both individual
species and species groups. Here, to help better
understand changes in the headline abundanceindicators, we present it disaggregated into
major species’ groups.
•	The abundance indicator for 232 of Wales’
commonest moth species starts in 1970 andoverall shows a decline in average abundanceof 43% (Figure 25A, UI: -54% to -32%). Overthe last 10 years, the indicator was 4% lower
in 2020 compared to 2010 (UI: -13% to +5%).

C)

Other birds(33 species)

150

Woodlandbirds(29 species)
100

Farmlandbirds(15 species)

50

0
1995

75

50

50

25

100
100
75
75

Strong increase

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year

Little change
Moderate decrease
Strong decrease

Figure 24: Change in average species’ abundance acrossterrestrial and freshwater species in Wales, based on Walesspecific trends of birds (108 species), butterflies (33 species),
mammals (seven species) and moths (232 species). The bar
chart shows the percentage of species within the indicatorthat have increased, decreased (moderately or strongly)
or shown little change in abundance (1994 – 2020: 380
species, 2010 – 2020: 376 species).

i

2020

See page
184 to findout how tointerpret thisreportWinteringwaterbirds(31 species)

100

50

0
1980
1980

1990
1990

2000
2000

2010
2010

2020
2020

1995

B)

200

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

E)

Bats
(6 species)

200
200

Index
Index(1978(1978==100)
100)

2000

2015

25
25

0
Moderate increase

1995

Moths
Moths
(232
(232
species)
species)

50
50

1970
1970

0

2010

D)

125
125

Unsmoothed indicator
Uncertainty Interval

2005

150

0
0

Smoothed indicator

25

2000

150
150

Percentage of species

75

100

Index (1994 = 100)

100

A)

Index (1994 = 100)

125

175
175

150
150
100
100

Generalist
Generalist
butterflies
butterflies(21(21 species)
species)

50
50Specialist
Specialist
butterflies
butterflies(10(10 species)
species)

Index (1998 = 100)

20102020

Index
Index(1970(1970==100)100)

19942020

Wales (380 species)

Appendices

EnglandIndex (1994 = 100)

Summary

150

100

Smoothed indicator

50

Unsmoothed indicator
Uncertainty Interval

0
0

0
1970
1970

1980
1980

1990
1990

2000
2000

Year
Year

2010
2010

2020
2020

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year

Figure 25: Change in average species’ abundance for terrestrial
and freshwater species in Wales by habitat preference, level of
specialism or taxonomic group.

112

113

Appendices

Change in species’ distribution
Plants and lichens•	The distribution indicator for 1,186 vascularplant species shows a decline of 4% (Figure
26A, Uncertainty Interval (UI): -6% to -2%)
between 1970 and 2019. Within this there
was substantial variation between individual
species’ trends. The distribution of 42% of
species decreased, whereas 40% of species
showed an increase in distribution. Only
18% of species showed little change. Species
associated with upland habitats as well as acidand calcareous grasslands declined on average,
whereas species associated with broadleaved
and coniferous woodland increased53.

•	The distribution indicator for 1,304 lichen
species, with Wales-specific data, showed
an average increase of 13% between 1980
and 2021 (Figure 26C, UI: 4% to 26%). The
distribution of 43% of species decreased,
whereas 50% of species showed an increasein distribution. In many parts of the UK,lichens were very badly impacted by historicindustrial pollution330. Reductions in sulphur
dioxide pollution are allowing some species
to begin to recover354. However, ongoing highlevels of nitrogenous air pollution mean thatrecovery may be skewed towards species that
can tolerate this.

Vascular plants (1,186 species)

100
75
75

100
75
75
75
50
50

75
50
50

50
25
25

50
25
25
25
0
0 19700 1970

25
0
0
1980
1980

1990
1990

1970
1980
1990
125 B)Bryophytes (776 species)
125
Bryophytes (776 species)
125
100
100

100
100

2000
2000

2010
2010

2020
2020

2000

2010

2020

Bryophytes (776 species)019702019
19702019
19702019

100
75
75

100
100
100
75
75
75
50
50

75
50
50

50
25
25

50
25
25
25
0
0 1970

25
0
0
1990
1990

2000
2000

2010
2010

2020
2020

125
125

1970
1980
1990
Lichens (1,304 species)C)Lichens (1,304 species)

2000

2010

2020

125
100
100

Lichens (1,304 species)

0 1970

1980
1980

0

19702019
19702019
19702019

100
75
75

100
100
100
75
75
75
50
50

75
50
50

50
25
25

50
25
25
25
0
0 1970

Smoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

Smoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

Smoothed
1980 indicator1990

0 1970

1980

1970

1980

Uncertainty2010
Interval
2000
1990 Year2000
2010
Year
1990
2000
2010
Year

25
0
0

2020
2020
2020

Percentage
Percentage
Percentageof speciesof speciesof species•	The distribution indicator for 776 bryophyte
species (mosses and liverworts), with Welshspecific data, showed on average no change(Figure 26B, +3%; UI:-3% to +8%). This masked
the fact that the distribution of nearly all
species changed. The distribution of 44% of
species decreased, whereas 46% of species
showed an increase in distribution. Only 10% of
species showed little change. Epiphytic mosses(those that live on other plants), have seen
particularly strong average increases associatedwith declines in sulphur dioxide pollution.

125
100
100

19702019
19702019
19702019

Vascular plants (1,186 species)
Vascular plants (1,186 species)

Percentage
Percentage
Percentageof speciesof speciesof species•	The abundance indicator for farmland
bird species shows a decline in averageabundance of 29% since 1994 (Figure
25C, UI: -36% to -23%). This is similar
to patterns shown in all other UK
countries barring Scotland327, despite
the indicator starting after the main
period of intensification of agricultural
management. Woodland birds and otherbirds have seen an average increase inabundance of 33% (UI: +27% to +39%)
and 42% (+32% to +52%) respectively.
However, population increases may
be skewed towards resident andgeneralist woodland bird species, withongoing conservation concerns forwoodland specialists such as Lesser
Spotted Woodpecker and trans-Saharanmigrants (eg Wood Warbler).

A)

125
125

Percentage
Percentage
Percentageof speciesof speciesof species•	Separate data shows329 that Atlantic Salmon
abundance has declined markedly acrossWales in the past decade, and in 2021 allriver stocks were assessed as ‘at risk’ (91%) or‘probably at risk’ (9%).

•	The abundance indicator for six bat
species starts in 1998 and overall shows
an increase in average abundance of
76% (Figure 25E, UI: +72% to +80%),
primarily driven by large increases
in two bat species that are recoveringfrom historic declines. These trends are
similar to those found across the UK and
are likely linked to legislative change
giving increased protection to roosts
and hibernation sites328.

UKOTs and CDs

England•	Specialist butterflies declined by morethan half since 1993 (Figure 25B, -54%, UI:-76% to -32%). Generalist butterflies show
greater inter-annual variation but overall
have remained stable (-5%, UI: -21% to 12%).

•	Wintering waterbirds show on average
little change between 1994 and 2019
(Figure 25D, +8%; UI: -6% to 22%). The
indicator rose rapidly in the first
decade of the 21st century but has
since steadily declined. Wintering
waterbird populations have responded
to a changing climate, with wintering
populations first shifting to the east of
the UK and then to continental Europe
as winter temperatures have increased,
opening up once inhospitable wintering
areas, closer to their breeding grounds326.

114

Northern Ireland

UK countries

Conservation response

Index
Index
Index
(1970
(1970
=(1970100)= 100)= 100)

ScotlandHistorical change

Index
Index
Index
(1970
(1970
=(1970100)= 100)= 100)Wales

Key findings

Index
Index
Index
(1980
(1980
=(1980100)= 100)= 100)

Summary

Increase0
Increase
Little change
LittlechangeDecrease
Increase
Decrease
Little change
Decrease

Figure 26: Change in average species’ distribution for A) vascularplants, B) bryophytes and C) lichens in Wales. The bar chart shows
the percentage of species within the indicator that have increased,
decreased or shown little change in distribution.

Sticta Limbata, P Philpot / Plantlife

115

Scotland

Invertebrates

To examine the variation in species’
distribution trends, we allocated trends
into categories based on the magnitude of
distribution change.
•	Since 1970, 33% of species showed strongor moderate decreases and 31% showedstrong or moderate increases; 36% showed
little change.
•	Since 2010, 41% of species showed strongor moderate decreases and 40% showedstrong or moderate increases; 19% showed
little change.
To help understand these patterns of
distribution change more clearly, species
groups were categorised by the ecological
functions they provide331. Some groups
provide more than one function and so areincluded in more than one indicator.
•	Pollinating insects (bees, hoverflies andmoths), which play a critical role in foodproduction, show an average increase

Northern Ireland

UK countries

Conservation response

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Englandof 14% in distribution (Figure 27B, UI: +3%
to +25%) since 1970. This average increasein the distributions of pollinating insects,
including moths, does not negate thedeclines in abundance shown in Figure
25. On average, the proportion of sites
moth species are found at is increasing but
the number of individuals is on average
declining332.
•	Insect groups (ants, carabid, rove andladybird beetles, hoverflies, dragonflies
and wasps) that predate species which
damage food crops showed an average
decline of 12% in distribution (UI: -26% to
+2%).

A)

125

19702020

Invertebrates (3,036 species)

100

100

75

75

50

50

25

0

25

Strong increase
Smoothed indicator•	The average distribution of species
supporting freshwater nutrient cycling(mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies andstoneflies) saw an initial decline followedby signs of a recovery ending 9% higher
in 2020 compared to 1978, although withlarge Uncertainty Intervals (UI: -24% to+51%). This pattern may in part be related
to changes in river water quality333,
but although many measures of waterpollution have improved over the past few
decades, significant water pollution issues
remain, in particular in catchments linked
to intensive agriculture349.

20102020

Percentage of species

The distribution indicator for 3,036 terrestrial
and freshwater invertebrate species, with
Wales-specific data, shows no change inaverage distribution between 1970 and 2020
(Figure 27A; -4%, Uncertainty Interval (UI):-12% to +4%).

Historical change

Index (1970 = 100)

Wales

Key findings

Uncertainty Interval

Moderate increase
Little change0Moderate decrease

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Strong decrease

Year

B)

150

Pollination(995 species)
Freshwater
nutrient cycling(198 species)

125

Index (1970 = 100)

Summary

100

Pest control(517 species)
75

50

25
Smoothed indicator

0
1970

1980

Uncertainty Interval

1990

2000

2010

2020

Year
Figure 27: Change in average species’ distribution for A) Terrestrial andfreshwater invertebrates in Wales. The bar chart shows the percentage of species
within the indicator that have increased, decreased (moderately or strongly)
or shown little change in distribution. B) Insect species grouped by ecological
function (pollination, pest control and freshwater nutrient cycling.

White-footed Hoverfly, Nick Upton (rspb-images.com)

116

117

SummaryWales

Key findings
ScotlandHistorical change

Northern Ireland

Since the 2019 State of Nature report, thenumber of taxa formally assessed using the
IUCN Regional Red List process334, andknown to have occurred in Wales, has
increased from 6,500 species to 7,448. At
present we cannot assess whether extinction
risk is changing over time because the vast
majority of species have only a single Red
List assessment. Of the extant taxa, for which
sufficient data are available, 579 (8.0%) qualify
as being threatened and are therefore at riskof extinction from Great Britain (the scaleat which Red List assessments are made)(Figure 28). Of the different taxonomic
groups, 236 (10.3%) plants, 76 (5.7%) fungi andlichens, 109 (34.4%) vertebrates and 158 (4.9%)
invertebrates qualify as threatened.

Extinct

7448

8%

Fungi and lichens*

1457

5.7%

CriticallyendangeredPlants

2341

10.3%

Endangered

Invertebrates*

3323

4.9%

Vulnerable

Vertebrates

327

34.4%

Data
deficientNearthreatened
Least
concern

50%

75%

Appendices100%

In order to maximise comparability between taxonomic groups and countries, we
present IUCN Red List assessments undertaken at a Great Britain level; however,
several taxonomic groups have been assessed for extinction risk at a Welsh scale.
These show the following findings:

Figure 28: Summary of Great Britain National Red Lists for species’ present in Wales, showing the proportion ofassessed species in each Red List category, by broad taxonomic group. *At a Great Britain level only selected invertebrategroups have been assessed and less than 1% of fungi species.

Threatened in Wales

Group(number of assessments)

Percentage

NumberExtinct in Wales
Number

Total

18%

663

95

Lichens (1,316)

18%

208

22

Rusts (214)

21%

40

7

Bryophytes (850)

18%

146

26

Vascular plants(1,467)

18%

256

38

Mammals (39)

33%

11

2

Reptiles andamphibians (11)

18%

2

0

% Threatened

All

25%

UKOTs and CDs

Wales-specific IUCN Red List assessments

Number ofassessments0%

UK countries

England

Extinction risk
Great Britain Red List assessments
Here we break down the IUCN Red List
assessments for Great Britain to show
the proportion of taxa that are known tohave occurred in Wales which qualify foreach of the standard threat categories.
Taxa assessed as Critically Endangered,Endangered or Vulnerable are formallyclassified as threatened. Only assessments
formally approved by the commissioning
statutory nature conservation body have been
included.

Conservation response

Birds of Conservation
Concern Wales
Although it is not yet possible to determine
how extinction risk is changing over time formost taxa, four assessments have been madeof trends in the abundance and distributionof birds in Wales since 2002, the most recent
in 2022352. These use a consistent suite ofcriteria to allocate each regularly occurring
species as Red, Amber or Green to denote
levels of conservation concern; the principal
criteria for Red-listing are a decline of morethan 50% over 25 years, or a longer period as
the data allow. The latest assessment showedthat of 220 species assessed, 60 (27%) are

now Red-listed, compared to 27 (12%) in the2002 assessment. Although some changes– mainly additions to the Amber list –resulted from improved data, much was theresult of declining trends. The rapid fall in
numbers of breeding Rook and of wintering
Purple Sandpiper in Wales means that they
have moved from Green to Red since 2016.
Corncrake and Corn Bunting were declared
extinct as breeding birds in Wales, meaningthat since 1800 11 species of bird have been
lost from Wales. Status improvements in 14
species, including Avocet, Red Kite and SongThrush, enabled these species to move fromAmber to Green.

Toad, Richard Bowler (rspb-images.com)

118

119

SummaryWales

Key findings
ScotlandHistorical change

Northern Ireland

UK countries

Conservation response

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

EnglandMarineSeabirds
The abundance indicator for seven seabird
species in Wales starts in 1986 and overallshows little net change in average abundance
to 2019 (Figure 29, -3%; Uncertainty Interval(UI): -8% to + 2%). There is a mixed picture
for seabirds in Wales. Razorbill has increased125

over the period. However, Lesser Blackbacked Gull and Kittiwake have declined.
Populations are susceptible to variouspressures, including climate change, prey/food availability, habitat loss and predation.
Whilst some populations have shown
increases in recent years, they remain
susceptible to future changes as they areconcentrated in a small number of colonies335.
19862018

Seabirds (7 species)

20082018

100

100

Index (1986 = 100)

75
50
50
25
Smoothed indicator

25

Unsmoothed indicator

0

Uncertainty Interval

Strong increase0

Percentage of species

75

Figure 29:
Change inaverage species’
abundance
across sevenseabird species
with Walesspecific trends.
The bar chartshows thepercentage of
species within
the indicator thathave increased,
decreased or
shown littlechange inabundance.

Demersal fish
There was insufficient data within Welsh
inshore and offshore waters to produce arobust abundance indicator for demersal
fish, so here we present an indicator using
data from the Wales, Ireland and Celtic Seas
component of the UK EEZ. Between 1993 and2021 the indicator increased by 8%

100

England, Wales,
NI Celtic Seas
(86 species)
75

50

25

1985

1990

1995

2000
2005
Year

2010

2015

2020

Moderate decrease
Strong decrease

Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator

Moderate increase
Little change(Figure 30, UI: 1% to 15%), potentiallyindicating the recovery of some species
from previous declines. It should be notedthat many stocks of commercially targetedfish and shellfish species are assessed andmanaged over large geographic scales andthat the species included in the indicator may
not be those typically landed by the Welsh
fleet in significant numbers.

125

Index (1993 = 100)

Change in species’ abundance0

Uncertainty Interval

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year
Figure 30: Change in average species’ abundance for demersal andbathypelagic fish species in the Wales, England and Northern Ireland andCeltic Seas component of the UK Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from1993 to 2021.

Ecoregion
Celtic Seas

Marine mammals
The Grey Seal population in Welsh waters has
shown an upward trend in pup production
over the long term, with an increase inpopulation abundance335. In Wales, the coastal
Bottlenose Dolphin population centredaround Cardigan Bay is considered to bestable over the long term and in favourable
condition254, although abundance is thought
to have possibly declined in the last decade336.

Bottlenose Dolphin, Richard Carlyon (rspb-images.com)

120

121

Summary

Key findings

Wales

Scotland

Wales official biodiversity
indicators
Under the Wellbeing of Future Generations(Wales) Act 2015, the Welsh Government
produces a range of National Wellbeing
indicators. There is a milestone within
the Act ‘to reverse the decline inbiodiversity with an improvement in
the status of species and ecosystems by
2030 and their clear recovery by 2050’.
Indicators are being developed to reporton this, including Indicator 44 – statusof biological diversity in Wales (Figure31). This is currently considered an‘experimental’ indicator that aims tomeasure trends in distribution of Welsh
priority (Section 7) species. It will be used
to monitor progress with the milestone.
The indicator does not currently containany marine species and also omits species
groups covered by structured monitoring
schemes (birds, mammals, butterflies
and moths). Between 1970 and 2016 theindicator declined by 13%. There are plansto further develop this indicator andto investigate complementary species’
abundance indicators.
125

Historical change

Northern Ireland

As elsewhere in the UK, nature in Wales isunder pressure. Management of agriculturalland has been identified as the most significant
factor driving species population change in the
UK341. With 90%339 of Welsh land area utilised
for agriculture, over 50% of Wales landcover isimproved grasland dominated by rye grass351.
Nature across the uplands and lowlands has
been, and remains, vulnerable to farming
practices such as more intensive grasslandand moorland management, loss of landscapescale habitat diversity, high input and intensive
livestock grazing, and impacts on specialist
species such as those associated with declining
agricultural habitats such as low-intensity
arable land.
The new Sustainable Farming Scheme, which
is currently under development and due tobegin in 2025, aims to address some of the
impacts of current agricultural practices. Nature
conservation organisations are calling for thescheme to maximise opportunities to restore
nature as well as to store carbon and to reduce theuse of pesticides and nutrient run-off into rivers.

Priority species (113 species)

20112016

100

100

75
50
50
25

Percentage of species

75

Index (1970 = 100)

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

EnglandPressures

19702016

Conservation response

Figure 31: Theexperimental
indicator
measuring trends
in distribution of
113 Welsh priority
species (figure
taken from Smartet al. 2022337).

The distributions of vascular plants have on
average declined less in Wales comparedto other parts of Great Britain, but within
this there is considerable flux, with over
40% of species’ distributions increasing or
decreasing respectively. The distributions ofplants associated with lowland habitats haveremained relatively stable since 1970, andthose associated with coniferous woodlands
have seen rapid increases. Vascular plant
species associated with upland habitats likebogs and heathlands have shown consistentdeclines, albeit shallower on average thanin England and Scotland, and species
associated with calcareous grassland showed
steep declines, as elsewhere in Britain. The
latter’s decline reflects both conversion of
permanent grassland to other land usesand grassland’s poor condition, for example
due to changes in grazing pressure (bothunder and overgrazing), non-native species(Cotoneaster) and pollution53.
A similar pattern of change is seen for
bryophytes, Wales being the only part ofGreat Britain where moss and liverwort
species show a long-term increase in average
distribution. However, that overall increasemasks some substantial declines in habitat
specialist bryophytes. Epiphytic bryophytes,
and those which grow on concrete, tarmac
and other artificial habitats, have increased
very substantially across Britain353 as sulphur
dioxide pollution declined, and the overall
trend in Wales was an increase between
1970 and around 2000. Since 2000, somespecies’ distributions have continued toincrease, but distributions have on average

declined because of reductions amongst
many specialists of moorland, heathland,
flush and upland rock. The overall change
from 1970 to 2020 might be slightly upwards,
but that masks declines in many species354,355.
Persistently high levels of atmosphericammonia, primarily from the agriculturalindustry, are above the critical thresholdfor bryophytes and lichens across 69% ofWales356. Other pressures affecting freshwaterand terrestrial habitats in Wales include
pollution and invasive non-native species.
At a UK scale climate change was found to be
the second most important driver of specieschange and it is likely that this is also the casein Wales341. The abundance of hundreds ofmoth species has declined substantially inWales in the last 50 years and climate change
has been highlighted as a major pressure on
moth populations357. Whilst it is likely thatthe net impact of climate change on moths
in Wales is negative, it is also likely to havesupported increases in other species, as wellas impacting species’ phenology (the timingof seasonal events).
Climate change is also highlighted as a key
pressure for marine life in Wales, alongside
water quality issues including marine
litter. Although critical to plans to mitigate
climate change, ambitious targets to upscale
renewable energy generation at sea358 also
have the potential to negatively impact
marine life, if not planned, managed andmonitored sensitively.

25
Smoothed indicator

0

Uncertainty Interval

Strong increase0

Moderate increase

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

2010

2020

Little change
Moderate decrease
Strong decrease

122

123

Summary

Key findings

SCOTLANDHistorical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

From the montane habitats of the highest peaks, areas of blanket
bog and upland heath to the Caledonian pine forests, lochs, coasts
and seas, Scotland supports a broad array of wildlife. This includes
species found nowhere else in the UK such as One-flowered
Wintergreen, Crested Tit and Capercaillie. The deep seas around
Scotland host the UK’s only underwater mountains, seamounts.
Scotland is also of international importance for its breedingseabirds and marine mammals324. With approximately 80%359 ofland used for agriculture, changes in farming policies continue
to impact Scotland’s biodiversity. However, threats are wideranging, including climate change, non-native forestry, habitat
fragmentation, pollution and introduced species.

Pinewood Wester Ross, Phil Formby / WTML

124

125

SummaryWales

Key findings
ScotlandHistorical change

Northern Ireland

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

EnglandHeadlines
Average 15% decline in species’ abundance
For 407 terrestrial and freshwater species, abundance acrossScotland has fallen by 15%, on average, since 1994.

15%
Strong decreases in plant andlichen distributions

57%

Conservation response

Since 1970, the distributions of 47% of flowering plants, 62%of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) and 57% of lichens havedecreased, compared to 27, 25 and 34% of flowering plants,
bryophytes and lichens respectively, that have increased in
distribution.

KEY FINDINGS
Abundance trends are based on changes in
the number of individuals at a monitored site,a measure that reflects species population
size. Distribution trends are based onchanges in the number of sites where a
species is present. A species whose range haschanged could still have a stable distribution
indicator if the total area occupied has stayed
the same.
The species abundance indicator for Scotland
covers the period 1994 to 2021. Ecologically,
this is a very short timeframe and thefindings need to be considered in the context
of previous historical losses highlighted inthis report. For example, the indicator does

not capture the impact resulting from historic
woodland losses, forestry expansion or theintensification of agricultural management
following the second world war. We cangenerally report on a smaller proportion of
species at a Scotland level than we can for
the whole UK, because there are fewer people
recording, often covering larger and more
remote areas. For a fuller interpretation of themetrics of species change presented here see
the Pressures section. The changes describedhere follow extensive changes to our landand seascapes earlier in the 20th century andbefore (see Historical change section).

Average 15% increase in the distributionsof invertebrate species

15%

Distributions of 2,149 invertebrates increased by 15% on
average since 1970. This was driven by climate change andlarge average increases in the distributions of aquatic insect
species that support freshwater nutrient cycling.

11% of species are threatened
Of 7,508 species in Scotland that have been assessed using
IUCN Red List criteria, 11% have been classified as threatenedwith extinction from Great Britain.

11%
49% decline in average abundanceof Scottish seabirds

49%
126

The abundance of 11 seabird species in Scotland has fallen by
49% on average since 1986. These results pre-date the current
outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza.
Grayling, Paul Sawyer (rspb-images.com); Norwegian specklebelly, Andy Acton;
Emerald Moth, Phil Formby / WTML; Capercaillie, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com);
Fulmar, Richard Carlyon (rspb-images.com);

Large Emerald Moth, Helen Rowe127

0 1970

The abundance indicator for 407 terrestrial
and freshwater species, for which Scotlandspecific trends are available, shows a decline
in average abundance of 15% between 1994
and 2021 (Figure 32, Uncertainty Interval (UI):-26% to -5%). Over the last 10 years (2010–2020) the decline was 9% (UI: -15%
to -2%).

•	Over the last 10 years (2010-2020), 172
species (43%) showed strong or moderate
declines and 144 species (36%) showedstrong or moderate increases; 82 species(21%) showed little change.

Within multispecies indicators like these
there is substantial variation between
individual species trends. To examine this, wehave allocated species into trend categories
based on the magnitude of population
change, over the long and the short-term
periods (Figure 32).

Species’ abundance indicators
by group
The composite nature of multispecies indicators
means they can hide important variations intrends among both individual species andspecies groups. Here, to help better understandchanges in the headline abundance indicators,
we125
present it disaggregated into major species
groups. This allows the use of longer or shorter
100series where available.
time
Moths
(242
•	
T75
he abundance indicator for 242 mothspecies)

species starts in 1970 and overall shows a
50
indicator 33A, UI: -29% to -6%).
declineofSmoothed
18% (Figure
Over the past
10 years,
the indicator was -17%
Unsmoothedindicator
25
lower in 2020
compared
to 2010 (UI: -25%
Uncertainty Interval
to0-9%).
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

20102020

125

75

50

50

25

Percentage of species

75

100

75
100
50

Smoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval
Unsmoothed indicator

1970
1970

Smoothed indicator

1980
1980

0

Uncertainty Interval

Strong increase0

Moderate increase

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year

Little change
Moderate decrease
Strong decrease

Figure 32: Change in average species’ abundance acrossterrestrial and freshwater species in Scotland, based on
Scotland-specific trends of birds (130 species), butterflies(26 species), mammals (9 species) and moths (242 species).
The bar chart shows the percentage of species within theindicator that have increased, decreased (moderately orstrongly) or shown little change in abundance (1994–2020:
407 species, 2010–2020: 398 species).

i

See page
184 to findout how tointerpret thisreportIndexIndex(1975/76(1979= 100)= 100)

Unsmoothed indicator

1990
2000
1990Year
2000

2010
2010

B)
Generalist
Wildfowl
butterflies(16
species)(14 species)All
All butterflies
Wintering(20 species)
Waterbirds(41 species)
Specialist
butterflies
Waders(6(14species)
species)

150
100
100
75
50
50
25
0
0

Unsmoothed indicator
Unsmoothedindicator
Smoothed
indicator

1970
1970

1980
1980

1990
2000
1990Year
2000

100
50
100

2010
2010

2020
2020

2020

2010
2020
Appendices

Generalist
butterflies
Moths
Generalist(14
species)(242
butterflies
species)All(14 butterflies
species)(20 species)
All butterflies(20 species)
Specialist
butterflies
Specialist(6 species)
butterflies(6 species)

Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator

2550

Uncertainty Interval

50
0Unsmoothed indicator

0 1970

Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothedindicator
1980
1990
2000

2010

2020

Smoothed indicator
1980
1990Year
2000

2010

2020

2010

2020

1980

1990Year
2000
Year

125
150
125

Generalist
Wildfowl
butterflies(16
species)(14
species)
Wildfowl
All(16
species)All butterflies
Wintering(20
species)All
Waterbirds
Wintering(41
species)
Waterbirds
Specialist(41 species)
butterflies
Waders(6 species)(14 species)
Waders(14 species)

100
100
100
75
75
50
50
50
25
0
25

Unsmoothed indicator
Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator

0 1970

1980
1990
2000
Unsmoothedindicator

2010

2020

0 19701980

1990Year
2000

2010

2020

1970
D)

1980

1990

2010

2020
Farmlandbirds
Wildfowl
Farmland(27(16 species)
birds
All
(27 species
species)birds
WinteringAll
species(66
species)
Waterbirds
birds
(41
species)Upland(66 species)
birds
Upland(17
species)Wadersbirds(14
species)(17 species)

2010
2015

2020
2020

2015

2020 Farmlandbirds(27 species)

2000

125
100
100
100
75
75
75
50
50

Smoothed indicator

50
25
25
25
0
0
0

2020
2020

Year

200
125

Specialist
butterflies(6 species)

Unsmoothed indicator

50
25

Smoothed indicator

25

128

Generalist
butterflies
Moths(14 species)(242
Allbutterflies
species)(20 species)

100
150

0
0

150
125
150
125
100
125
100
75
100
75
50
75
50
25
50
25
25
0
0

Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator
UnsmoothedInterval
indicator
Uncertainty
Uncertainty
Interval
1970
1980
1990
2000
1995 2000 2005 2010

1995

2000

2005

2010

E)

All species
birds
Mammals(66
species)(9 species)
Mammals
Upland(9 species)
birds(17 species)
Smoothed indicator
Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator
Smoothed
indicator
Unsmoothedindicator
Uncertainty Interval
Unsmoothedindicator
Uncertainty Interval

1995
1995

Uncertainty Interval

0

2000
2000

2005
2005

2010
2010

2015
2015

2020
2020

150

1995

2000

2005Year
2010

2015

2020

Year

Farmland
125
Figure33: Change in average species’ abundancebirds
for terrestrial and freshwater species
125
125
Wildfowl(27
in Scotland by habitat preference, level of specialism
orspecies)
taxonomic group. A) Moths,(16 species)
100B) NatureScot
Scottish
Wintering
Waterbird
Indicator,
C)
NatureScot Terrestrial Insect
All
species100
100
All Terrestrial Breeding Bird Indicator
birds
Abundance - Butterfly Indicator, D) NatureScot Scottish
Wintering
75(66
species)and E) Mammals. Source for NatureScot’s Indicators:
nature.scot.
Waterbirds
75
Upland75(41 species)
birds
50
Smoothed indicator(17 species)
50
Waders1975/76(1994 = 100)
= 100)

Index (1994 = 100)

100

Index
Index (1979(1970 =
= 100)
100)

19942020

2010

150
75

125
125

200
125

2000

200
100
150

0 1970C)
200 1970

Year

A)

Scotland (407 species)

Index
Index
Index
(1979
(1979
(1970
= 100)==100)
100)

Change in species’ abundance•	Since 1994, 126 species (31%) showedstrong or moderate declines and
153 species (38%) showed strong or
moderate increases; 128 species (31%)
showed little change.

Index
Index
(1975/76
Index(1975/76
=
(1979
100)
= 100)= 100)

Terrestrial and freshwater

England

Index
Index
(1994
(1975/76(1994= 100)= 100)= 100)

Northern Ireland

UK countries

Conservation response

Index
Index
Index
(1998
(1998
(1994
= 100)==100)
100)

Scotland

Wales

Historical change

1990

1970
1980
1990Year
2000
UKOTs
and CDs
Year
200
125

Index (1998 = 100)

Key findings

Index (1970 = 100)

Summary

1980

Mammals(9 species)

129

130

Appendices

Englandto arable ones. The upland bird index
decreased by 21% (UI: -28% to -15%) overthe same time period. Long-term changes
in upland bird populations may have been
influenced by climate change, plantation
forest expansion and changes in sitemanagement362.
•	The abundance indicator for nine mammal
species starts in 1998 and shows no change
in average abundance (Figure 33E, 5%, UI:-1% to +10%). Within this average, there isa good deal of variation in species levels
changes. The indicator covers five bat
species, three of which have increased
following historic declines, two increasing
deer species, and the declining Rabbit and
Brown Hare.

Change in species’
distribution
Plants and lichens•	The distribution indicator for 1,223 vascularplant species shows a decline of 14% (Figure
34A, UI: -16% to -13%) between 1970 and2019. Within this average, the distributionsof 47% of species decreased, 27% of species
increased and 26% showed little change.
Species associated with arable farmland andsemi-natural grassland showed particulardeclines365.
•	The distribution indicator for 879 bryophyte
species showed an average decline of 32%(Figure 34B, UI: -38% to -27%) since 1970.
The distributions of 62% of decreased, 25%
increased and 13% showed little change.
Warmer drier summers as a result of climatechange are likely to be having a negative
impact on some bryophyte species367.
•	The distribution indicator for 1,577 lichen
species showed an average decline of
36% (Figure 34C, UI: -38 to -33%) between
1980 and 2021. The distributions of 57%

of species decreased,
34% increased and 9%of species showed littlechange. Scotland is the
only UK country where
lichen distributions are
declining on average.
Historical declines inlichens associated withheavy industry wereless severe across muchof Scotland330, which
may explain why theytend to show less of apositive response to
reduced sulphur dioxide
pollution. In Scotland, theloss of lichens may reflect
the decline of nitrogensensitive species as the
cumulative effects ofnitrogenous air pollution
have grown, plus theongoing effects ofhabitat loss368. However,a regional decline in
identification capacity
may also be part of thisoverall pattern.

A)

125
125
125
100
100

19702019
19702019
19702019

Vascular plants (1,223 species)
Vascular plants (1,223 species)
Vascular plants (1,223 species)

100
100
100
75
75

100
75

75
50

75

50

75
50

50
25

50

25

50
25

25
0

25

0

25
0
0 19701980

1990

0 19701980
1990
Bryophytes(879
species)
1970
1980
1990
125
B)

125

Bryophytes (879 species)

125
100

Bryophytes (879 species)

2000

2010

2020

2000

2010

2020

2000

2010

2020

0
19702019
19702019
19702019

100

100
100
100
75
75

100
75

75
50

75

50

75
50

50
25

50

25

50
25

25
0

25

0

25
0
0 1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

0 1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

1980
1990
125 1970
Lichens (1,577 species)
125 C)
Lichens (1,577 species)
125
100
Lichens (1,577 species)
100

2000

2010

2020

0
19702019
19702019
19702019

100
100
100
75
75

100
75
75

75
50

75
50

50

50

50
25

50
25

Smoothed indicator25

25

Smoothed indicator
Uncertainty
Interval

25
0

25
0

Smoothed
indicator
Uncertainty
Interval

0 1970

Uncertainty
Interval
1980
1990

0 1970

1980

1970

1980

0
Increase
2000

2010

2020

1990 Year2000
1990 Year2000

2010

2020

2010

2020

Year

Percentage
Percentage
Percentageof speciesof speciesof species•	Since the start of the time series in 1994 to
the most recent estimate in 2021 the allspecies combined bird indicator increasedby 10%361 (Figure 33D, UI:5% to 15%). The
farmland bird indicator increased by 13%(UI: 6% to 21%), in contrast to patternsof change shown in farmland birds inother UK countries327. It should be notedthat both indicators are now declining
and the farmland indicator started after
the main period of intensification ofagricultural management, so that earlier
losses are not reflected. Within farmland,
abundance trends are in general morepositive in pastoral areas compared

UKOTs and CDs

Percentage
Percentage
Percentageof speciesof speciesof species•	Since the start of the time series in 1979
to the most recent assessment in 2021
the all-species and generalist butterfly
species groups increased by 43% and 46%
respectively (Figure 33C), likely influenced
by a warming climate, allowing species
traditionally restricted to more southerly
parts of the UK to become more abundantin Scotland360. The specialist species groupshows a stable trend. Of the 20 species
included in the all-butterfly species index,
nine have increased significantly, twohave decreased.

UK countries

Percentage
Percentage
Percentageof speciesof speciesof species•	Scotland hosts internationally importantnumbers of wintering waterbirds. Manyof Scotland’s estuaries are crucial for
wintering and migrating waders andwaterfowl. Between 1975 and 2019
overall waterbird numbers (41 species/
populations) have on average decreasedby 10% (Figure 33B363). Within this, wader
species (14 species) have fared particularly
poorly, having declined to 55% lower
than in 1975/76. The quality of migratory
stopover sites for waders, and timing
mismatches in breeding season foodavailability in Arctic breeding grounds,
may be negatively impacting these
species363.

Northern Ireland

Conservation response

Index
Index
(1970
Index
(1970
=(1970100)= 100)= 100)

ScotlandHistorical change

Index
Index
(1970
Index
(1970
=(1970100)= 100)= 100)Wales

Key findings

Index
Index
(1980
Index
(1980
=(1980100)= 100)= 100)

Summary

0change
LittleIncrease
Decrease
LittlechangeIncrease
Decrease
Little change
Decrease

Figure 34: Change in average species’ distribution for A) vascular plants, B)
bryophytes and C) lichens in Scotland. The bar chart shows the percentageof species within the indicator that have increased, decreased or shown littlechange in distribution.

131

Summary

Key findings
Scotland

Wales

Northern IrelandA)

19702020

Invertebrates (2,149 species)

125

Historical change

20102020

25

50

Percentage of species

Index (1970 = 100)

Invertebrates
100

50

75

0

25

Strong increase
Moderate increase

Uncertainty Interval

Smoothed indicator

Little change0

The distribution indicator for 2,149 terrestrial
and freshwater invertebrate species, with
Scotland-specific data, increased between
1970 and 2020 by an average of 15% (Figure
35A, UI: +4% to +26%). Within this average,
similar proportions of species showedstrong or moderate decreases (32%), strongor moderate increases (35%) or little change(33%).
To help understand these patterns moreclearly, species groups were categorised by
the ecological functions they provide (Figure
35B331). Some groups provide more than one
function and so are included in more than
one indicator.

Moderate decrease

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Strong decreaseYear
150 B)

Index (1970 = 100)

UK countries

Pollination(772 species)

125
100

Pest control(363 species)

75

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

England75

100

Conservation response•	Pollinating insects (bees, hoverflies andmoths), which play a critical role in foodproduction, show an average increase of
30% (Figure 35B, UI: 15% to 47%) since 1970.
This contrasts with pollinator declines inother UK countries and across much ofEurope. Climate change might be a factor
in this increase, but the trend merits
further study.

•	Insect groups (ants, carabid, rove andladybird beetles, hoverflies, dragonflies
and wasps) that predate species which
damage food crops (act as pest control)
showed on average little change (-5%; UI:-22% to +15%).
•	The average distribution of species
providing freshwater nutrient cycling(mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies andstoneflies) shows a very rapid increasein the 2000s, ending 339% (Figure
35C, UI: 195% to 514%) higher in 2020
compared to 1978. This pattern may inpart be related to changes in river water
quality333 around the turn of the 21st
century following implementation of theWater Framework Directive. However(unlike other UK countries), the initialdecline in distributions prior to the
1980s is not captured here, as we canonly report subsequent changes. This
very rapid increase in freshwater insects
explains much of the increase in the ‘allinvertebrates’ indicator (Figure 35A). It
does not however reflect any more recentchanges in freshwater species since 2020.

50
25

Uncertainty Interval

Smoothed indicator

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Index (1978 = 100)

700 C)
600
500

Freshwater
nutrient cycling(185 species)

400
300
200
100
0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Year
Figure 35: Change in average species’ distribution for A) Terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates
in Scotland. The bar charts shows the percentage of species within the indicator that have increased,
decreased (moderately or strongly) or shown little change in distribution. Insect species grouped byecological function, B) pollination, pest control and C) freshwater nutrient cycling.

132

Black Darter Dragonfly,
Mark Hamblin /scotlandbigpicture.com

133

Key findings
Scotland

Wales

Historical change

Northern Ireland

Extinction risk
Here we break down the IUCN Red List
assessments for Great Britain to show
the proportion of taxa that are known tohave occurred in Scotland, that qualify
for each of the standard threat categories.
Taxa assessed as Critically Endangered,Endangered or Vulnerable are formallyclassified as threatened. Only assessments
formally approved by the commissioning
statutory nature conservation body have been
included.
Since the 2019 State of Nature report, thenumber of taxa formally assessed using

All

7508

10.7%

Extinct

Fungi and lichens*

1820

8.6%

CriticallyendangeredPlants

2450

14.6%

Endangered

Invertebrates*

2900

5.6%

Vertebrates

338

36.5%

50%

75%

100%

AppendicesMarinethe IUCN Regional Red List process334, andknown to have occurred in Scotland, has
increased from 6,413 species to 7,508. At
present we cannot assess whether extinction
risk is changing over time because the vast
majority of species have only a single Red
List assessment. Of the extant taxa, for which
sufficient data are available, 764 (10.7%)
qualify as being threatened and are therefore
at risk of extinction from Great Britain (thescale at which Red List assessments aremade) (Figure 36). Of the different taxonomic
groups, 347 (14.6%) plants, 140 (8.6%) fungiand lichens, 119 (36.5%) vertebrates and 158(5.6%) invertebrates qualify as threatened.

% Threatened

25%

UKOTs and CDs

EnglandNumber ofassessments0%

UK countries

Conservation response

Vulnerable
Data
deficientNearthreatened
Least
concern

Figure 36: Summary of Great Britain National Red Lists for species present in Scotland, showing the proportion ofassessed species in each Red List category, by broad taxonomic group. *At a Great Britain level only selected invertebrategroups have been assessed and less than 1% of fungi species.

Change in species’ abundanceSeabirds
Scotland’s breeding seabirds are ofinternational importance. Between 1986
and 2019, the abundance indicator for 11
breeding seabird species shows an average
decline of 49% (Figure 37369). Of particularconcern are precipitous declines in Arctic
Skua and Kittiwake, influenced by climatechange and changes in fish populations
in part associated with fishing pressure.
These declines pre-date the as yet
unknown but significant likely negative
impact of ongoing outbreaks of Highly
Pathogenic Avian Influenza.
300

Seabirds (11 species)

250

Index (1986 = 100)

Summary

200

150

100

50

Unsmoothed indicator

0
1985

1990

1995

Confidence Interval

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year

Figure 37: Scottish Biodiversity Indicator – The Numbers and Breeding Success of Seabirds369.
Change in average species’ abundance across 11 seabirds with Scottish-specific trends.
Source: nature.scot

134

135

Summary

Key findings
Scotland

Wales

Northern Ireland

250

Index (1993 = 100)

200

ScotlandCeltic Seas
(74 species)

150

100

50

ScotlandNorth Sea
(63 species)
Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator

0

Uncertainty Interval

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Historical change

2020

Year

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

EnglandDemersal fish

Pressures

Average abundance of demersal fish
species in both the Celtic Seas andGreater North Sea increased in theearly years of the 21st century but
has since declined towards pre-2000
levels (Figure 38, Celtic Seas: +17%, UI:-11% to +46%; Greater North Sea: +11%,
UI: -8% to +30%). The proportion ofstocks of fish and shellfish harvested
sustainably (below the maximum
sustainable yield) has more thandoubled since 1991, with the latest
estimate being 69% in 2019370.
However, some fish stocks such as
Cod remain in a poor state whileothers like Sandeels are still harvested
in large tonnages despite being
important prey for seabirds, marine
mammals and other fish species338.
The increase in stocks sustainably
harvested may account for someof the increase in the demersal fishindicator during the first half of thetime series. Some areas of the North
Sea have been closed to Sandeel
fisheries since 2000 and there aresigns that this has benefited both thefish and their seabird predators155. It
is less clear what is driving the more
recent declines. Work is ongoing to
improve understanding of climatechange-driven impacts on plankton
communities at the base of the marine
food web and implications for wider
ecosystem functioning, including the
productivity of fisheries340.

On land, pressures come from many sources,
including climate change, agriculture, upland
management, land-use change, habitat
fragmentation, changes in grazing levels(particularly overgrazing by deer), pollution
and invasive non-native species.
Climate change places additional stresses on
Scotland’s wildlife, sometimes exacerbating
the impacts from other pressures, forexample habitat fragmentation342 orinvasive non-native species. Many species
previously only present in the south of
the UK are now present in Scotland andincreasing in abundance. This is a patternshown particularly clearly with butterflies,
with generalist butterfly species increasing
on average and several species thought
to be positively impacted by climatechange360. Conversely, species already at thesouthern limit of their range in Scotland
and that directly or indirectly depend oncooler climates for survival, eg, Mountain
Ringlet, Cross-Whorl Snail and Dotterel,
are potentially vulnerable to ongoingclimate change, as are montane plants andbryophytes343. Three Arctic-Alpine specialist
vascular plants have suffered severe declinesof over 50% of their population size since themid-1990s344. Scotland hosts internationally
important populations of bryophytes (mosses,
liverworts and hornworts). These species arewell adapted to our moist climate. However,warmer summers and more frequent
droughts are affecting the assemblage of
species, with a decline in species that are
intolerant of hotter or drier summers367.
Droughts are becoming more frequent andmore intense, and modelling suggests that
this pattern will continue, with intensifying
impacts on habitats and species345.

Pollution
The Scottish distributions of more than halfof lichen species have declined since 1980.
Statistical analysis of data from long-term
grassland sites in Scotland demonstrates thatwhile there is some recovery from high levelsof sulphur deposition in the 1970s there isno comparable recovery from the impactsof nitrogen pollution346. Anthropogenic
nitrogen deposition is implicated in the
decline in condition and extent of some
key habitats in upland areas of Scotland347.
Montane specialist bird species such as
Dotterel are dependent on this habitat, andloss of Racomitrium heath is implicated in
the decline of this species.
Significant efforts to restore Scotland’srivers did not occur until 1965. Reductionsin heavy industry, the enforcement of new
international and national legislation andheightened environmental awareness all

Ecoregion
Celtic Seas

Greater North Sea

Figure 38: Change in average species’ abundance for demersal
and bathypelagic fish species (fish that live at or close to theseabed) in the Scottish Celtic Seas and the Scottish Greater North
Sea from 1993 to 2021.

Grangemouth oil refinery, David Palmar (rspb-images.com)

136

137

SummaryWales

Key findings
Scotlandcontributed to improvements in river quality.
The proportion of river length classed aspolluted declined from 7% in 1998 to 3% in2018348. This change coincided with rapid
increases in the distributions of many
freshwater insects and may have played a partin these species’ recoveries. Although manymeasures of water pollution have improved
over the past few decades across Scotland
and the UK more broadly, significant issues
remain, in particular in catchments linked tointensive agriculture349.

Agriculture
Scotland supports three-quarters of thevascular plant species found in GreatBritain, and the distributions of 47% of
these have declined since 1970. Species
associated with arable farming have shownparticular declines associated with changes
in agricultural management, for example
the increased use of herbicides and artificial
fertilisers, and also the abandonmentof small-scale cropping around crofts
in northern and western areas. Species
associated with acid and calcareous grassland
also showed substantial declines likely linked
to conversion of these habitats to farmland
and associated increased use of chemicalfertilisers, re-seeding and a change from hay
to silage production365.

Sea use and climate change
Scotland’s seas are also subject to a rangeof pressures. Progress has been made on
improving water quality, contaminants andeutrophication in coastal waters, and somefish stocks are showing signs of recovery.
Other pressures, such as those associatedwith climate change, ocean acidification,
marine plastics, unsustainable fisheries,
offshore renewables and other developments,
still exist and there is evidence of change inpelagic habitats and plankton communities.

Historical change

Northern Ireland

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

EnglandNon-native species and disease
The ongoing outbreak of Highly Pathogenic
Avian Influenza (HPAI) in wild birds is themost serious ever recorded. The impact inthe winter of 2021/2022 on the populationof Barnacle Geese that come from Svalbard
to winter on the Solway in Scotland wasdevastating, with around a third of the
population dying. Eighteen of the 25 UK
breeding seabird species tested positivefor HPAI in 2022 and across RSPB reserves
at least 15,000 birds were recorded dead.
Seabirds are particularly vulnerable, as theynormally have high adult survival rates andare slow to reproduce and will be slow torecover. For Great Skua and Gannets, twoof the species where observed mortality
was greatest, Scotland hosted, before HPAI
impacts began, 60% and 46% of the global
populations respectively. Initial estimatessuggest a decline in occupied Great Skua
territories of well over a half in Foula,
Shetland, which is the largest colony of thisspecies in the world371 and seabird population
monitoring work in 2023 will produce
estimates of the impacts of HPAI on thenumbers of those seabird species most badly
affected in 2021/22. Raptors have experienced
marked declines in breeding success linked
to HPAI, particularly Golden and White-tailed
Eagles350. The ongoing impact of HPAI isdifficult to predict, but this novel additionalpressure on our wildlife emphasises theneed for resilient ecosystems and species
populations.
Invasive non-native species (INNS) continue
to spread and increase in terrestrial,
freshwater and marine environments acrossScotland39. INNS present on islands that areimportant for breeding seabirds constitutea major threat to globally significant
populations. Invasive species continue toimpact habitats and native species acrossScotland, and several projects are underway
to combat the threat. However overall the
problem is intensifying, and the threat is
likely to increase with climate change.
RSPB Inversnaid, Loch Lomond, Andy Robinson

138

139

Summary

Key findings

NORTHERNIRELAND

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

The wet and mild climate of the island of Ireland and a complex
geology have led to a unique composition of habitats. The landscapeis dominated by enclosed farmland, interspersed by blanket bog,
water bodies, lakes and fens. Northern Ireland supports species andsubspecies found nowhere else in the UK, including the Irish Hare,
Irish Damselfly and Irish Whitebeam324.
With over 650 km of coastline and over 6,800 km2 of sea area, themarine environment is significant. It supports internationally
important wintering waterbirds, as well as breeding seabird
colonies324 and marine mammals.
Approximately 76% of land is used for agriculture372, which meanschanges in farming policies have a major impact on biodiversity.

Belfast Lough, Simon Watterson (rspb-images.com)

140

141

SummaryWales

Key findings
ScotlandHistorical change

Northern Ireland

Rapidly declining farmland birds
The abundance of 17 farmland bird species has on average
fallen by 43% across Northern Ireland since 1996. Across all
64 breeding birds assessed, species’ abundance had declined
on average by 10%.

Average 30% decline in wintering
waterbirds abundance

30%

The indicator of average species’ abundance in Northern
Ireland of 36 wintering waterbird species has fallen by 30%
since 1988.

Average 54% decline in bryophyte species’
distributions

54%

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

EnglandHeadlines

43%

Conservation response

Since 1970, the distributions of 576 species of bryophytes(mosses and liverworts) have declined on average by 54% andthe distributions of 891 species of flowering plants by 14%.

KEY FINDINGS
Owing to low sampling intensity, partly asa result of its smaller geographical size, asingle combined abundance indicator was
not created for Northern Ireland; however,smoothed abundance indicators were
calculated for six separate species groups(Figure 39). These were created using
Northern Ireland-specific data for all species,
except for bats where trends for all Ireland
were used. As less data are available, the bird
indicators for Northern Ireland include 37
species well monitored by the breeding bird
survey and an additional 19 species less wellcovered but whose trends are consideredrobust because their habitat is represented
and abundance does not fluctuate greatly
between years. Abundance trends are basedon changes in the number of individuals
at a monitored site, a measure that reflects
species population size. Distribution trends
are based on changes in the number ofsites where a species is present. A species
whose range has changed could still havea stable distribution indicator if the total
area occupied has stayed the same. For afuller interpretation of the metrics of specieschange presented here see the Pressuressection.
The changes described here follow extensivechanges to our land and seascapes earlier inthe 20th century and before (see Historicalchange section). The indicators go back to1988 at the earliest and some only cover the
21st century. This is much shorter than the
50-year period we report on for the UK andfor England and the results presented here
should be interpreted with this in mind. For
example, the indicators do not capture theimpact resulting from the intensification ofagricultural management in the second halfof the 20th century.

Average 24% increase in the distributionsof invertebrate species

24%

Seventy per cent of species in this assessment were moths.
The distributions of 552 invertebrate species in Northern
Ireland showed contrasting recent trends, the distributions of
162 species (29%) declined and the distributions of 223 species(40%) increased.

12% of species are threatened

12%

Of 2,508 species in Northern Ireland that have been assessedusing IUCN Regional Red List criteria, 12% have been classified
as threatened with extinction from Ireland as a whole.

Northern Ireland has less biodiversity data than the other UK countries and we cannot yet
produce a multitaxa species abundance indicator for Northern Ireland as we do elsewhere.
There are some important groups, such as lichens, where there are currently insufficient data
available to produce an indicator for Northern Ireland. For the groups we can report on, thetime period covered is often shorter and the proportion of species included per group is lower.
142

Carlingford Lough Islands, Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)
Greenfinch, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com); Lapwing, Ben Andrew (rspb-images.com); Western Earwort, Gordon Rothero;
Shrill Carder Bee, Nick Upton (rspb-images.com); Hairy Dragonfly, Chris Gomersall (rspb-images.com)

143

1990

2000

2010

Summary

100
75

Key findings
Wintering
ScotlandWaterbirds

Wales

50

2010

Change in species’ abundanceby group

2020

(2006
Index Index(1996 =
100) = 100)

Appendices

100
100

Butterflies(14
species)
Woodlandbirds(21 species)
Farmlandbirds (17species)

50
50
0

150
150
150
100

1990

2000

2010

2020

B)
1990

2000

2010

2020

Bats
Other birds
(6
Other
birds
(26species)
species)(26 species)

100
100
75
Smoothed indicator

50
50
25
0
0
0
0
100
200
100

Woodland
WinteringWoodlandbirds
Waterbirds
birds
(21
species)(36 species)
species)(21
FarmlandFarmlandbirds (17birds
(17species)
species)Unsmoothed indicator
Uncertainty Interval

1990
1990
1990
1990
C)

2000
2010
2000Year 2010
2000
2010
2000
2010

2020
2020
2020
2020

75
75
150

Wintering
Wintering
Waterbirds
Waterbirds(36
species)(36 species)

50
50
100

Butterflies(14 species)

1990
1990
1990

200
200
200 D)
150
150
150
100
100
100
50
50
50
0
0
0 19901990
200 1990
200

2000
2000
2000

2010
2010
2010

2020
2020
2020

Bats
(6 species)
Butterflies
Butterflies(14 species)(14 species)
Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator
Uncertainty Interval

2000
2000
2000

2010
2010
2010

Year

2020
2020
2020

Bats
Bats
(6
species)
150 Figure 39: Change in average species’(6 species)
150 abundance for terrestrial and freshwater
speciesin Northern Ireland by habitat preference and100 taxonomic group.
100
50

Smoothed indicator
Smoothed indicator•	The abundance indicator for 36 wintering
waterbirds species starts in 1988 and overallshows a decline in average abundance of
30% by 2019 (Figure 39C, UI: -35% to -25%).
Diving duck species wintering at Lough
Neagh have experienced large declines
this century. Climate change may meana lower proportion of the populations are
wintering in Northern Ireland, but the
declines also coincide with a dramatic
decrease in the macroinvertebrate
community in Lough Neagh374.

PlantsThe distribution indicator for 891
vascular plant species showed anaverage decline of 14% (Figure 40A,
UI: -18% to -10%) between 1970 and2019. Within this average, 42% of
species decreased in distribution,compared to 43% of species, whichshowed an increase.
Distributions of 576 bryophyte
species in Northern Ireland haveon average declined by more thana half since 1970 (Figure 40B, 54%;
UI: -68% to -37%). Within thisaverage, 62% of species declined in
distribution, compared to 34% of
species which showed an increase;remarkably few species showed
little change in distribution.
One key pressure on plants inNorthern Ireland is continued
high levels of nitrogenous air
pollution. Out of the UK countries,
Northern Ireland has the greatest
percentage of nitrogen-sensitive
habitats exceeding criticalammonia levels for both lowerand higher plants, and ammonia
levels continue to rise356.
We were unable to produce alichen indicator for Northern
Ireland for this report, but theseimportant datasets do exist and
we would hope to make use ofthem in future.

125
125

A)

197019702019
2019

Vascular plants (891 species)
Vascular plants (891 species)

100
100

100
100

75
75

75
75

50
50

50
50

25
25

25
25
0
0
0
0
1970
1970
125
125

1980
1980

1990
1990

2000
2000

2010
2010

2020
2020
197019702019
2019

B)

Bryophytes (576 species)
Bryophytes (576 species)

100
100

100
100

75
75

75
75

50
50

50
50

25
25

Percentage
Percentageofofspecies
species

25
25
50
0
0
0

•	
The abundance indicator for farmland bird
species shows a decrease in abundanceon average of 43% between 1996 and2021 (Figure 39B, UI: -50% to -35%),
similar to other UK countries327, despite
the indicator starting after the main
period of intensification of agricultural
management. Woodland birds have also
declined on average, in particular in
the last 10 years (-18%; UI: -30% to -6%).
Other breeding birds, which includes
many wetland species, have on averageincreased in abundance by 30% (UI: +17% to+43%). Across all 64 breeding bird species
there was a 10% decline (UI: -18% to -3%;
combined trend line not shown on figure).
A breeding bird indicator is published by
NIEA373. Our analysis includes an additionaleight rarer bird species but shows similar
patterns of change.

Change in species’
distribution

and a combined assessment for Myotis
species. Due to low survey coverage, there
is greater uncertainty associated with thisdata and conclusions should be interpreted
very cautiously. Nathusius’ Pipistrelle
show a strongly increasing trend, whereas
Myotis species show a strong decline407.

Percentage
Percentageofofspecies
species

Index
Index
Index
(1996
(1996
==
100)
100)
= 100)
Index(1988=(2003100)

Other birds(26 species)•	The abundance indicator for 14 butterfly
species starts in 2006 with a decline thatlevelled off about 10 years ago. Overallchange in average abundance to 2021 is-16% (Figure 39A, Uncertainty Interval(UI): -37% to +5%). Only about half of theresident and regularly breeding butterfly
species in Northern Ireland had sufficient
data to calculate long-term trends andsome species of conservation concern
cannot yet be included, such as Small Blueand Dingy Skipper375.

•	The abundance indicator for six bat
species starts in 2003 and overall shows
an increase in average abundance of
55% (Figure 39D, UI: +49% to +61%). Overthe last 10 years, the indicator was 14%
higher in 2020 compared to 2010. Two
new bat trends were included in thereport this time, Nathusius’ Pipistrelle

Index
Index(1970(1970==100)
100)

2000

150
150

0
200

Index
Index
(1988
(1988
=
100)
100)
Index
(2006
==100)

UKOTs and CDs

EnglandTerrestrial and freshwater
1990

Index
Index
(2006
(2006
==
100)
100)
Index
(2003
= 100)

UK countries

25

200 A)

ex
dex
(2003
(2003
==
100)
100)

Northern Ireland

Conservation response(36 species)

0144

Historical change

Index
Index(1970(1970==100)
100)

Index (1988 = 100)

2020

25
25
Smoothed indicator
Smoothed indicator

0
0
1970
1970

1980
1980

1990
1990

0
0

Uncertainty Interval
Uncertainty Interval

Year
Year

2000
2000

2010
2010

2020
2020

Increase
Increase
Little change
Little change
Decrease
Decrease

Figure 40: Change in average species’ distribution for A) vascular plants
and B) bryophyte species in Northern Ireland. The bar chart shows thepercentage of species within the indicator that have increased, decreased(moderately or strongly) or shown little change in distribution.

145

Summary

Key findings

Wales

Northern Ireland

ScotlandInvertebrates
The distribution indicator for 556 terrestrial
and freshwater invertebrate species, with
Northern Irish data, shows an increase in
species’ distributions on average between
1990 and 2016 (Figure 41, 24%, UI: 9% to42%). It should be noted that this indicator
covers a much shorter period than similar
indicators of invertebrate distribution for
the UK and other UK countries; it also ends
earlier. This increase in average distribution
is contrary to reported decreases ininvertebrate abundance in recent years376.
Nearly 70% of the species included in theindicator are moths. The latest State of Moths
report’s376 distribution indicator does not

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

Englandcover Northern Ireland, but it does show anaverage increase in species’ distributions
across Great Britain and the Isle of Man,and mentions some cool-adapted species
advancing their northward range boundary
in relation to climate change, which is likely
to be a contributing factor for the increases
presented here. Within the average indicator
shown in Figure 41, since 1990, 29% of species
showed strong or moderate decreases and40% showed strong or moderate increases;
30% showed little change. In the last 10 years(2006-2016), 37% of species showed strong or
moderate decreases and 41% showed strongor moderate increases; 22% showed littlechange.

19902016

150

20062016

Invertebrates (552 species)

Extinction risk
As no IUCN Red List assessments have been
conducted at a Northern Ireland scale, here
we summarise the Red List assessments
for the island of Ireland, but we include
only species known to have occurred in
Northern Ireland. Taxa assessed as CriticallyEndangered, Endangered or Vulnerable
are formally classified as threatened. Thisapproach represents our best estimate ofExtinction Risk in Northern Ireland; however,
it is imperfect, as the population statusof species may differ in Northern Ireland
compared to the island as a whole.
Since the 2019 State of Nature report, thenumber of taxa formally assessed using

75
100
50
75
25
50

the IUCN Regional Red List process334, andknown to have occurred in Northern Ireland,
has increased from 2,450 species to 2,508. We
cannot, at present, assess whether extinction
risk is changing over time because the vast
majority of species have only a single Red List
assessment.
Of the extant taxa, for which sufficient data
are available, 281 (11.5%) qualify as being
threatened and are therefore at risk ofextinction from the island of Ireland (thescale at which Red List assessments are made)(Figure 4). Of the different taxonomic groups,
144 (9.8%) plants, 11 (20.4%) vertebrates and
126 (13.9%) invertebrates were assessed as
threatened.

Number ofassessments% Threatened

All

2508

11.5%

Extinct

Plants

1513

9.8%

Criticallyendangered

Invertebrates*

940

13.9%

Vertebrates*

55

20.4%

100

125

Index (1990 = 100)

UK countries

Conservation response

Percentage of species

Figure 41: Change
in average species’
distribution
for terrestrial
and freshwater
invertebrate species inNorthern Ireland. The
bar chart shows thepercentage of species
within the indicatorthat have increased,
decreased (moderately
or strongly) or shown
little change indistribution.

Historical change

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Figure 42: Summary of Irish National Red Lists for species’ present in Northern Ireland,showing the proportion of assessed species in each Red List category, by broad taxonomic
group. *Only select groups have been assessed for both vertebrates and invertebrates.

Endangered
Vulnerable
Data
deficientNearthreatened
Least
concern

025Strong increase
Smoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

Moderate increase
Little change0Moderate decrease

1990

i
146

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Strong decreaseYear

See page
184 to findout how tointerpret thisreport147

SummaryWales

Key findings

Northern Ireland

ScotlandBirds of conservation
concern in Northern Ireland
Bird populations across the island of
Ireland have not yet been assessed using
the IUCN Regional Red List process;however, the fourth status review, Birds
of Conservation Concern in Ireland 4, waspublished in 2021377. Like the UK Birds ofConservation Concern, this distinct andseparate process assesses species against
set criteria and allocates them to one ofthree lists – Red, Amber and Green – todenote levels of conservation concern
100

UK countries

Conservation response

80
70

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

England(with Red being the highest concern level).
Over the last two decades, these reviews
have documented the declining status of
Ireland’s bird populations. Since 1999378,
the number of species on the Red List has
tripled from 18 to 54 species; representing
25.6% of the regularly occurring birds(Figure 43). These are species that areeither classed as threatened with global
extinction or have undergone severe
declines in population/range across theisland of Ireland. Within this assessment
process, an additional seven species wereclassed as ‘former breeders’.

MarineDemersal fish

Change in species’ abundance

There was insufficient data within the
Northern Ireland Marine Area to produce
a robust abundance indicator for demersal
fish, so here we present an indicator using
data from the waters of Northern Ireland,
Wales and the Celtic Seas componentof England. Between 1993 and 2021 theindicator increased by 8% (Figure 44,
UI: 1% to 15%), potentially indicating therecovery of some species from previous
declines. It should be noted that manystocks of commercially targeted fish andshellfish species are assessed and managed
over large geographic scales and that the
species included in the indicator may not
be those typically landed by the Northern
Ireland fleet in significant numbers.

Seabirds
We have insufficient data on seabird
populations in Northern Ireland to present
a seabird indicator, with only two species
comprehensively monitored by the Seabird
Monitoring Programme. Twenty two of the 24
seabird species that are included in BoCCI4377
breed in Northern Ireland and 21 of these are
Red or Amber Listed.

Figure 43: Summary of status for 196
species assessed in each of the four
Birds of Conservation Concern Irelandassessments which were carried out in
1999, 2007, 2013 and 2020377.

90
Percentage of species

Historical change

60
50
40
125

30
20
10

100
1999

2007

2013

2020

Index (1993 = 100)0England, Wales,
NI Celtic Seas
(86 species)
75

50

25

Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator

0

Uncertainty Interval

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Year
Figure 44: Change in average species’ abundance for demersal andbathypelagic fish species in the Wales, England and Northern Ireland
and Celtic Seas component of the UK EEZ from 1993 to 2021.

Ecoregion
Celtic Seas

Reeds at sunset, Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

148

149

SummaryWales

Key findings
ScotlandHistorical change

Northern Ireland

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

EnglandPressuresNorthern Ireland has a great depth of quality
natural habitats, both on land and at sea.
Although human intervention has greatly
reduced their overall coverage, there are still
pockets of high-quality habitat and there
is significant potential for restoration of
habitats and for species recovery.
There are a range of pressures on the naturalenvironment of Northern Ireland. On land,a constant pressure across the whole of the
UK is that from baseline loss of habitat fromconversion of land that was natural or seminatural – to development, urbanisation or
intensive management. With increased
urbanisation and tourism comes increased
human disturbance and the likelihood of
introductions of invasive non-native species
and new pathogens. The terrestrial landscapeis dominated by farmland (76% coverage379),
which has become more homogeneous witha move away from mixed farming towards
improved grassland; arable farmland now
makes up only 3% of the land area. Of the
60% of agricultural land that is now grass,
70% is now classified as improved380. Total
income from farming in the livestock sector
has increased by as much as 20% in Northern
Ireland since 2019 with the numbers oflivestock units also having increased379. In
itself this is not proof of any further recent
intensification, only an indication thatthe pressures on natural and semi-natural
habitats that come from livestock in Northern
Ireland are unlikely to have reduced. When
compared across the UK, Northern Ireland
has similar livestock levels per farm, but
farms in Northern Ireland are, on average,
half the size of those across the UK, therefore
stocking densities are likely to be generally
higher. Pig and laying hen numbers inNorthern Ireland have increased in recent
years, and numbers are three and six times

150

more per farm respectively than the UK
average379.
Greenhouse gas emissions in Northern
Ireland have continued to decline from abase measurement year (1990) and mostrecent reductions since 2019 came fromtransport and residential use, rather thanfrom the largest contributor (27%) agriculture,
which is the only sector from which there
has been an increase in emissions since1990379. Northern Ireland produces 12% of
the UK’s ammonia emissions, mostly fromagriculture, while only representing 6% of theland area. Persistently high and increasinglevels of nitrogenous air pollution are a majorpressure on plants and lichens in Northern
Ireland, with ammonia levels above thecritical ecological threshold for bryophytes
and lichens across the entire country andabove the critical threshold for vascularplants across over a third of the land area356,
the latter encompassing around a quarter ofprotected areas.
The high levels of ammonia emissions inNorthern Ireland present a particular threat
to the region’s remaining fragments ofancient woodland habitat. Many woodland
fungi have been shown to be sensitive tonitrogen deposition, and there is particularconcern about impacts on ectomycorrhizal
species (associated with tree roots), andthe subsequent impacts on tree health andassociated invertebrate species. The lossof these woodland fungi also results in soil
carbon release to the atmosphere, withclimate change implications. There are
increasing areas of woodland being planted
in Northern Ireland in recent years, with
grant support to encourage afforestation andsustainable management of privately owned
woodland provided by the rural development

programme379. It is likely that encouragementof planted woodland will continue as one
mitigation for greenhouse gas emissions
and it is hoped that planting will occur inareas where there will be few, if any, negative
impacts on priority species and habitats.
Coniferous plantations, their increased
planting as well as the self-seeding spread of
non-native conifers, are a pressure on thosespecies that prefer more open landscape, forexample breeding wading birds. Northern
Ireland’s native woodland resource is underpressure from invasive non-native pest
species and an increased risk of diseases such
as Ash die-back.
Ten per cent of the UK’s peatland resource
can be found in Northern Ireland. Only 15% of
peatland assessed is in good condition, and a
new peatland strategy381 will look to quantify
the natural capital value of this resource,alongside, hopefully, the intrinsic species
and habitat benefits of significant restoration.
An additional pressure in our upland heaths
comes from uncontrolled burning of habitats
and wildfires, which are likely to become
more common. Similarly, research on theimpact of high ammonia levels on Northern
Ireland’s peatlands suggests this could
threaten restoration efforts382.
Currently no river or freshwater lake inNorthern Ireland has ‘good’ overall ecologicaland chemical status383. Recent changes tothe assessment method introduced themeasurement of presence of ubiquitous,
Persistent, Bio accumulative, Toxic (uPBT)
substances, which were detected in all sites.
Before this, around a third of rivers wereassessed as having high or good ecologicalstatus in 2021379.

The complex coastline of Northern Irelandand varied seabeds of the Irish Sea and Malin
Sea hosts a huge variety of cliffs, inlets, sealoughs, islands, marine and coastal habitats.
Current advances in engineering mean that
almost all of the seabed around Northern
Ireland is likely to be within reach of offshore
wind. Advances in windfarm technology
are outstripping our knowledge of whereimportant marine habitats, such as seabird
feeding areas, are located. The marine
realm also faces ongoing pressures fromunsustainable fisheries.
The situation for seabirds in Northern Ireland
is mixed. On Rathlin Island, a biosecurity
programme (LIFE Raft, 2021-2026) aims toeradicate non-native rats and ferrets in orderto protect priority breeding seabirds andother biodiversity. This is hoped to provide
a massive boost, particularly for the burrownesting seabirds on the island. Through thesummer of 2022, Highly Pathogenic Avian
Influenza (HPAI) infected seabird colonies
and other species in Northern Ireland. HPAI
seemed to arrive slightly later into Northern
Ireland seabird colonies such as those on
Rathlin Island384 and more healthy chicks
may have survived to fledge than in some
Scottish colonies. A programme is underway
to assess the impact of the 2022 outbreak on
breeding seabird colonies, including thosein Northern Ireland. There is a lack of data
relating marine predators to their importantfeeding areas around the Northern Irelandcoast. Similarly, monitoring of inshore
fisheries and the growing aquacultureindustry would aid understanding of any
additional pressures these pose to the naturalenvironment.

151Summary

Key findings

ENGLAND

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesWith over 4,400 km of coastline, England supports internationally
important coastal and marine ecosystems, with large numbers of
wintering waterbirds on its extensive estuaries and saltmarshes,
while the sea cliffs and offshore islands contain notable breedingseabird colonies324. Intensive management of agricultural landsince World War II, has led to significant loss and fragmentationof semi-natural habitats. Despite this, it still contains a range
of internationally important habitats, such as the blanket bogs,
ancient woodlands, chalk rivers, calcareous grasslands and lowland
heathlands. England supports at least 40 endemic species, such as
the Lundy Cabbage and Lundy Cabbage Flea Beetle324.

Adur Estuary RSPB reserve, Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)

152

153

WalesKey findings
ScotlandHistorical change

Northern Ireland

Average 32% decline in species’ abundance
The abundance of 682 terrestrial and freshwater species has
on average fallen by 32% across England since 1970. Within
this general trend, 316 species have declined in abundance(46%) and 161 species have increased (24%).

Average 18% decrease in the distributionsof invertebrate species

18%

The English distributions of 4,815 invertebrate species on average
decreased by 18% since 1970. Stronger declines were seen in some
insect groups which provide key ecosystem functions such aspollination (average 22% decrease species’ distributions) and pest
control (40% decrease). Whereas insect groups providing freshwater
nutrient cycling initially declined before recovering to above the1970 value (average 50% increase).

Decreases in the distributions of overhalf of plant species

68%

Since 1970, the distributions of 64% of flowering plant species and
68% of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) have decreased acrossEngland, compared to increases of 18% and 22% of flowering
plant and bryophyte species’ respectively. In contrast, manylichen species have shown a strong recovery since 1980, with 63%
of species’ distributions increasing, compared to 31% declining.

13% of species are threatened

Appendices

13%
Variable change in seabirds
The abundance of 11 regularly monitored species of seabird showed
little change on average since 1986, with strong increases in Gannet
numbers, but declines in several surface feeding species such as
Kittiwake. Importantly, these results pre-date the main impact of
the current outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza.
Redshank, Andy Hay (rspb-images.com); Lackey, David Kjaer (rspb-images.com);Common-spotted orchid, Patrick Cashman (rspb-images.com); Turtle Dove, Ben Andrew(rspb-images.com); Gannet, Katie Nethercoat (rspb-images.com)

KEY FINDINGS
Abundance trends are based on changes in
the number of individuals at a monitored site,a measure that reflects species population
size. Distribution trends are based onchanges in the number of sites where a
species is present. A species whose range haschanged could still have a stable distribution
indicator if the total area occupied has stayed

the same. For a fuller interpretation of themetrics of species’ change presented here see
the Pressures section. The changes describedhere follow extensive changes to our landand seascapes earlier in the 20th century andbefore (see Historical change section).

Terrestrial and freshwater
Change in species’ abundance
The abundance indicator for 682 terrestrial
and freshwater species, for which Englandspecific data are available, shows a decline
in average abundance of 32% (Figure 45,
Uncertainty Interval (UI): -42% to -21%)
between 1970 and 2021. Over the last 10 years
the decline was 7% (UI: -12% to -2%).
Within multispecies indicators like these
there is substantial variation between
individual species’ trends. To examine
this, we have allocated species into trend
categories based on the magnitude of
population change, over the long and theshort‑term periods.

125

•	
Since 1970, 316 species (46%) showedstrong or moderate declines and 161
species (24%) showed strong or moderateincreases; 205 species (30%) showed littlechange.
•	In the last 10 years (2010–2020), 280
species (41%) showed strong or moderate
declines and 246 (36%) showed strongor moderate increases; 151 species (22%)
showed little change.

19702020

England (682 species)

20102020

100

100

75

75

50

50
25
Smoothed indicator

25

Unsmoothed indicator

0

Uncertainty Interval

0Strong increase

1970

1980

1990

2000
Year

2010

2020

Moderate increase

Percentage of species

Of 8,840 species in England that have been assessed using
IUCN Regional Red List criteria, 13% have been classified as
threatened with extinction from Great Britain.

154

UKOTs and CDs

EnglandHeadlines

32%

UK countries

Conservation response

Index (1970 = 100)

Summary

Figure 45: Change
in average species’
abundance for terrestrial
and freshwater species
in England, based onEngland-specific trendsof birds (159 species),
butterflies (55 species),
mammals (15 species)
and moths (453 species).
The bar chart shows thepercentage of species
within the indicatorthat have increased,
decreased (moderately orstrongly) or shown littlechange in abundance(1970–2020: 682 species,
2010–2020: 677 species).

Little change
Moderate decrease
Strong decrease

155

WalesKey findings
ScotlandHistorical change

Northern Ireland

Conservation response

UK countries

EnglandIndex (1976 = 100)

Summary150

UKOTs and CDs

100

Generalist

butterflies
Appendices(25 species)
Specialist
butterflies(25 species)

50
01970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

75

Moths
(453 species)

50
25

Index (1970 = 100)

Index (1970 = 100)

100

Commonbreedingbirds(113 species)

75
50
25
0

0

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

150
100

Generalist
butterflies(25 species)

50

Specialist
butterflies(25 species)

Index (1973/75 = 100)400 D)B)

Rare andcolonising
breedingbirds(26 species)

350
300
250
200

Winteringwaterbirds(20 species)

150
100
50
0

0

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

E)

Mammals(15 species)

100

100

Commonbreedingbirds(113 species)

75
50
25

Index (1995 = 100)

•	The abundance indicator for 15 mammal
species starts in 1998 and overall shows nochange in average abundance (Figure 46E,
4%; UI: 0% to +9%). Within this average,some species have declined strongly,
such as Hazel Dormice, whereas some bat
species are slowly recovering from previous
declines at the national scale. Comparedwith other taxa the trend data is relatively
short and so will not capture long-term
trends.

100

125

Index (1976 = 100)•	
Rare and colonising bird species (those withless than 1,000 pairs) showed on averagea strong increase in abundance between
1973 and 2019 (Figure 46D, 255%; UI: 222%
•	The abundance indicator for 453 mothto 289%). This increase was driven by the
species starts in 1970 and overall shows
rapid recovery of some species from verya decline in average abundance of 44%
low numbers and the arrival of colonising(Figure 46A, UI: -56% to -32%).
species. At a UK level, species in the rare
and colonising group make up just 0.01% of•	Specialist butterflies have declined by 25%
the total number of individual birds in(Figure 46B, UI: -45% to -4%) in the longthe UK386.
term, but the majority of this decline was in
the 1970s. Generalist butterflies have greater•	Wintering waterbirds show on average aninter-annual variation but overall haveincrease of 67% (Figure 46D, UI: 51% to 83%)
remained stable (-4%, UI: -24% to +15%).
between 1975 and 2019. The indicator rose
rapidly in the 20th century but has sincesteadily declined. Some of the changes may
be explained by species’ wintering ranges
shifting in response to climate change,
resulting in changes in the proportion ofeach population that winters in the UK.

C)A)

Index (1970 = 100)

The composite nature of multispecies
indicators means they can hide importantvariations in trends among both individual
species and species groups. Here, to help
better understand changes in the headline
abundance indicators, we present it
disaggregated into major species groups.

•	The abundance indicator for common
breeding birds declined by 16% (Figure
46C, UI: -20% to -13%). The England Wild
Bird Indicator shows that within this groupfarmland birds have suffered particularly
strong declines of on average 59%385.

75
50
25

Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator
Uncertainty Interval

001970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
400
Rare andcolonising35046: Change in average species’ abundance
Figurebreeding
for terrestrial
and freshwater species in England
by
birds
300
(26 species)
rarity, level of specialism or taxonomic group.
250

Index (1973/75 = 100)

Species’ abundance indicators
by group

200

Winteringwaterbirds(20 species)

150
100
50
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Mammals(15 species)

Map-winged Swift Moth,
Robert Conn (rspb-images.com)

156

Index (1995 = 100)

100
75
50
25

Smoothed indicator
Unsmoothed indicator
Uncertainty Interval

01970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

157

Change in priority species

Priority species (149 species)

100

100

50
50
25
25
0

Uncertainty Interval

Smoothed indicator

Figure 47: Englandbiodiversity indicators: 4A.
Status of priority species:
relative abundance387.
Change in average species’
abundance of priority
species in England, 1970 to
2018. The bar chart shows
the percentage of species
within the indicator thathave increased, decreased(moderately or strongly)
or shown little change inabundance. Source: gov.
uk/government/statistics/
england-biodiversityindicators

Strong increase0

Weak increase

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Year

2020

Little change
Weak decrease
Strong decrease

Change in species’
distribution
Plants and lichens
The distribution indicator for 1,348 vascularplant species shows a decline of 19% (Figure
48A, UI: -23% to -16%) between 1970 and2019. Within this change, the distributions

158of three times as many species decreased(64%) compared to those that increased (18%).
The distributions of 18% of species showed
little change. Species adapted to low nutrient
conditions and species of arable land haveshown strong declines365.

On average, bryophyte species’
distributions have decreased
by 35% (Figure 48B, UI: -37% to-33%). Within this average, 68%of bryophyte species decreased
in distribution, compared
to 22% of species whose
distribution increased and 10%that showed little change. Some
bryophytes have benefited fromreduced sulphur dioxide air
pollution, but this has not been
sufficient to stabilise species’
distributions354.
The distribution indicatorfor 1,437 lichen species, withEngland-specific data, showeda strong increase in average
distribution of 80% between
1980 and 2021 (Figure 48C,UI: 60% to 102%). Within
this average, 31% of species
decreased, 6% showed littlechange and 63% increased in
distribution. In many parts of
the UK, lichens were very badly
impacted by historic industrial
pollution, England being theworst affected330. Reductions
in sulphur dioxide pollution
are allowing some species torecover. However, ongoinghigh levels of nitrogenous air
pollution mean that recovery is
skewed towards species that cantolerate this.

125
125
125

A)

197019702019
19702019
2019

Vascular
Vascular plants
plants (1,348(1,348 species)
species)
Vascular plants (1,348 species)

100
100
100

75
75
75

75
75
75

50
50
50

50
50
50

25
25
25

25
25
25
0
0
0

125
125
125

0
0
0
1970
1970
1970

1980
1980
1980

1990
1990
1990

2000
2000
2000

2010
2010
2010

2020
2020
2020
197019702019
19702019
2019

B)

Bryophytes
Bryophytes (853(853 species)
species)
Bryophytes (853 species)

100
100
100

50
50
50

50
50
50

25
25
25

25
25
25

0
0
0
1970
1970
1970

1980
1980
1980

1990
1990
1990

2000
2000
2000

2010
2010
2010

2020
2020
2020
197019702019
19702019
2019

C)

200
200
200

Lichens
Lichens (1,437(1,437 species)
species)
Lichens (1,437 species)

100
100
100
75
75
75

150
150
150

50
50
50

100
100
100

25
25
25

50
50
50
0
0
0

100
100
100
75
75
75

75
75
75

0
0
0

100
100
100

Smoothed
Smoothed indicator
indicator
Smoothed indicator

1970
1970
1970

1980
1980
1980

Uncertainty
Uncertainty IntervalInterval
Uncertainty Interval

1990
2000
1990
2000
1990 Year
2000
Year
Year

2010
2010
2010

Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
ofofof
species
species
species

Index (1970 = 100)

75

Percentage of species

75

Appendices

Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
ofofof
species
species
species

125

20132018

UKOTs and CDs

EnglandLike the species’ abundance indicator
described above (Figures 45, 46) the England
Priority species Indicator includes Birds (44),Butterflies (21), Mammals (6) and Moths (78).
Seabirds are the only marine species includedin this indicator and there is insufficient data
to include most invertebrates and any plants
or fungi. By 2018, the indicator had declinedby 82% (UI: -83% to -81%) of its baseline
value in 1970 (Figure 47). Within this change
7% of species increased in abundance and83% showed a strong or weak decline. Thisdecline continued in the final five years of theindicator.

19702018

UK countries

Percentage
Percentage
Percentage
ofofof
species
species
species

One measure of the success of conservation
action is whether populations of priority
species have stabilised or recovered. The
England Priority Species Indicator387, (Figure47) shows changes in the relative abundanceof priority species in England for which data
are available. Priority species are definedas those appearing on the priority species’
list for England (Natural Environmental
and Rural Communities Act 2006 - Section
41). In England there are 943 species andsubspecies on the priority species’ list. The
priority species were highlighted as being ofconservation concern for a variety of reasons,
including rapid decline in some of their
populations.

Northern Ireland

Conservation response

Index
Index
Index
(1970
(1970
(1970
===
100)
100)
100)

ScotlandHistorical change

Index
Index
Index
(1970
(1970
(1970
===
100)
100)
100)

Wales

Key findings

Index
Index
Index
(1980
(1980
(1980
===
100)
100)
100)

Summary

0
0
0
2020
2020
2020

Increase
Increase
Increase
LittleLittle changechangeLittle change
Decrease
Decrease
Decrease

Figure 48: Change in average species’ distribution for A) vascularplants, B) bryophytes and C) lichens in England. The bar chart shows
the percentage of species within the indicator that have increased,
decreased or shown little change in distribution.

159

Summary
Wales

ScotlandHistorical change

Index (1970 = 100)

19702020

20102020

Invertebrates (4,815 species)

100

100

75

75

50

50

25

0

25

Strong increase
Smoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

Moderate increase
Little change0Moderate decrease

1970

1980

1990

2000

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

England

Northern Ireland

A)

125

Conservation response

Percentage of species

Figure 49: Change
in average species’
distribution
for A) terrestrial
and freshwater
invertebrates inEngland. B) Insect
species grouped byecological function(pollination,
pest control andfreshwater nutrient
cycling). The bar
chart shows thepercentage of
species within theindicator that haveincreased, decreased(moderately orstrongly) or shown
little change indistribution.

Key findings

2010

2020

Year

To help understand these patterns moreclearly, species groups were categorised by
the ecological functions they provide (Figure
49B331). Some groups provide more than one
function and so are included in more than
one indicator.
•	Pollinating insects (bees, hoverflies andmoths), which play a critical role in foodproduction, show an average decrease in
distribution of 22% (UI: -26% to -18%) since
1970.
•	
Insect groups (ants, carabid, rove andladybird beetles, hoverflies, dragonflies
and wasps) that predate species which
damage food crops showed a precipitous
average decline in distribution of 40% (UI:
-46% to -33%) since 1970.

•	The average distribution of species
providing freshwater nutrient cycling(mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies andstoneflies) saw an initial decline followed
by a strong recovery ending 50% (UI:
+27% to +79%) higher in 2020 compared
to 1978. This pattern may in part be
related to changes in river water quality333
but although many measures of waterpollution have improved over the pastfew decades, significant water pollution
issues remain, in particular in catchments
linked to intensive agriculture349. The UK
version of the indicator starts in 1970 andalso shows declines during the 1970s, so
the initial declines observed here do notinclude changes prior to the late 1970s.

Strong decrease

B)

175

Freshwater
nutrient cycling(262 species)

Index (1970 = 100)

150

125

100

Pollination(1,316 species)
Pest control(913 species)

75

50

25
Smoothed indicator

Uncertainty Interval

0
1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Year

Invertebrates
The distribution indicator for 4,815 terrestrial
and freshwater invertebrate species, forwhich England-specific trends are available,shows a decrease in average distributionof 18% between 1970 and 2020 (Figure 49A,
UI: -23% to -14%). Within this change, since1970, 36% of species showed strong or

moderate decreases and 27% showed strongor moderate increases; 37% showed littlechange.
In the last 10 years (2010–2020), 44% of
species showed strong or moderate decreases
and 35% showed strong or moderateincreases; 21% showed little change.
Median Wasp, Grahame Madge (rspb-images.com)

160

161

SummaryWales

Key findings
ScotlandHistorical change

Northern Ireland

MarineHere we break down the IUCN Red List
assessments for Great Britain to show, forthose taxa known to occur (or have previously
occurred) in England, the proportion that
qualify for each of the standard threat
categories, by broad taxonomic group.
Taxa assessed as Critically Endangered,Endangered or Vulnerable are formallyclassified as threatened. Only assessments
formally approved by the commissioning
statutory nature conservation body have been
included.

Change in species’ abundance% Threatened

All

8840

12.9%

Extinct

Fungi and lichens*

1666

8.6%

CriticallyendangeredPlants2635

15%

Invertebrates*

4175

11.1%

Vertebrates

364

37.2%

75%

100%

Since the 2019 State of Nature report, thenumber of taxa formally assessed using
the IUCN Regional Red List process334,
and known to have occurred in England,
has increased from 7,615 to 8,840. Of theextant taxa, for which sufficient data are
available, 1,076 (12.9%) qualify as being
threatened and are therefore at risk ofextinction from Great Britain (the scaleat which Red List assessments are made)(Figure 50). Of the different taxonomic
groups, 383 (15.0%) plants, 128 (8.6%)
fungi and lichens, 130 (37.2%) vertebrates
and 435 (11.1%) invertebrates qualify as

Endangered
Vulnerable
Data
deficientNearthreatened
Least
concernthreatened. We cannot, at present, assess
whether extinction risk is changing overtime because the vast majority of species
have only a single Red List assessment.
Natural England plans to repeat Red List
assessments on a decadal basis and use
them to produce a Red List Indicator toassess how extinction risk is changing
over time388. This will be used to measureprogress against the Environment Act
2021 target (relating to England only) to“reduce the risk of species’ extinction by
2042, when compared to the risk of species’
extinction in 2022”389.

19862018

Seabirds (11 species)

150

20132018

100

125
75
100
50

75
50

25

Percentage of species

Figure 50: Summary of Great Britain National Red Lists for species’ present in England,showing the proportion of assessed species in each Red List category, by broad taxonomic
group. *At a Great Britain level only selected invertebrate groups have been assessed and lessthan 1% of fungi species.

The abundance indicator for 11 seabird
species in England385 starts in 1986 andoverall shows no change in averageabundance of 11%; (Figure 51, UI: -7% to+44%). Gannet abundance has increased
rapidly, which has had a marked positiveeffect on the indicator. The five species
that forage on the surface of the sea, forexample Kittiwake, declined on averageby 22%, in contrast to the four species
that forage by diving, which increasedon average by 168%. These changes were
measured prior to the recent and ongoingoutbreak of highly pathogenic avian
influenza (see Pressures section).

Index (1986 = 100)

50%

AppendicesSeabirds

Number ofassessments

25%

UKOTs and CDs

England

Extinction risk

0%

162

UK countries

Conservation response

25
Unsmoothed indicator

Confidence Interval

0

0
1985

1990

1995

2000
2005
Year

2010

2015

2020

Strong increase
Weak increase
Little change
Weak decline
Strong decline

Figure 51: England biodiversity indicator 8: Seabirds. Change in average species’ abundance385 ofbreeding seabirds in England 1986 to 2019. The blue line with shading shows the indicator and associatedUncertainty Interval, the points show the underlying unsmoothed indicator. The bar chart shows thepercentage of species within the indicator that have increased, decreased (weakly or strongly) or shown
little change in abundance. Source gov.uk/government/statistics/england-biodiversity-indicators.

163

Summary

Key findings

Wales

ScotlandHistorical change

The abundance indicator for the English
North Sea declined by 23% since 1993 (Figure
52, UI:-32% to -15%). There was insufficient
data within the English Celtic Seas to produce
a robust abundance indicator for demersal
fish, so here we present an indicator using

data from the Wales, England and Northern
Ireland Celtic Seas component of the UK
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Between
1993 and 2022 the indicator increased by
8% (UI: 1% to 15%), potentially indicating
the recovery of some species from previous
declines.

125

England, Wales,
NI Celtic Seas
(86 species)

Index (1993 = 100)

100

Figure 52: Change in average
species’ abundance for
demersal and bathypelagic fish
species in the English, Welsh
and Northern Irish Celtic Seasand the English Greater North
Sea from 1993 to 2021.

England
North Sea
(84 species)

75

50

Smoothed indicator

25

Unsmoothed indicator
Uncertainty Interval

0
1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

England

Northern Ireland

Demersal fish

Conservation response

2020

Year

Pressures
Nature continues to be under pressure in
England. Although it is difficult to compare
the multitaxa species abundance indicatorsfor each country, due to the different time
periods they cover, the average decline in
species’ abundance of 32% in England (Figure45), is considerably greater than for theUK (19%).
Many of the pressures and recent changes
in them described for the UK remain
pertinent for England (see Pressures andresponses section). Intensive management ofagricultural land, largely driven by policies
and incentives since World War II, has been
identified as the most significant factor
driving species’ population change in the
UK341. As agricultural land constitutes 69% ofEngland’s area390, these changes have had amajor detrimental impact on its biodiversity.
By 2021, the England farmland bird index
had fallen 59% below its 1970 level385 and our
distribution indicators for species’ providing
pollination services and pest control services
both saw substantial declines (Figure 49).
Vascular plants associated with arable land
and those adapted to areas of low soil fertility,
such as semi-natural grasslands, have shown
the greatest declines since the 1950s, largely
due to changes to agricultural practices365.
Farming also plays a role in 40% of England’swaters failing to achieve good status under
the Water Framework Directive366. Steps
are being taken towards more sustainable
and nature-friendly farming. The extent offarmland under agri-environment schemes
has rapidly increased in recent years391, but
measures of farmland biodiversity have notyet stabilised or begun to recover.

Persistently high levels of ammonia air
pollution remain a major pressure forbryophytes and lichens in England, withammonia levels above the critical thresholdfor bryophytes and lichens across 94% ofEngland356. Only in Northern Ireland is thisissue worse, with 100% of land affected.
Declines in sulphur dioxide pollution haveallowed some bryophytes, including many
epiphytes, to recover and has also likely
played a role in the average increase in
distribution seen in the lichen distribution
indicator (Figure 48).
At a UK scale, climate change was found to be
the second most important driver of specieschange and it is likely that this is also the casein England341. The abundance of hundredsof moth species has declined substantiallyin England in the last 50 years and climatechange has been highlighted as a majorpressure on moth populations357. Whilst it islikely that the net impact of climate change
on moth abundance in England is negative,
it is also likely to have supported increases inother species, as well as impacting species’
phenology (the timing of seasonal events).
Climate change and overexploitation havebeen highlighted as the key long-termpressures on marine life in the UK324 andthese likely remain true at an England level.
Added to these are the more recent potential
pressures from marine renewable energy
development. Although critical to plans to
mitigate climate change, ambitious targets
to upscale renewable energy generation atsea392 also have the potential to negatively
impact marine life, if not planned, managed
and monitored sensitively. Steps are being
taken to do this with the Marine Spatial
Prioritisation Programme.

Ecoregion
Celtic Seas
Greater North Sea

164

165

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

UK OVERSEASTERRITORIESAND CROWN
DEPENDENCIES

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

The United Kingdom has significant obligations beyond its
shores, with the three Crown Dependencies (CDs) and 14 Overseas
Territories (OTs). The OTs are diverse, ranging from sub-Antarctic
islands to tropical Caribbean and Pacific islands, hosting a widearray of ecosystems vital for global biodiversity. They are home toaround 1,500 endemic species, far more than the UK itself. The CDs
also support unique wildlife, especially in the Channel Islands, withhigher diversity in reptiles and amphibians due to their southerly
location. Being mostly islands, the marine environment plays acrucial role, with the OTs having vast territorial seas. While theCDs and OTs are semi-autonomous, several have committed to theinternational Convention on Biological Diversity395.

Comfortless cove, Vivienne Booth (rspb-images.com)

166

167

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

Headlines
11% of species are threatened with global
extinction

11%

Of the 6,557 OT and CD species that have been assessed forthe global IUCN Red List, 11% are classed as threatened andtherefore at risk of global extinction.

Most threatened groups

50%

50% of sharks and rays, 33% of reptiles and amphibians and
25% of reef-forming corals found across the OTs and CDs
are classified as threatened and therefore at risk of global
extinction.

26% of land and 75% of seas have been
designated as protected areas

26%

This varies widely by territory, with less than 1% of themarine biome protected in Caribbean OTs, but 84% in
the South Atlantic OTs.

Breeding success for the MacGillivray’s Prionx12

Breeding success of MacGillivray’s Prion was 12 times higher
immediately following the mouse eradication attempt on
Gough Island that failed, showing the potential benefit ofsuccessful island restoration.

Conservation response

UKOTs and CDs

UK countries

Appendices

KEY FINDINGSThe OTs support several global biodiversity
hotspots, such as the unique invertebrate andplant communities of the St Helena cloudforest, the endemic and highly threatened
reptiles found on the Turks and Caicos
and the Cayman Islands, as well as globally
important seabird colonies, including aquarter of the world’s breeding penguins
and largest albatross colony. To date, 32,216
native species have been recorded acrossthe OTs, however, the true figure is likely to
exceed 100,000 species396.

Extinction risk
Here we focus on the global status of species
found across the OTs and CDs and show the
proportion that currently qualify for each of
the IUCN Red List threat categories (Figure53). More assessments are needed to better
understand the true status of wildlife.

Number ofassessments% Threatened

All

6557

11.2%

Extinct

Reef-forming corals

406

25.4%

Dragonflies and damselflies

810%

Criticallyendangered

Cartilaginous fish

156

50.3%

Bony fish

2783

2.3%

Reptiles and amphibians

152

32.9%

Birds

943

7.9%

Mammals

142

12.6%

Other

1894

18.4%

0%

25%

50%

75%

Endangered
Vulnerable
Data
deficientNearthreatened
Least
concern

100%

Figure 53: Summary of the Global IUCN Red List assessments for species present in one or more OTs or CDs. Only
groups that are well represented (>80% of the group have been assessed at a global scale, with >50 species found on the
OTs/CDs) are included.

Spiky Yellow Woodlouse, Ed Thorpe (rspb-images.com); Great White Shark, Jules Cox (rspb-images.com);
Northern Rockhopper Penguin, Steffen Oppel (rspb-images.com); MacGilvray’s prion, Jamie Cleeland (rspb-images.com)

168

169

Summary

Key findings

The IUCN’s Red List of threatened species
represents the world’s most comprehensive
information source on the global
conservation status of species, with morethan 150,000 assessed to date397. Since
the last State of Nature report in 2019, thenumber of species’ found across the OTs
and CDs which have been formally assessed
at a global scale by the IUCN Red List has
increased from 5,898 to 6,557; however, thisstill represents a small proportion of the total
number present. Forty-six species formerly
found on one or more OT or CD have now
been classed as globally Extinct. Most of theextinctions are historic (since 1500 AD) but
losses have continued. Three species wereformally assessed as globally Extinct in the20th century, and four have already been
added so far this century, the most recent in
2021. A further four species are classified as
Extinct in the Wild, 19 species as CriticallyEndangered (possibly Extinct), and one
Critically Endangered (possibly Extinct in
The Wild)397.
Of the extant species, for which sufficient
data are available, 697 (11.2%) are classified
as threatened (Critically Endangered,Endangered or Vulnerable), and therefore
at risk of global extinction. Of the different
taxonomic groups, 50.3% of cartilaginous fish
– sharks, rays and skates – 32.9% of reptiles
and amphibians, 25.4% of reef-forming
corals, 12.6% of mammals, 7.9% of birds,
2.3% of bony fish and no dragonflies anddamselflies are assessed as being threatenedwith global extinction397.

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

Multitaxa assessments of change inextinction risk over time can be measured
through Red List Indexes398. Although thisis not currently available for all OT and CD
species, JNCC has published an interim
indicator (K3: Status of endemic and globallythreatened species in the UK Overseas
Territories399), which sets a baseline fromwhich to measure changes in the status of
key endemic and globally threatened species
found in the OTs. Of the 653 endemic taxa
included in the indicator, 45.5% are currently
listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List.

The bad news

Recent changes in the status of someof the most threatened wildlife

The global status of eight species of sharkor rays Chondrichthyes sp. found inwater around the OTs has been uplisted
to Critically Endangered since 2019,
including the Great Hammerhead andOceanic Whitetip Sharks. This groupis threatened globally by overfishing,primarily relating to trade in meat, fins,and other products397,400.

The number of species declared extinct fromacross the OTs and CDs has increased by one
to 46 since the 2019 State of Nature report.
This has been accompanied by an increase in
the number of species’ assessed as CriticallyEndangered (139 to 167). Although some ofthis increase will be due to new species being
assessed, many have seen a decline in status.

UKOTs and CDs

 he global status of 16 species of reefT
forming corals Anthozoa and Hydrozoa sp.,found across the Caribbean OTs has been
uplisted to Critically Endangered since2019. This group is under considerablepressure globally and is predicted to
decline rapidly due to an increase in severe
bleaching conditions caused by climatechange and other threats397.

Appendices

Henderson Island,
RSPB (rspb-images.com)

Oceanic Whitetip Shark,
Shutterstock he 2019 State of Nature report highlighted
T
two Critically Endangered birds that breedin the OTs – the Gough Bunting and
Tristan Albatross. Both remain CriticallyEndangered, and unfortunately these havebeen joined by another two species – theWilkins’s Finch and MacGillivray’s Prion.
Found in the Tristan da Cunha group ofislands, both are threatened by invasive
non-native insects and mice, as well as
habitat loss. The global population of
Wilkins’s Finch is now thought to be fewer
than 50 individuals397.
Tristan Al;batross,
Shutterstock

170

171

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

Some good news
 s a result of conservation action, theA
global population of the endemic Turksand Caicos Rock Iguana appears tohave stabilised over the last decade. In
consequence, the global status of thespecies has been downlisted from CriticallyEndangered to Endangered397.
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna occurs aroundseveral of the OTs and CDs. The species
was downlisted from globally Endangered
to Least Concern in 2021, as the Eastern
Atlantic stock, comprising around 80% of
the global population, was believed to be
increasing; however, the Western Atlantic
stock remains threatened due to historic
overfishing397.

Conservation response

UK countries

Biological monitoring
There are numerous examples of long-term
biological studies across the OTs and CDs;
however, there is currently insufficient
information available to create multispecies
indicators, as shown for the UK and some ofits component countries, but the situation is
improving. The Isle of Man is also publishinga State of Nature report in 2023 and in 2021,
Manx BirdLife published the first assessmentof the conservation status of wild birds in
the Isle of Man401. Of 166 regularly occurring
species in the territory, 48 (29%) were Redlisted and 68 (41%) Amber-listed.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesStandardised approaches to record collection
and keeping ensures biological records arehigh quality and comparable within andamong the OTs and CDs. These include
websites and apps that allow citizen scientists
to upload biological records, such as St
Helena’s iRecord. In the Channel Islands, a
new initiative is being developed to alignand bring together data from the various
biological recording centres using the Indicia
toolkit, known as CiRecord.

 orest Thrush has been downlisted fromF
Vulnerable to Near Threatened in partdue to increases on Montserrat, where
the population is recovering from rapid
declines caused by the volcanic eruptionsin 1995-1997397.

Turks and Caicos Rock Iguana, Ed Marshall (rspb-images.com); Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, Shutterstock;Montserrat Forest Thrush, Ajhermae White

Pitcairn Island, RSPB (rspb-images.com)

172

173

Summary

Key findings

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

15
16 17
3

10

4

1
7

2
7
6

8
Figure 54: Map showing thelocations of OTs and CDs (orange
dots), their marine Exclusive
Economic Zones (outlined in black)and large OTs MPAs (blue fill).

5

Extent of terrestrial and marine
protected areas

cloud forest of the Peaks National Park (St Helena)
for both biodiversity and water security.

Levels of terrestrial site protection are highly
varied across the UK Overseas Territories(Figure 54, Table 1) for a myriad of biological,
historical, political, cultural and legal reasons. The
uninhabited territories of South Georgia and theSouth Sandwich Islands has now protected 100%of its terrestrial environment, while the densely
inhabited territory of Gibraltar has protected 30%
of its landmass. Other inhabited Territories, mostfrequently those with very high levels of private
land ownership, have safeguarded less than
5% of their landmass in protected areas. Oncedesignated, there is a need to ensure effective
management of protected areas. Significant
management projects of recent years include
the attempt to remove invasive house micethreatening Gough Island World Heritage Site
(Tristan da Cunha), and a project to restore the

The levels of marine protection have meanwhilechanged dramatically over the past decade. All
bar two Territories now have at least one Marine
Protected Area (MPA) in place, and several host
MPAs amongst the largest in the world. The UK
Government’s Blue Belt programme provides
support for the monitoring, surveillance andmanagement of MPAs in the nine participating
Territories, utilising the latest technologies andsatellite surveillance to ensure these vast marine
areas are protected against illegal fishing. The
most recent large-scale MPA in the Territories
was designated by the community of Tristan
da Cunha in 2021, covering 90% of their marine
zone and it is now the largest no-take reserve in
the Atlantic. Work is now underway to support
the Tristanian community in their management
and understanding of their biologically richwaters: atlanticguardians.org

174

Terrestrial andfreshwater

OT/CD

14 11
9
12
13

7

UKOTs and CDs

1

British Indian Ocean
Territory

2

Pitcairn Islands

3

Gibraltar

4

Sovereign Base Areas of
Akrotiri and Dhekelia

5

British Antarctic Territory*

6

Falkland Islands

7

St Helena, Ascension andTristan da Cunha

8

South Georgia and theSouth Sandwich Islands

9

Anguilla

10

Bermuda11

British Virgin Islands

12

Cayman Islands

13

Montserrat

14

Turks and Caicos Islands
All UKOTs

AppendicesMarineArea ofPAs (km2)%
coverage

Area ofPAs (km2)%
coverage62

60.6

1,479,757

100.0

100

38.1

110

22.7

4,294

26.5

2,827,829

84.4

173

15.0

898

0.1

4,628

26.1

4,308,594

75.0

15

Isle of Man

12.3

5.5

16

Bailiwick of Guernsey

4.0

0.4

17

Bailiwick of Jersey

17.8

6.3

* No data currently available.

Table 1: The proportion of terrestrial and freshwater biomes and marine
biomes designated as protected areas across the OTs and CDs. Data for the OTs
are taken from the interim Defra K4 indicator: Extent and condition of terrestrial
and marine protected areas in the UK Overseas Territories394. Figures for the CDs
were extracted from protectedplanet.net/en

Case study:
Protected Areas
Alderney’s Ramsar Site is designated forits priority marine habitats and importantseabird colonies. Long-term monitoringhas provided high-quality data for species
and habitats within the site. This has led tothe creation of zoned areas to help with theprotection of breeding Puffin and Ringed

Plover and knowledge of the distribution ofculturally important species like Green Ormer (asea snail), all three of which are on the edge of
their respective ranges. Alderney’s Ramsar siteis the only internationally recognised marine
designation within the Bailiwick, meaning thesesites hold particular importance within theregion and especially Alderney.
175

Key findings

Ecosystem and habitat
restoration
The OTs and CDs hold a wide array ofinternationally important and uniqueecosystems and habitats. Owing to a variety
of pressures, ranging from over-exploitation
to invasive species to climate change, manyof these have become degraded, but projects
both past and present are helping to turnthe tide.

Restoring St Helena’s
cloud forest
The St Helena Cloud Forest Project is a highlycollaborative multi-year project working toprotect the island’s vitally important cloudforest within the ‘Peaks National Park’. This
globally significant area holds approximately
250 unique species, over one-sixth of theendemic species of the UK and its territories,
including the island’s iconic Spiky Yellow
Woodlouse. It also plays a vital role incapturing water from the clouds that cloak
the steep slopes of the forest. The Peaks
National Park provides most of the island’s
fresh water supply, with an amazing 60%
estimated to come from mist capture alone
rather than direct rainfall. Before humanhabitation this important habitat coveredan estimated 600 ha, today just 16 ha offragmented cloud forest remain.
To restore the forest, the project is clearing
areas of invasive species and growing
native plants that can be used to create
new areas of cloud forest. In 2022, the St
Helena Government produced more than
42,000 plants, well over a target of 27,500,
and planted more than 18,000 plants from
17 different species into wild restorationsites and living gene banks. The project is

Historical change

developing existing propagation facilities
through the establishment of a world classmicro-propagation facility. This will enable
the scaling up of production of hard-to-growspecies like endemic ferns to add tothis success.
Building on previous habitat creation, the
new corridors between existing patchesof cloud forest are already seeing wildlife
benefits – in 2022, the Spiky Yellow
Woodlouse was observed using habitat
corridors that were created just four years
previously.
To improve water security, and help theisland adapt to climate change, the projectis improving the understanding of the water
cycle on St Helena and monitoring climate
and water levels, to target further cloud forest
restoration to areas of high potential mist
capture. It is also supporting sustainable
development of St Helena by creating
opportunities through ecotourism, education,
sustainable land use and conservation
training.

Conservation response

Gough Island is a remote, uninhabited islandin the Tristan da Cunha archipelago, andpart of a UNESCO World Heritage Sites due
to its outstanding natural beauty and vast
numbers of breeding seabirds, some of which
are threatened with global extinction andfound nowhere else in the world. Naturally
free of land predators, House Mice wereaccidentally introduced to the island during
the 19th century, causing extensive damage
to the environment, including the loss of wellover two million seabird eggs and chicks eachyear402.
In 2021, a large partnership of organisations
and institutions, led by the RSPB and Tristan
da Cunha, embarked on an ambitious
expedition to eradicate the mice from theisland to give the seabirds a chance to recoverand thrive once again. Despite an immense
effort, the operation was not successful and100

Impact of introduced
non-native species
Impacts from invasive non-native species(INNS) is one of the primary threats to global
biodiversity, particularly on islands, andthis has led to many global extinctions overrecent centuries. Non-native mammals,
plants and insects pose a major threat to theunique biodiversity found across the OTs andCDs, and a variety of approaches are being
used to address these impacts, including theirremoval as well as strengthening biosecurity
measures to protect against further
incursions.

UKOTs and CDs

UK countries

The Gough Island restoration
programme

Atlantic Petrel

75
50

Appendicesthree months after the operational team had
left the island, a mouse was discovered. Since
then, numbers of mice have begun to increase.
Although the Restoration Programme did not
succeed, it has given seabirds a much needed,although temporary, safe ground to breed.
Monitoring surveys of key species carried out
in the following breeding season provided
some amazing results with no evidence of
predation by mice. This has resulted in a
dramatic increase in the breeding success formany of the seabirds (Figure 55); for example,
for the first time this century more than
1,000 Critically Endangered Tristan Albatross
chicks fledged, while the breeding successof MacGillivray’s Prion, another CriticallyEndangered seabird, increased from an averageof 6% before the mouse eradication attempt to aphenomenal 82% immediately afterwards. The
instant positive effects of the absence of mouse
predation demonstrate the value of returning
to Gough to eradicate the mouse population.

Atlantic Yellow-nosed
Albatross2010 - 20202014 - 2020

25
0
Breeding success (%)

Summary

100

Grey Petrel

MacGillivray's Prion

75
50

2014 - 2021

25

Figure 55: Breeding success of six seabird
species on Gough Island whose chicks are
predated by mice. The light-blue bars show theaverage breeding success in the years prior tothe mouse eradication attempt, and the dark
blue bar shows breeding success in the year
immediately following.

2014 - 2020

0100

Sooty Albatross

Tristan Albatross

75
50

2001 - 2021

2008 - 202025
0Mice eating
chicks176

No mouse
predation

Mice eating
chicksNo mouse
predation

177

Summary

Key findings

Impact of INNS removal on
Dog Island
Dog Island, a 207-hectare uninhabitedisland off Anguilla, is an internationally
important wildlife site, supporting four
endemic reptiles, over 100,000 pairs ofnesting seabirds and endangered sea
turtle populations. A restoration project
launched in 2011 to increase ‘local capacity
to control alien invasive mammals’ and‘monitor changes in wildlife populations’,
has successfully eradicated non-native
Black Rats from the island and reduced theferal goat population. This has resulted innotable recovery in its native fauna, withincreases in some reptile populations, eg theAnguilla Bank Ground Lizards, and land bird
populations as well as plant biomass403.

INNS control on the Channel Islands
The Channel Islands contain four distinct
jurisdictions across two Bailiwicks; Jersey,
Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, and is also
home to other small islands and islets. Whilsteach island has a unique assemblage of floraand fauna, some of which are endemic,
they all share similar ecosystem types; highenergy marine environments with large tidal
ranges, cliffs, sand dunes, and wooded valleys
with wet meadows.

Historical change

Conservation response

UK countries

UKOTs and CDs

Appendices

The Channel Islands, like all small islands,
are particularly vulnerable to the threats
posed by invasive non-native species(INNS). The impacts of INNS are evident
in all jurisdictions as native species andhabitats are being lost or degraded due to theestablishment of invasives such as Sour Fig
and Red Ripple Bryozoan.
In recognition of the significant
environmental, financial and social impacts
caused by INNS, the Governments haveprioritised their prevention and control. Thisis being achieved through collaboration
between each island, whereby government
officials, NGOs and volunteers are sharing
information, expertise, and workloads which
cover multiple jurisdictions. The Governmentof Jersey is currently undertaking a risk
assessment of established INNS across all
the islands. This streamlines resourcesand enables smaller islands, without
dedicated INNS teams, to benefit from theseworkstreams.

Torteval coast, Guernsey, Rosemary Despres (rspb-images.com)

178

179

Summary
State of Biodiversity Data

Key findings

Historical change
How to interpret this report

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

State of Biodiversity Data
The indicators presented in the document
reflect the data used to construct them. An
important property of indicators is thatthey should be representative of the UK
geography, environments and taxa in the
UK. This improves the chances that theindicators truly reflect the state of nature. It
is also important that the data are accurate
in terms of counts of individuals, taxonomic
identity and location. This chapter assesses
the representativeness and accuracy of thedata used in this report.

Taxonomic bias in terrestrial andfreshwater species’ status metrics

APPENDICES

The taxonomic groups included in the UK
species’ abundance indicator are limited
to those with long-term monitoring data
(Figure 56) and account for around 2% of
all UK species. These typically come frommonitoring schemes with formal sampling
designs and standardised field and analyticalmethods. While relying solely on thisindicator to explain changes in biodiversity
in the UK, may lead to an incomplete
and potentially biased understanding ofoverall change over time, it provides the
only comprehensive estimate of species’
abundance change in the UK using robust
data. Important groups such as plants, fungi,
and all other invertebrates are not consideredin the abundance indicator, although thesegroups are included in the distribution
indicators, which cover approximately 21% of
UK species.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

National Red List assessments evaluate
the conservation status of species withina particular country or region. These
assessments consider a range of factors,
such as population size, distribution andchanges in both, as well as threats, to assign acategory of risk ranging from Least Concern
to Critically Endangered. The Great Britain
Red Lists summarised in this report include
assessments for all species of some groups,
like vertebrates or vascular plants, but only
a relatively small proportion of insects(17%), crustaceans (10%) and fungi (0.004%).
Assessments are based on available data and,for harder to identify and less visible groups,
data are generally scarcer and fewer experts
are available to conduct the reviews.
Another important note is that at present
there are no published Great Britain Red
List assessments for marine species (except
seabirds), although assessments for marine
mammals are underway. Data availability
and quality for different taxonomic groups
can also influence the proportion of species
assessed as threatened. Taxonomic groups
which have better quality data, such as birds,
can be assessed against more Red List criteria
than those with poorer quality data. This is
one reason why data-rich groups tend tohave higher proportions of species assessedas threatened.

Hedgehog, Paul Sawer (rspb-images.com)

180

181

Key findings

State of Biodiversity Data

Historical change

Conservation response

How to interpret this report

Methods

Figure 56: Percentage of UK species from each taxonomic group used in the metrics of species’ status forterrestrial and freshwater species. *Estimated number of native UK species, see stateofnature.org.uk for sources used.
Vascular plants includes native species and ancient introductions (archaeophytes).

		Percentage of species included
Taxonomic Group(terrestrial andfreshwater species)

Abundance
indicator

Distribution
indicators

Red Listsummary

No. of UK
species*

Birds

77

0

100

244

Mammals

49

0

100

47

Amphibians
and reptiles

0

0

100

13

Insects

3

25

17

23,947

Millipedes,
0
centipedes and allies

23

65

142

Spiders

0

83

100

728

Crustaceans

0

0

10

400

Molluscs

0

70

78

239

Bryophytes

0

100

100

1,098

Vascular plants

0

100

100

2,206

Lichens

0

100

100

1,987

0

0.004

15,195

Non-lichenised fungi 0

Referencesindicators there is also geographic variation,for example, the Squat Lobster is declining
across much of its range in England, Scotland
and Wales but is increasing in Northern
Ireland. The all-species’ indicator shouldof years
sampled(1970-2021)
therefore Proportion
be consideredwithcaution.

Proportion ofyears sampled(1970-2021)

The data used to construct the terrestrial
distribution indicators were subject toformal ’risk of bias’ assessments408. Most
records were collected in the English andWelsh lowlands. Even in these regions, few
locations were sampled consistently overtime. This could reflect the distribution ofrecorders or of the species themselves. Figure
57 demonstrates this for a subset of the data,from the Soldierflies and Allies recording
scheme, which is a fairly typical scheme interms of data coverage (although there ismuch variation). In terms of taxonomic bias,
it is rare for an individual Soldierfly species tohave been recorded in every year. While the

0.54

0.40
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.05
0.00

The marine benthos indicator in this report
includes 438 species from across 20 different
taxa and shows an overall increase in species’
distribution in the UK’s seas. However, dataset
coverage is biased. These opportunistic
surveys are predominantly restricted toshallow coastal reef habitats and concentrateon epifaunal taxa. Notably, surveys generally
avoid areas suitable for towed fishing gearthat contacts the seabed. As with the other

Appendices

SummaryThis report contains information on many
species in the UK, but it is important tokeep in mind that the data presented are
not necessarily representative of all UK
species. The datasets were chosen basedon the availability of good quality data, but
we cannot easily draw conclusions about
species that were not assessed. Moreover, thedata were collected using different methods,
at diverse scales, in various locations
and analysed using different statisticaltechniques. Additionally, some monitoring
schemes may not have sufficient sampling
density to detect changes in localised or rare
species. As a result, the trends reported may
be biased towards more common widespread
species and taxonomic groups with greater
data coverage.
Arguably the full value of volunteers’contributions to the state of nature is not
yet fulfilled due to issues associated with the
UK’s complex data management structures.
It is estimated that only 50% of existingbiodiversity data is accessible to those whowish to use it. Resolving these issues would
greatly increase the availability of evidence toinform, plan and measure nature’s recovery.

models used to produce species’ time-series
from these data attempt to statistically correct
for the lack of data for some species in someyears, they are unlikely to have eliminatedthe issue.

Biases in the data used to construct
the marine benthos indicator

UKOTs and CDs

Acknowledgements and Partners

0.10

Biases in the data used to construct
the invertebrate distribution
indicator

182

UK countries

15000

10000
Count

Summary

5000

0
0.0		

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Proportion of years

0.5

Figure 57: The proportion of years (1970 - 2021) in which
records were submitted to the Soldierflies and Allies
recording scheme for each 1 km grid square in the UK (asubset of the data used for the invertebrate distribution
indicator). A) Depicted as a map, B) Depicted as a histogram.

The need for biodiversity indicators
underpinned by robust and reliable
species’ data is becoming ever more criticalconsidering the global, international, UKwide and national commitments to end
the biodiversity crisis. The data used inthis report are the best available for the UK,
which has many long-term recording andmonitoring schemes, encompassing boththe scientific community and the collective
efforts of thousands of dedicated volunteers.
We believe the data, with careful analysis
and interpretation, provide a solid basis
for making long-term generalisations on
the state of nature in the UK. Without thisknowledge we would be unable to understandthe pressures we place on species or the
impact of conservation action seeking toameliorate these pressures.
183

Summary

Key findings

Historical change
How to interpret this reportState of Biodiversity Data

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

How to interpret this report

Which data have we used?

We have included this section to help you
understand the different measures presented
in the State of Nature 2023 report and how
they should be interpreted. For full detailsof the methods and how these measures
were calculated, as well as caveats aroundinterpretation, please refer to pages 188 to 194.

•	We present trends in abundance (for 753
species) and distribution (for around 9000
species) for terrestrial and freshwater
species’ across the UK, and trends inabundance for over 100 marine species(demersal fish, marine mammals andseabirds) and distribution for 437 species(benthic invertebrates, fish and algae).
19702020

United Kingdom (753 species)

20102020

125

Example

75

50

50

25

Smoothed indicator

25

Unsmoothed indicator

0

Uncertainty Interval

Strong increase0

Moderate increase

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

2010

2020

Little change
Moderate decrease
Strong decrease

Percentage of species

75

100

Index (1970 = 100)100•	Abundance trends are based on changes in
the number of individuals at a monitored
site, a measure that reflects a species’
population size. Distribution trends are
based on changes in the number of sites
where a species is present. Distribution
trends may be calculated at different spatial
scales, here we use 1 km2 for terrestrial andfreshwater invertebrates and 10 km2 forplants and lichens.
•	These records came from a wide range ofsources, including national monitoring
schemes and biological records.
•	Abundance trends are for native species
only. Distribution trends for invertebrates
and marine benthic organisms areprimarily for native species but may
include a small number of non-native
species. Due to the small number of these
species, their impact on the average trendlines is likely to be minimal296. Distribution
trends for vascular plants include species’
introduced to the UK more than 500 years
ago.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

How are distribution and abundance
metrics related?
The status of species as measured byabundance is considered a key metric forconservation – providing information as
to how species are faring and assessing theeffectiveness of conservation measures orthe impact of particular pressures. However,such data are taxonomically limited, andin contrast the volume of opportunistic
species’ records297 extends the taxonomic,
spatial and temporal coverage of species
datasets and analyses. Recent statisticaldevelopments have enabled greater use of
these datasets for the estimation of species’
distribution trends298-300. Distribution andabundance trends are often related, andthere is evidence that they tend to operate
in the same direction301,302. However, therelationship between the two measures ofchange can be complex. In particular, thereis evidence that the magnitude of change indistribution trends is smaller than changes
in abundance. This is because many species
can show substantial variation in abundance
without disappearing from sites or occupying
new ones. Additionally, for some species or
species’ groups abundance and distribution
trends move in opposite directions, but this isless common303,304.

•	We present assessments of national Red
List status for 10,008 native species.
•	Details of our data sources and the species
they cover are at stateofnature.org.uk

184

185

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

What are the graphs telling me?
The measures we present, at a UK andindividual country level, show the following:•	Change over time – Species indicator– The average change in the statusof species, based on abundance or
distribution data.
•	Categories of change – The percentage of
species in each trend category eg strong
increase or little change.
•	Extinction risk – An assessment of Red List
status for each species occurring in thatcountry.
Please note that our measures are not directlycomparable with those presented in theprevious State of Nature reports because
the current report is based on an increased
number of species, updated methods and, insome cases, different data sources.

Change over time – Species indicator
These graphs show indicators based on
the abundance data and distribution data
separately. Species indicator graphs show theaverage change in the status of species basedon either abundance or distribution data. The
shaded areas show a measure of uncertainty
around the indicator. This is measured inseveral different ways, which are described in
the Methods section.
Results reported for each figure include total
percentage change in the indicator over thelong term and the short term.

Categories of change
Each species was placed into one of threeor five trend categories based on annual
percentage changes. Results reported foreach figure include the percentage of species
that showed strong or moderate changes,
and those showing little change, in each time
period.

Historical change
How to interpret this report

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

Thresholds for assigning species’ trends tothe categories are given on page 192. A small
number of species did not have a short-term
assessment, as data were unavailable forrecent years.

Extinction risk
We summarised the Great Britain Red Lists
to present the proportion of species in eachthreat category overall, and by different
taxonomic groups. In each country weinterpret existing Great Britain Red Lists,based on those species known to haveoccurred in a particular country, with the
exception of Northern Ireland, where weused all-Ireland Red List assessments.
For the Overseas Territories and Crown
Dependencies we summarised available
global IUCN Red List assessments.
Results reported for each figure include: theoverall percentage of species assessed thatare regarded as threatened with extinction
from Great Britain, Ireland or globally. Thisis the percentage of extant species, forwhich sufficient data are available, classified
as Critically Endangered, Endangeredor Vulnerable in the latest IUCN Red List
assessments.

Official statistics
Where appropriate, trend figures fromthe official UK or UK country biodiversity
indicators305 are presented. In these cases thesource url is given in the figure caption.

What time period does thisreport cover?
In general we show abundance trends inspecies from 1970 to 2021 and distribution
trends from 1970 to 2020. We refer to this as
our long-term period. Our short-term period
covers the final 10 years of an indicator, often2010 to 2020. Data availability means thatsome abundance and distribution indicators
start after 1970. For instance, distribution
trends for benthic marine species run from2005 to 2021.
Green satin lichen, Jill Donnachie / WTML

186

187

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

Methods
The methods on this page describe theprocess used to collate measures of species
status and how these were combined into ourheadline metrics:
1. A multispecies indicator, which charts
average species change over time.
2. A categorical change metric, which
describes the proportions of species inthree or five change categories based on
the direction and magnitude of averageannual change over the period of theindicator and the final 10 years.
3. A Red List metric, which presents the
proportion of species at risk of extinction.
The methods are based on those usedin previous State of Nature reports andpublished in Burns et al. (2018)306.

Data collection
We collated as many datasets as possible
describing population change of native
UK species in order to populate thepopulation change metrics (see Figure
56 State of Biodiversity Data section andstateofnature.org.uk). Most of these datasets
contained species time series derived
from statistical models, rather than raw
counts or observations. Population change
was described either by changes in therelative abundance of species (changes in
the number of individuals) or the relative
distribution of species (changes in thenumber of sites where a species is found).
The long-term period tended to be 1970–2021
for abundance time series and 1970–2020 for
distribution time series, due to a time lag inthe collation and reporting of biological data.
The short-term period was the final 10 yearsof the indicator, often 2010–2020. Data were
derived from a wide range of sources; detailsof the datasets behind our analyses, and thespecies they cover, are given in the additional

Historical change
How to interpret this report

online material. The species’ abundance timeseries included in our assessment met thefollowing criteria:•	Two or more comparable estimates of a
species’ abundance were made between
1960 and the present, with a broad
geographic coverage across the species’
UK range.
•	Results, or at least the methodology fordata collection and/or analysis, had been
published.
•	Start and end estimates for each species
were at least 10 years apart.
If more than one dataset was available for a
species’, precedence was given to the mostrobust dataset, based on the survey method
subject to the fewest known biases, andmaximising the sample size and time period
covered. If two or more datasets were ofsimilar quality and duration, then an average
was calculated and used.

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

criteria indicating the available data would
produce a distribution trend with acceptable
precision309. Rarely recorded species (< 1record in every 100 visits) were excluded if
there were on average fewer than 3.1 records
across the 10% of the best recorded years.
More frequently recorded species were
excluded if there were fewer than 6.7 records
across the 10% of the best recorded years309.
Exclusion criteria are based on classification
trees, selected to balance the rates at which
species are excluded when not meeting
precision thresholds and included when
meeting the precision thresholds. For thecountry-level trends we use an additional
threshold of 10 records within the country inorder to avoid including vagrants.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

For bryophytes and lichens, occurrence
data were summarised to 10 km2/time-period combinations and modelled using
an alternative approach313. This approach
was also taken for vascular plants, using
an analysis originally published in the
Plant Atlas 2020310. In addition to datasetsof species’ population change, we collated
national IUCN Red List assessments.

Processing species’ data
Within the collated dataset of abundancetime series, a small number of time series had
missing values, zero values or an end dateprior to 2021 and required minor processing
following the methods used for previous
reports306. Data for any years prior to 1970
were removed.

The distribution time series were based on
the opportunistic recording data collectedby National Recording Schemes; a fulllist is available in the acknowledgements.
These schemes collect data on a vast arrayof taxonomic groups, from slime moulds tospiders. However, it can be difficult to use
datasets of opportunistic records to assesschanges over time, as recording effort varies
across the UK and over time.
The majority of the species’ distribution
time series included in our assessment
were updated versions of those presented
in Outhwaite et al. (2019)307, who usedhierarchical occupancy modelling in a
Bayesian framework to help control forimperfect detection299,300. Distribution wasmodelled at a 1 km2 scale, and we retained
species’ time series with a minimum of 10
years of reliable estimates, with no morethan a 10-year gap in records296,308. Species
were included in the modelling if they met

European Beaver, Philip Price / scotlandbigpicture.com

188

189

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

How to interpret this report

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

Moth data

Demersal fish data

Benthic species’ data

Moth abundance data from the Rothamsted
Insect Survey light trap network wereanalysed using the generalised abundanceindex methodology proposed by Dennis etal. (2016)311 to produce UK and UK country
species’ abundance trends. Four hundredand ninety-three species produced reliable
UK trends based on expert assessment of
the underlying data and the analysis results
updated following Harrower et al (2019)312.

Marine fish time series were based on ICES
“bottom-trawl” data from DATRAS. We
generated trends for three regions, using
surveys in the entire UK Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ; ie, 200 nautical miles radius,
totalling > 773,000 km2 but excluding theIsle of Man), and separately for the areas of
the North Sea and Celtic Seas within the UK
EEZ314,315. We created the population change
metrics thus:

Plant and lichen data•	Limited the species’ pool to demersal
and bentho-pelagic species using datafrom FishBase.org. These are species
that the surveys are designed to capture.
Other species are caught inconsistently,
and hence the data are unsuitable forgenerating population trends.

Records for benthic species were obtained
from the Seasearch dataset, a partnership oforganisations led by the Marine Conservation
Society that collects data on seabed species
and habitats. The Seasearch programme is forvolunteer scuba divers and snorkellers whorecord benthic marine species and habitats
around the British Isles and adjacent seas.
Now consisting of more than 830,000 spatialrecords for benthic species, it is an extensive,
long-term time-series. Although records forsome areas extend back to the late 1970s, it
was not until the mid 2000s that all areas
were fully active in the programme, hence
for consistency among countries, the trends
presented run from 2005 to 2021. However,dataset coverage is biased as surveys are
predominantly restricted to shallow coastal
reef habitats and concentrate on epifaunaltaxa. In particular, surveys generally avoid
areas suitable for towed fishing gear that
contacts the seabed.

For vascular plants, the Botanical Societyof Britain and Ireland is the main sourceof high-quality distribution data, with data
holdings stretching back to the 19th century
and beyond. For bryophytes and lichens theequivalent datasets are maintained by the
British Bryological Society and the British
Lichen Society respectively. For each dataset
the total period covered was divided into
broad time segments and those considered
to be largely unbiased with respect tospecies’ relative frequencies were retained
for analysis. We then applied the “Frescalo”
algorithm313 to these data to adjust for variable
recording effort within and across time
periods. Outputs from this process provided
estimates (means and standard deviations)of a species’ frequency in its overall area ofoccupancy within each time period. One
hundred generalised additive models (GAMs)
per species were then fitted to 100 randomdraws from species’ frequency estimate
distributions specified by the per-time period
Frescalo means and standard deviations. One
hundred multispecies indicators were thenconstructed by averaging across each set of
random draws across species; the medianand the 90% Uncertainty Intervals of the
distribution of the multispecies’ indicator ispresented. This process enabled us to createsmoothed time trends whilst propagating
all model-based uncertainty310. Finally, theestimated frequency in 1970 was taken as
our baseline year, with subsequent values
normalised to this point.
190

Historical change•	Qualitatively assessed temporal bias inspatial coverage of the surveys using theR package occAssess316. We removed dataprior to 1993 as earlier survey coverage
was very patchy. Despite uneven effort, we
retained surveys from all four quarters ofeach year.
•	Summarised the average annual
abundance for each species, using thetotal number of individuals per species
caught in each year in each survey region(ie, UK EEZ, or North Sea or Celtic Seas
within the UK EEZ). Species were only
included if there were at least nine years ofdata between 1993 and 2022. Species withgaps in annual abundance estimates hadvalues interpolated using a GLM. Where
data ended before 2021 the final value
was held constant. Finally, we calculated
the geometric mean abundance for all
species in each year in each survey area.
Uncertainty estimates were generatedusing bootstrapping.

Population change was described by changes
in the distribution of species (changes in thenumber of sites where a species is found).
Although semi-quantitative measures ofabundance are collected by Seasearch, they
are not yet analysed in a way that can provide
trends in abundance. In contrast with theterrestrial and freshwater records, which arecollected and analysed by taxonomic group,
Seasearchers record any and all species
that they are able to recognise during avisit, irrespective of taxonomy. Distribution
models are run using the entire Seasearchdataset. Distribution trends were developed
using a hierarchical occupancy modellingin a Bayesian framework78,299,300 very similar
to that mentioned previously. Distribution
was modelled at a 1 km2 scale, and species
were retained when there were at least 100
records, with no more than a five-year gap inrecords78,296,308.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

Producing our measures of
species’ population change
Species’ indicators
To create the species’ abundance indicators,
all individual species’ time series wereconverted to species’ indices by expressing
each annual estimate as a percentage of thefirst year of the time series and the index
was calculated as the geometric mean of thespecies’ indices317. Species’ indices starting
after 1970 entered the index at the geometricmean value for that year. Uncertainty
Intervals (UI) for each indicator were createdusing bootstrapping across species’318; ineach iteration (N=10,000) a random sampleof species was selected with replacement andthe index was recalculated. We generated
smoothed species’ indicators and associated
UI using a thin-plate spline model319. We
focus on the total change in the smoothed
species’ indicator in the results and alsopresent the unsmoothed indicator308. Change
in the final 10 years of the species’ abundanceindicators was taken as the geometric meanof the species level change across the decade.
Species level change calculations are definedin the ‘Categorical change’ section on page192. Uncertainty Intervals were generatedusing bootstrapping.
To estimate the multispecies’ distribution
indicator with uncertainty, the posterior
distribution of the annual distribution
estimates for each species was utilised.
For 999 iterations, the geometric mean
distribution estimate (on the unbounded logodds scale) each year across all species wasestimated. These estimates were converted
back to the odds scale, then scaled so themean estimate in the first year (1970) was set
to 100, and summarised each year using themean and Uncertainty Intervals.
If the Uncertainty Interval around theindicator estimate in the final year did notcontain the starting value of 100, the change
across the period of the indicator wasconsidered significant.
191

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

Testing for change over the period of
the indicator
For each multitaxa species’ abundanceindicator we assessed whether there wasevidence that the rate of change in the final
decade was atypical of the rate of change inprevious decades, using a linear model of theform: Indicator ~ year* Period, where “Period”
was a categorical variable specifying the five
decadal time periods between 1970-2021.

Categorical change
For each species we calculated the totalchange, then the average annual change overthe entire period of the index and the final
10 years – although in many cases the start
and/or end years for the individual species’
data did not exactly match the years forthe overall indicator. Total change was thepenultimate year of a smoothed index for a
species’ expressed as a proportion of the firstyear306. Each measure of total change was

Historical change
How to interpret this reportthen converted to an annual average rate ofchange, which was used to categorise species’change. We placed each species into one offive trend categories, defined as follows:•	Strong increase: Annual change greaterthan or equal to +2.81%, the rate of changethat would lead to population size or
distribution doubling or more over 25
years.
•	Moderate increase: Annual change
between +1.16% and +2.81%.
•	Little change: Annual change between-1.14% and +1.16%.
•	Moderate decrease: Annual change
between -2.73% and -1.14%.
•	Strong decrease: Annual change less thanor equal to -2.73%, the rate of change thatwould lead to a population halving or more
over 25 years.

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

This categorisation was based on themagnitude of change, not the statisticalsignificance of that change. Statisticalsignificance is determined by interannual
trend variance, which is influenced by sample
size, and by the actual interannual variationin population change, which is determinedby species’ life history. This means thatstatistical power varies between species andbetween taxonomic groups. Thus, our values
are the best available estimates for eachspecies, but we must acknowledge that many
species’ trend estimates are highly uncertain.
For species’ groups modelled using Frescalo,
the classification of species’ trends into three
categories followed the approach of Pescott
et al.320, using the mean trend of an ensembleof 100 bootstrapped linear trends fitted torandom draws from species’ per-time period
Frescalo mean frequency estimates and theiruncertainties (standard deviations). The
resulting trends were classified using thescheme of Stroh et al. (2023)310.

IUCN Red List assessments
At a global level, the IUCN coordinates
the process of assessing which species
are threatened with extinction, and has
developed Red List assessment criteria90
to make the process as transparent andconsistent as possible.
These criteria are based on a variety ofparameters, including the rate of change
in species’ abundance or distribution, total
population size, number of populations andan assessment of threats. The IUCN’s Red Listof Threatened Species represents the world’s
most comprehensive information source on
the global conservation status of species.
Data downloaded from ucnredlist.org(27/01/2023) were used to calculate thenumber of species assessed under the various
threat categories for each OT and CD. These
were based on “Land Region” queries for
all OTs and CDs, with the exception of the

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

Bailiwick of Jersey and Guernsey exclusive
economic zones, Isle of Man territorial
waters, Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas and theBritish Antarctic Territory, which used spatial
queries321.
How threatened a species is may vary acrossits range, and often regional or national Red
Lists are produced, documenting which
species are threatened at different spatial
scales322. We have brought together all thenational Red Lists for Great Britain that havebeen produced using the latest guidelines
from the IUCN90,322. For more details of the Red
Lists used, please see stateofnature.org.uk
We summarised the global and regional Red
Lists to present the percentage of species ineach category and the percentage consideredthreatened across all species, and at different
taxonomic levels. We followed recognised
guidelines323 and used the best estimate (themid-point) when calculating the percentageof extant species, for which sufficient data are
available, classified as Threatened (CR + EN +VU)/(Number assessed – EX – DD).

Country-level reporting
We do not have the same volume of
information on species’ trends within the
UK’s constituent countries as we do for
the UK as a whole. We have attempted torepeat analyses, as presented for the UK, inthe sections for England, Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales, but in some cases, thiswas not possible.
We have produced abundance population
change metrics (species’ indicators andcategorical change metrics) across all species
for Scotland, England and Wales, but only at ataxonomic group level for Northern Ireland.
Distribution change metrics were produced
using the same methodology as the UK-levelindicator for all four countries, although wewere not able to produce a lichen indicatorfor Northern Ireland.

Barnluasgan celtic rainforest event, Bill Baillie

192

193

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

Historical change
How to interpret this report

Equally, even when metrics have been
produced, it should be noted that the
population change and distributional change
metrics for the constituent countries werebased on fewer species and suffered fromgreater bias towards well-recorded taxa.
For national Red Lists, we used lists of species
present in England, Scotland and Wales tointerpret the existing Great Britain Red Lists
in a national context – this means that thestatus of a species outside a nation may
influence the Red List results presented forthat nation. In the case of Northern Ireland,
we have used all-Ireland Red List assessments
for species occurring in Northern Ireland, as
this allowed the consideration of a broader
taxonomic scope than data from Northern
Ireland alone.

Caveats
The datasets presented in this report are
a summary of the information available.
However, although they cover many species,
the datasets have not been selected to reflect
a representative sample of UK species,
either within or between taxonomic groups
or habitats. This means that we should becautious about extrapolating findings beyond
the species assessed (see State of Biodiversity
data section).

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

1.
Breeze, T.D., et al., Pollinatormonitoring more than pays foritself. Journal of Applied Ecology,
2021. 58(1): p. 44-57.

12. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: C4a. Status of UK
priority species – relative
abundance, JNCC, 2021.

2. Environment Agency,
Estimating the economic costsof the 2015 to 2016 winter floods.
2018, Environment Agency:
Bristol.

Although some rare species are targeted by
specific schemes, many of the monitoring
schemes that produce the datasets
included in this report have a wide range
geographically but may not have sufficient
sampling density locally to pick up changes
in localised or particularly rare species. As
a result, trends for relatively few of these
species are reported. Our population change
metrics may therefore be biased towards themore common, widespread and generalist
species, as well as being biased towards
certain taxonomic groups. The datasets also
differ in spatial coverage.

3. Dasgupta, P., The economics
of biodiversity: the Dasgupta
review. 2021: HM Treasury.

13. Ellis, C.J., R. Yahr, andB.J. Coppins, Quantifying theanthropocene loss of bioindicators
for an early industrial region: anequitable baseline for biodiversity
restoration. Biodiversity andConservation, 2018. 27: p. 23632377.

Although official guidelines are used to
produce national Red Lists, there is room forvariation in interpretation of these guidelines
and so there are small differences in theway different authors have compiled thenational Red Lists summarised here. This isparticularly true in defining which species
are not threatened (of Least Concern).

4. Evans, C., et al.,
Implementation of an emission
inventory for UK peatlands. Reportto the Department for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy,
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology,
Bangor. 2017.
5. Leclère, D., et al., Bending the
curve of terrestrial biodiversity
needs an integrated strategy.
Nature, 2020. 585(7826): p. 551556.
6. NatureScot, Indirect driversof biodiversity change. 2023,
NatureScot.
7. The People’s Plan for Nature.
The People’s Plan for Nature:
Report on outcomes of a RAPID
democracy process. 2023 [cited
2023 10th May]; Available from:https://peoplesplanfornature.org/

9. Defra, Wild bird populationsin the UK, 1970 to 2021. 2023 [cited
2023 10th May]; Available from:https://www.gov.uk/government/
statistics/wild-bird-populationsin-the-uk/wild-bird-populationsin-the-uk-1970-to-2021
10. Woodward, I., et al.,Population estimates of birds
in Great Britain and the United
Kingdom. British Birds 2020. 113:
p. 69-104.

RSPB Rathlin Island Nature Reserve, Nick Rodd (rspb-images.com)

11. Green, R. E., & Pain, D. J.
(2016). Possible effects of ingested
lead gunshot on populations ofducks wintering in the UK. Ibis,
158(4), 699-710.

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

We have put together datasets collected using
different methods, measured at a variety ofspatial scales and analysed using different
statistical techniques. How a species has beenmonitored – the method, effort and extent ofsurveying – can influence whether the results
were suitable for our analyses, and indeed thespecies’ trend itself.

8. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: C6 Insects of the wider
countryside, JNCC, 2022.

194

UKOTs and CDs

14. Oliver, T.H., et al., Declining
resilience of ecosystem functions
under biodiversity loss. Naturecommunications, 2015. 6(1): p. 1-8.
15. Outhwaite, C.L., et al.,Complex long-term biodiversity
change among invertebrates,
bryophytes and lichens. Nature
ecology & evolution, 2020. 4(3):p. 384-392.
16. Coomber, F.G., et al., Using
biological records to inferlong-term occupancy trends ofmammals in the UK. BiologicalConservation, 2021. 264: p.
109362.
17. UKMMAS. 2018 UK marine
monitoring and assessment
strategy: Biodiversity, food webs
and marine protected areas.
Available at: https://moat.cefas.
co.uk/biodiversity-food-websand-marine-protected-areas/
18. Simpson, S.D., et al.,Continental shelf-wide responseof a fish assemblage to rapid
warming of the sea. Current
Biology, 2011. 21(18): p. 1565-1570.
19. Cook, R., A. Sinclair, and G.
Stefansson, Potential collapseof North Sea cod stocks. Nature,
1997. 385(6616): p. 521-522.
20. JNCC. 2020. Data from(UK Biodiversity Indicator: B2a.
Sustainable fisheries. Percentage
of marine fish (quota) stocks of
UK interest harvested sustainable,
1970 to 2019). Available at: https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/ukbi-b2sustainable-fisheries

21. Thurstan, R.H. et al.
(2010). The effects of 118 years
of industrial fishing on UK
bottom trawl fisheries. Nature
Communications, 1, 15.
22. Mitchell, P. I. et al. 2004
Seabird populations of Britain and
Ireland. T. & AD Poyser, London.
23. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: C5. Birds of the wider
countryside and at sea, JNCC,
2021.
24. Hammond PS, et al. (2017).
Estimates of cetacean abundancein European Atlantic waters insummer 2016 from the SCANSIII aerial and shipboard surveys.
Wageningen Marine Research.
25. Holland M, Louchart A,
Artigas LF, Mcquatters-Gollop
A. PH1/FW5 - Changes inphytoplankton and zooplankton
communities. In: OSPAR. The
2023 Quality Status Report for
the Northeast Atlantic, OSPAR
Commission, London, 2023.
26. Holland, M. M., et al. (2023).
Major declines in NE Atlantic
plankton contrast with morestable populations in the rapidly
warming North Sea. Science ofthe total environment, 165505.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2023.165505.
27. NERC, Scientific Advice
on Matters Related to theManagement of Seal Populations:2021. 2021, Special Committee on
Seals.
28. Jackson, A., Bayesian
occupancy modelling of benthic
Crustacea and the recovery of theEuropean spiny lobster, Palinuruselephas. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association of theUnited Kingdom, 2021. 101(7): p.
1033-1046.
29. Burns, F., et al., Agricultural
management and climaticchange are the major drivers of
biodiversity change in the UK.
PLoS One, 2016. 11(3): p. e0151595.

195

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

30. Watson, R., et al., UK National
Ecosystem Assessment: Technical
Report. 2011: United Nations
Environment Programme World
Conservation Monitoring Centre.
31. Defra, 2023. Trends in UK
sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
non-methane volatile organic
compounds, ammonia andparticulate matter (PM10, PM2.5)
emissions. 1970-2021, Defra.
32. Rowe E.C., et al., Trends
Report 2022: Trends in criticalload and critical level exceedancesin the UK. 2022, Report to Defra
under Contract AQ0849, UKCEH
project 07617.
33. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: B5a Pressure from
pollution: Air pollution, JNCC,
2022.
34. Pescott, O.L., et al., Air
pollution and its effects on lichens,
bryophytes, and lichen-feeding
Lepidoptera: review and evidence
from biological records. Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society,2015. 115(3): p. 611-635.
35. Walker, K., et al., Britain’s
changing flora: a summary of theresults of Plant Atlas 2020. 2023.
36. Pharaoh, E., Diamond, M.,
Ormerod, S. J., Rutt, G. & Vaughan,
I. P. 2023 Evidence of biologicalrecovery from gross pollution
in English and Welsh rivers overthree decades. Science of the Total
Environment 878, 163107.
37. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: B7. Surface water
status, JNCC, 2021.
38. Kühn, S., J.A. Van Franeker,
and W. Van Loon, Plastic Particles
in Fulmar Stomachs in the North
Sea. In: OSPAR, 2023: The 2023
Quality Status Report for the
Northeast Atlantic. 2022, OSPAR
Commission: London.
39. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: B6. Pressures from
Invasive species, JNCC, 2021.

196

Historical change
How to interpret this report

40. Defra, Aggregate Agricultural
Accounts: Total Factor
Productivity dataset, Defra, 2022.
41. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: B1a. Agri-environment
schemes, JNCC, 2021.
42. Kendon, M., et al., State of the
UK Climate 2020. International
Journal of Climatology, 2021.
41(S2): p. 1-76.
43. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicator: B2a. Sustainablefisheries. Percentage of marine
fish (quota) stocks of UK interest
harvested sustainable, 1970 to
2019, JNCC, 2020.
44. Sharps, E., et al., 2023
Reversing declines in farmlandbirds: How much agrienvironment provision is needed
at farm and landscape scales?
Journal of Applied Ecology 60,
568-580.
45. Finch, T., et al. Co-benefits
and trade-offs associated witha net zero UK land sector. One
Earth, 2023, in Press.
46. Edwards, M., et al., Plankton,
jellyfish and climate in the NorthEast Atlantic. MCCIP Science
Review 2020, 322–353. 2020,
Marine Climate Change Impacts
Partnership.
47. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: D1a. Fish size classes
in the North Sea (1983 to 2019),
JNCC, 2020.
48. Committee on Climate
Change, The Sixth Carbon Budget:
The UK’s path to net zero. 2020,
Committee on Climate Change:
London.
49. Pearce-Higgins, et al.
2023 Highly pathogenic avian
influenza in wild birds in the
United Kingdom in 2022: impacts,
planning for future outbreaks,
and conservation and research
priorities. Report on virtual
workshops held in November
2022. BTO Research Report 752.

50. RSPB. 2023 Avian Flu (birdflu). Available at: https://www.
rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/
advice/how-you-can-help-birds/
disease-and-garden-wildlife/
avian-influenza-updates/ Last
accessed 1st June 2023.
51. Camphuysen, C., S. Gear, andR. Furness, Avian influenza leads
to mass mortality of adult Great
Skuas in Foula in summer 2022.
Scottish Birds, 2022. 4: p. 312-23.
52. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: E2. Expenditure on
UK and international biodiversity,
JNCC, 2021.
53. Stroh, P., et al., Plant Atlas
2020. 2023 Princeton University
Press.
54. PREDICTS, Biodiversity
Intactness Index - Trend Explorer.
2023, Natural History Museum:London.
55. Newbold, T., et al., Has land
use pushed terrestrial biodiversity
beyond the planetary boundary? A
global assessment. Science, 2016.
353(6296): p. 288-291.
56. Molfese, C., D. Beare, and J.M.
Hall-Spencer, Overfishing and thereplacement of demersal finfish
by shellfish: an example from theEnglish Channel. PloS one, 2014.
9(7): p. e101506.
57. Pauly, D., R. Froese, and M.L.
Palomares, Fishing down aquatic
food webs: Industrial fishingover the past half-century has
noticeably depleted the topmost
links in aquatic food chains.
American Scientist, 2000. 88(1):p. 46-51.
58. Cook, R., et al., The
substantial first impact of bottom
fishing on rare biodiversity
hotspots: a dilemma for evidencebased conservation. PloS one,2013. 8(8): p. e69904.

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

UKOTs and CDs

Acknowledgements and Partners

59. Thurstan, R.H. and C.M.
Roberts, Ecological meltdown in
the Firth of Clyde, Scotland: twocenturies of change in a coastal
marine ecosystem. PloS one, 2010.
5(7): p. e11767.

69. Housden, S., Putting Waleson a Path to Nature Recovery. The
case for nature recovery targets in
Wales. A report for RSPB Cymru
and WWF Cymru supported byWales Environment Link. 2021.

60. Scottish Fishermen’sFederation, The 3-mile limit:
History and facts. An SFF
perspective. 2020, Scottish
Fishermen’s Federation: Aberdeen.

70. Thomson, A.I., et al., Chartinga course for genetic diversity in
the UN Decade of Ocean Science.
Evolutionary Applications, 2021.
14(6): p. 1497-1518.

61. Thurstan, R.H., et al., Oyster(Ostrea edulis) extirpation andecosystem transformation in theFirth of Forth, Scotland. Journal
for nature conservation, 2013.
21(5): p. 253-261.

71. Downey, H., et al., Principles
for the production of evidencebased guidance for conservation
actions. Conservation Science andPractice, 2022. 4(5): p. e12663.

62. UNEP, DECISION ADOPTEDBY THE CONFERENCE OF THE
PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION
ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.
15/4. Kunming-Montreal Global
Biodiversity Framework, UNEP,
2022.
63. Brotherton P., et al., Nature
Positive 2030 – Evidence Report.
2021, JNCC: Peterborough.
64. Green, E.J., et al., Relating
characteristics of global
biodiversity targets to reported
progress. Conservation Biology,
2019. 33(6): p. 1360-1369.
65. JNCC, Sixth National Reportto the United Nations Convention
on Biological Diversity: United
Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland. 2019, JNCC:Peterborough.
66. Welsh Government, The
Co-operation Agreement, Welsh
Government, 2021.
67. Scottish Government,
2021. Scottish Government andScottish Green Party Shared
Policy Programme, working
together to build a greener, fairer,
independent Scotland, Scottish
Government.
68. UK Government, 2021.
Environment Act 2021, UK
Government.

Appendices72. Sutherland, W.J., et al., What
Works in Conservation. 2020,
Cambridge, UK: Open Book
Publishers.
73. Hawkes, R.W., et al.,Multi-taxa consequences ofmanagement for an avian
umbrella species. Biologicalconservation, 2019. 236: p. 192201.
74. Mathews F and H. C., IUCN
– compliant Red List for Britain’s
Terrestrial Mammals. Assessmentby the Mammal Society undercontract to Natural England,
Natural Resources Wales andScottish Natural Heritage. 2020,
Natural England, ISBN 978-178354-485-1: Peterborough.
75. DAERA. Controlling thegrey squirrel population. 2023;
Available from: https://www.
daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/
controlling-grey-squirrelpopulation
76. Tonkin, M., G. Hatcher,and N. Tipple, Saving an icon:
Final report from the Developing
Community Action phase of
Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels (inprep.). 2023, Saving Scotland’s Red
Squirrels.
77. Nunn, A.D., R.F. Ainsworth,and R.A.A. Noble, Regional
IUCN Redlist for Freshwaterand Diadromous Fishes of GreatBritain (England, Scotland andWales). 2023.

78. Jackson, A., Bayesian
occupancy modelling of benthic
Crustacea and the recovery of theEuropean spiny lobster, Palinuruselephas. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association of theUnited Kingdom, 2021. 101(7): p.
1033-1046.
79. Woodward, I.D., et al.,
BirdTrends 2020: trends innumbers, breeding success andsurvival for UK breeding birds.
BTO Research Report 732. 2020,
BTO: Thetford.
80. Woodward, I., et al.,Population estimates of birds
in Great Britain and the United
Kingdom. Br. Birds, 2020. 113: p.
69-104.
81. Burns, F., et al., Agricultural
management and climaticchange are the major drivers of
biodiversity change in the UK.
PLoS One, 2016. 11(3): p. e0151595.
82. Chamberlain, D.E., etal., Effects of habitat type andmanagement on the abundanceof skylarks in the breeding season.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 1999.
36(6): p. 856-870.
83. Sharps, E., et al. 2023
Reversing declines in farmlandbirds: How much agrienvironment provision is needed
at farm and landscape scales?
Journal of Applied Ecology 60,
568-580.
84. Botham, M.S., et al., United
Kingdom Butterfly Monitoring
Scheme: species’ trends 2021.
NERC EDS Environmental
Information Data Centre 2022.
85. Fox, R., et al., A revised Red
List of British butterflies. Insect
Conservation and Diversity, 2022.
15(5): p. 485-495.
86. Ellis, S., et al., Landscapescale conservation in practice:lessons from northern
England, UK. Journal of Insect
Conservation, 2011. 15: p. 69-81.

197

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

87. Pescott, O.L., et al., Air
pollution and its effects on lichens,
bryophytes, and lichen-feeding
Lepidoptera: review and evidence
from biological records. Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society,2015. 115(3): p. 611-635.
88. Sutton, P.G., A review of the
Orthoptera and allied speciesof Great Britain Orthoptera,
Dictyoptera, Dermaptera,
Phasmida. Species Status 21.
Natural England Commissioned
Reports, Number 187. 2015,
Natural England: Peterborough.
89. Butchart, S.H., et al.,Improvements to the Red List
index. PloS one, 2007. 2(1): p. e140.
90. IUCN, IUCN Red List
Categories and Criteria: Version
3.1. Second edition. 2012,
IUCN: Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK. p. iv + 32pp.
91. Wilkins, T.C., R.J. Wilson, and
A.F. Brown, Outcome Indicator
Framework for England’s 25
Year Environment Plan: D5
Conservation status of our native
species – Technical Document
2022. NERR124. 2022, Natural
England: York, UK.
92. Akçakaya, H.R., et al.,Quantifying species recovery andconservation success to develop
an IUCN Green List of Species.
Conservation Biology, 2018. 32(5):p. 1128-1138.
93. Grace, M.K., et al.,Testing a global standard forquantifying species recovery andassessing conservation impact.
Conservation Biology, 2021. 35(6):p. 1833-1849.
94. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 20222. 2022 [cited 2023 9th February];
Available from: https://www.
iucnredlist.org
95. Loy, A., et al. Lutra lutra(amended version of 2021
assessment). The IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species 2022:
e.T12419A218069689. 2022
198

Historical change
How to interpret this report

Accessed on 08 February 2023.];
Available from: https://dx.doi.
org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2022-2.
RLTS.T12419A218069689.en
96. Loy, A., P.S. Jamwal, and
S.A. Hussain. Lutra lutra (Green
Status assessment). The IUCNRed List of Threatened Species
2021: e.T12419A1241920221. 2021.
[Accessed on 08 February 2023.]
97. Jellesmark, S., et al.,Assessing the global impact oftargeted conservation actions on
species abundance. bioRxiv, 2022:
p. 2022.01. 14.476374.
98. Grace, M.K., et al., Building
robust, practicable counterfactuals
and scenarios to evaluate theimpact of species conservationinterventions using inferential
approaches. BiologicalConservation, 2021. 261:
p. 109259.
99. Jellesmark, S., et al., The effectof conservation interventions on
the abundance of breeding waders
within nature reserves in the
United Kingdom. Ibis, 2023. 165(1):p. 69-81.
100. Tinsley-Marshall, P., etal., Funding and delivering theroutine testing of management
interventions to improveconservation effectiveness.
Journal for Nature Conservation,
2022. 67: p. 126184.
101. Ferraro, P.J. and S.K.
Pattanayak, Money for nothing?
A call for empirical evaluationof biodiversity conservation
investments. PLoS biology, 2006.
4(4): p. e105.
102. Sanderson, F., et al., Benefitsof protected area networks
for breeding bird populations
and communities. Animal
Conservation, 2022, 26(3),279-289.
103. Cooke, R., et al., Protectedareas support more species thanunprotected areas in Great Britain,
but lose them equally rapidly.
Biological Conservation, 2023.
278: p. 109884.

104. Green, R.E., et al.,Implications of the prevalence
and magnitude of sustained
declines for determining aminimum threshold for favourable
population size. PloS one, 2020.
15(2): p. e0228742.
105. Bullock, J.M., et al., Future
restoration should enhance
ecological complexity andemergent properties at multiple
scales. Ecography, 2022. 2022(4).
106. Defra, Marine Strategy Part
One: UK updated assessment
and Good Environmental Status.
2019, Defra, DAERA, the Welsh
Government and the Scottish
Government.
107. Thurstan, R.H., S.
Brockington, and C.M. Roberts,
The effects of 118 years ofindustrial fishing on UK
bottom trawl fisheries. Naturecommunications, 2010. 1(1): p. 15.
108. Dulvy, N.K., et al., Overfishing
drives over one-third of all
sharks and rays toward a global
extinction crisis. Current Biology,
2021. 31(21): p. 4773-4787.
109. Guille, H., Gilmour, C.,
Willsteed, E. , UK Fisheries Audit,
Oceana, 2021, Oceana: Lymington,
UK.
110. Defra, Agriculture in the UK
Evidence Pack. 2022, Gov.uk.
111. Reidsma, P., et al., Impacts ofland-use change on biodiversity:
An assessment of agricultural
biodiversity in the European
Union. Agriculture, ecosystems& environment, 2006. 114(1):p. 86-102.
112. Reid, C., Hornigold, K.,
McHenry, E., Nichols, , et al., Stateof the UK’s Woods and Trees 2021.
2021, Woodland Trust.
113. Ennos, R., et al., Is theintroduction of novel exotic forest
tree species a rational response to
rapid environmental change? –A British perspective. Forest
Ecology and Management, 2019.
432: p. 718-728.

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

114. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators. 2022, Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural
Affairs, UK.
115. Forestry Commission,
Forestry Statistics 2022, F.
Research, 2022: Midlothian.
116. Defra, C11: Productive
seas: status of sensitive fish andshellfish stocks. 2022.
117. Lynam, C.P., J. Bluemel,
and N. Probst, Recovery in
the Population Abundance of
Sensitive Fish Species. In: OSPAR,
2023: The 2023 Quality Status
Report for the Northeast Atlantic.
2022, OSPAR Commission:
London.
118. NFFN. Farming for our
future: The nature friendly climate
solution we urgently need.
2023; Available from: https://www.nffn.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/NFFN-ReportFINAL-NXPowerLite-Copy.pdf
119. Palmer, P.I., et al., A
measurement-based verification
framework for UK greenhousegas emissions: an overview of theGreenhouse gAs Uk and Global
Emissions (GAUGE) project.
Atmospheric Chemistry andPhysics, 2018. 18(16): p. 1175311777.
120. Defra, National statistics:
Emissions of air pollutants in the
UK - Ammonia (NH3). 2023,
Gov.UK
121. NatureScot. Scotland’s
Agri-Environment and Climate
Scheme - Summary. 2021 [cited
2023 08/05/2023]; Available from:https://www.nature.scot/doc/
scotlands-agri-environment-andclimate-scheme-summary
122. Defra, Environmental
Improvement Plan 2023. 2023,
Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

123. Scottish Government,
2023. Agri Environment
Climate Scheme [cited 2023
21/03/2023]; Available from:https://www. ruralpayments.
org/topics/allschemes/agrienvironmentclimate-scheme/

132. Aviron, S., et al., Effects ofagri-environmental measures,site and landscape conditions
on butterfly diversity of Swiss
grassland. Agriculture, ecosystems& environment, 2007. 122(3):p. 295-304.

124. Forest Research, Forestry
Statistics 2022 2022, Forest
Research.

133. Fuentes-Montemayor, E., D.
Goulson, and K.J. Park, Pipistrelle
bats and their prey do not benefit
from four widely applied agrienvironment management
prescriptions. BiologicalConservation, 2011. 144(9):p. 2233-2246.

125. National Forest Inventory,
NFI woodland ecologicalcondition in Great Britain:
Classification Results. 2020,
National Forest Inventory.
126. Northridge, S., Kingston, A.,
Coram, A., Preliminary estimatesof seabird bycatch by UK vessels
in UK and adjacent waters, Defra,
2020.
127. Taylor, N., et al., Marine
Mammal By-catch. In: OSPAR,
2023: The 2023 Quality Status
Report for the Northeast Atlantic.
2022, OSPAR Commission:
London.
128. Leaper, R., et al., Estimatesof humpback and minke whale
entanglements in the Scottish
static pot (creel) fishery.
Endangered Species Research,
2022. 49: p. 217-232.
129. Burns, F., et al., Agricultural
management and climaticchange are the major drivers of
biodiversity change in the UK.
PLoS One, 2016. 11(3): p. e0151595.
130. Kleijn, D., et al., Mixedbiodiversity benefits of agrienvironment schemes in fiveEuropean countries. Ecology
letters, 2006. 9(3): p. 243-254.
131. Kleijn, D. and W.J. Sutherland,
How effective are European
agri-environment schemesin conserving and promoting
biodiversity? Journal of Applied
Ecology, 2003. 40(6): p. 947-969.

134. Princé, K., J.-P. Moussus,
and F. Jiguet, Mixed effectivenessof French agri-environment
schemes for nationwide farmland
bird conservation. Agriculture,
ecosystems & environment, 2012.
149: p. 74-79.
135. Walker, L.K., et al., Effects
of higher-tier agri-environment
scheme on the abundance ofpriority farmland birds. Animal
Conservation, 2018. 21(3): p. 183192.
136. Zingg, S., et al., Increasing
the proportion and quality of land
under agri-environment schemes
promotes birds and butterflies atthe landscape scale. Biologicalconservation, 2019. 231: p. 39-48.
138. Arnott, A., et al., Agrienvironment schemes areassociated with greater terrestrial
invertebrate abundance andrichness in upland grasslands.
Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 2022. 42(1): p. 6.
139. Perkins, A.J., et al., Adaptive
management and targeting ofagri-environment schemes does
benefit biodiversity: a case studyof the corn bunting Emberizacalandra. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 2011. 48(3): p. 514-522.
140. Setchfield, R.P., et al., An
agri-environment option boosts
productivity of Corn Buntings
Emberiza calandra in the UK. Ibis,
2012. 154(2): p. 235-247.
199

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data141. Redhead, J.W., et al., The
effects of a decade of agrienvironment intervention ina lowland farm landscape on
population trends of birds andbutterflies. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 2022. 59(10): p. 24862496.
142. Colhoun, K., et al., Agrienvironment scheme enhances
breeding populations of somepriority farmland birds inNorthern Ireland. Bird Study,
2017. 64(4): p. 545-556.
143. Beaumont, D.J. and B.J.
England, The Corncrake Crex
crex population in Scotland from1993 to 2015 with an overview
of conservation measures taken
during this period. Vogelwelt,
2016. 136: p. 153-161.
144. Pakeman, R.J., et al, 2021.
Evaluation of the biodiversity
outcomes of the 2014-20 SRDP
Agri-Environment Climate
Scheme through a selectionof case studies. NatureScot.
Available at: https://www.nature.
scot/doc/naturescot-researchreport-1254-evaluationbiodiversity-outcomes-2014-20srdp-agri-environment
145. Foster, S., et al., Trendsof Breeding Farmland Birds
in Scotland. Scottish Natural
Heritage TREND NOTE, 2013(22):p. 1-16.
146. MacDonald, M.A., et al.,Have Welsh agri-environment
schemes delivered for focal
species? Results from acomprehensive monitoring
programme. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 2019. 56(4): p. 812-823.
147. Dadam, D. and G.M.
Siriwardena, Agri-environment
effects on birds in Wales: Tir
Gofal benefited woodland andhedgerow species. Agriculture,
Ecosystems& Environment, 2019. 284:
p. 106587.

200

Historical change
How to interpret this report

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References148. Welsh Government. Glastir
Monitoring and Evaluation
Programme. 2018 [cited 2023
17/02/2023]; Available from:https://gmep.wales/datafindings

156. Staley, J., et al., Designinga survey to monitor multi-scale
impacts of agri-environment
schemes on mobile taxa. Journalof Environmental Management,
2021. 290: p. 112589.

165. Thurstan, R.H., et al., Oyster(Ostrea edulis) extirpation andecosystem transformation in theFirth of Forth, Scotland. Journal
for Nature Conservation, 2013.
21(5): p. 253-261.

149. Harris, S.J., et al., The
breeding bird survey 2021. BTO
research report, 2022. 745.

157. Defra, Environmental Land
Management (ELM) update: how
government will pay for landbased environment and climate
goods and services. 2023.

166. Cook, R., et al., The
substantial first impact of bottom
fishing on rare biodiversity
hotspots: a dilemma for evidencebased conservation. PloS one,2013. 8(8): p. e69904.

150. Johnstone, I., S. Dodd, andW.J. Peach, Seeded ryegrass fills
the late winter ‘hungry gap’but
fails to enhance local population
size of seed-eating farmlandbirds. Agriculture, Ecosystems& Environment, 2019. 285: p.
106619.
151. Bellamy, P.E., et al., Impact
of woodland agri-environment
management on woodland
structure and target bird species.
Journal of Environmental
Management, 2022. 316: p.
115221.
152. Defra. What is theimpact of CS woodland
improvement option WD2?
- LM04115. 2022 [cited 2023
16/02/2023]; Available from:https://randd.defra.gov.uk/
ProjectDetails?ProjectId=20558
153. Field, R.H., et al., Making
explicit agricultural ecosystemservice trade-offs: a case studyof an English lowland arable
farm. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, 2016.
14(3): p. 249-268.
154. Natural England, Riskbased approach to Remote
Electronic Monitoring forEnglish inshore fisheries(NECR437). 2022.
155. Sarah Cunningham, D.D.,
Katie Gillham, Ben James,
Lisa Kamphausen, Suzanne
Henderson, Peter Chaniotis andEirian Kettle, Phil Boulcott andPeter Wright, Research Report
1292 - Towards understanding
the effectiveness of measures
to manage fishing activity of
relevance to MPAs in Scotland.
2022, NatureScot.

158. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: C1 - Protected areas,
Tables C1i and C1ii. 2022, JNCC.
159. NatureScot, Protected
Nature Sites Application.
SSSI condition dataset. 2023,
NatureScot.
160. Natural Resources Wales,
Protected sites baseline
assessment 2020 dataset. 2020,
Natural Resources Wales.
161. Natural England.
Designated Sites View. SSSI
Condition Summary. 2023
[cited 2023 19th March];
Available from: Natural England.
Designated Sites View.
SSSI Condition Summary. 2023
[cited 2023 19th March];
Available from: https://designatedsites.naturalengland.
org.uk/ReportFeatureCondition
AllFeatureGroups.aspx
162. DAERA/NIEA, Northern
Ireland Environmental Statistics:
Table 5.2b. Condition of features(Quantity) within Terrestrial
ASSIs and marine ASSI/SAC/SPA
and MCZ designations. 2022,
DAERA/NIEA.
163. Natural Resources
Wales, 2021. State of Natural
Resources Report (SoNaRR):
Assessment of the achievementof sustainable management of
natural resources. Biodiversity
Assessment. Natural Resources
Wales.
164. OSPAR, Report andassessment of the status of
the OSPAR network of Marine
Protected Areas in 2021. 2021,
OSPAR.

167. Dunkley, F. and J. Solandt,
Marine unprotected Areas: A
case for a just transition to banbottom trawl and dredge fishingin offshore Marine Protected
Areas. 2021, Marine Conservation
Society.
168. Barnes, A., et al., Rare anddeclining bird species benefit mostfrom designating protected areas
for conservation in the UK. Nature
Ecology & Evolution, 2022: p. 1-10.
169. Rodrigues, A.S., et al.,The performance of existing
networks of conservation areas
in representing biodiversity.
Proceedings of the Royal Societyof London. Series B: Biological
Sciences, 1999. 266(1427): p. 14531460.
170. Hopkinson, P., et al. A
preliminary assessment of thecontribution of nature reserves tobiodiversity conservation in GreatBritain. in Animal Conservation
forum. 2000. Cambridge
University Press.
171. Cunningham, C.A., et al.,The effectiveness of the protectedarea network of Great Britain.
Biological Conservation, 2021.
257: p. 109146.
172. Bosanquet, S., A review
of non-vascular plant andfungal SSSI features in Wales Bryophytes. NRW Evidence Report
No: 368. 2019, Natural Resources
Wales Bangor. p. 105.
173. Bosanquet, S., A review of
non-vascular plant and fungal
SSSI features in Wales - Lichens.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

NRW Evidence Report No: 369.
2022, Natural Resources Wales:
Bangor. p. 158.
174. NRW, unpublished datacollated by Dr Mike Howe, 2022.
175. Lim, D.Y., T. Starnes, and
A.J. Plumptre, Global priorities
for biodiversity conservation in
the United Kingdom. BiologicalConservation, 2023. 277: p.
109798.
176. Wauchope, H.S., et al.,Protected areas have a mixed
impact on waterbirds, but
management helps. Nature, 2022.
605(7908): p. 103-107.
177. Sheehan, E.V., et al., Recovery
of a temperate reef assemblage ina marine protected area following
the exclusion of towed demersal
fishing. PloS one, 2013. 8(12):p. e83883.
178. Davies, B.F., et al., A decade
implementing ecosystemapproach to fisheries management
improves diversity of taxa andtraits within a marine protectedarea in the UK. Diversity andDistributions, 2022. 28(1):p. 173-188.
179. Davies, B.F., et al.,Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries
Management works—How
switching from mobile to static
fishing gear improves populationsof fished and non-fished species
inside a marine-protected area.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 2021.
58(11): p. 2463-2478.
180. Marine Management
Organisation, Marine and Coastal
Access Act 2009 (c.23). The Dogger
Bank Special Area of Conservation(Specified Area) Bottom Towed
Fishing Gear Bylaw 2022, M.M.
Organisation, 2022.
181. JNCC. Dogger Bank MPA.
2023 [cited 2023 16th March].

182. Marine Conservation Society,2023. Dogger Bank MPA update:Six months on from ban. [cited
2023 05/04/2023]; Available from:https://www. mcsuk.org/news/
dogger-bankmpa-update-sixmonths-onfrom-ban/
183. Field, R., et al., The valueof habitats of conservation
importance to climate change
mitigation in the UK. BiologicalConservation, 2020. 248:
p. 108619.
184. Bradfer-Lawrence, T., et al.,The potential contribution ofterrestrial nature-based solutions
to a national ‘net zero’ climate
target. Journal of Applied Ecology,
2021. 58: p. 2349-2360.
185. Armstrong, S., et al.,Estimating the Carbon Sink
Potential of the Welsh Marine
Environment. 2020, NRW: Cardiff.
186. Burrows, M.T., et al.,Assessment of Blue Carbon
Resources in Scotland’s Inshore
Marine Protected Area Network.
2017, Scottish Natural Heritage
Commissioned Report No. 957.
187. Luisetti, T., et al., Quantifying
and valuing carbon flows andstores in coastal and shelfecosystems in the UK. Ecosystemservices, 2019. 35: p. 67-76.
188. Burrows, M., et al.,Assessment of carbon capture andstorage in natural systems within
the English North Sea (Including
within Marine Protected Areas).
2021.
189. Phillips, J.A., et al., Consistentconcentrations of criticallyendangered Balearic shearwatersin UK waters revealed by at-sea
surveys. Ecology and Evolution,
2021. 11(4): p. 1544-1557.
190. Jones, A.R., et al., Using
integrated land-and boat-based
surveys to inform conservation of
the Critically Endangered Balearic
shearwater. Endangered Species
Research, 2014. 25(1): p. 1-18.

201

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

191. IUCN-WCPA Task Forceon OECMs, Recognising andreporting other effective areabased conservation measures.
2019, IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.
192. Hooftman, D.A.P. and J.M.
Bullock, Mapping to inform
conservation: A case study ofchanges in semi-natural habitats
and their connectivity over 70
years. Biological Conservation,2012. 145(1): p. 30-38.
193. Simberloff, D., Flagships,
umbrellas, and keystones: issingle-species management passéin the landscape era? BiologicalConservation, 1998. 83(3):p. 247-257.
194. UNEP. United Nations
Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.
2021 [cited 2023 14/03/2023];
Available from: https://www.
decadeonrestoration.org/
195. Defra, Nature Recovery
Network, Natural England, 2022,
Defra.
196. IUCN. The Bonn Challenge.
2020 cited 2023 14/03/2023];
Available from: https://www.
bonnchallenge.org/
197. Lewis-Phillips, J., et al., Pond
management enhances the local
abundance and species richnessof farmland bird communities.
Agriculture, ecosystems &environment, 2019. 273:
p. 130-140.
198. Newton, A.C., et al., Ecologicalrestoration of agricultural land
can improve its contribution toeconomic development. PLoS
One, 2021. 16(3): p. e0247850.
199. Earthwatch, 2020. Tiny
Forest. 2023 [cited 2023
15/03/2023]; Available from:https://earthwatch.org.uk/ getinvolved/tiny-forest

Historical change
How to interpret this report200. UKMMAS. 2018 UK marine
monitoring and assessment
strategy: Summary of progress
towards Good Environmental
Status. Available at: https://moat.cefas.co.uk/summaryof-progress-towards-goodenvironmental-status/
201. SeaWilding. Seawilding,Community-led Marine Habitat
Restoration. 2022 [cited 2023
15/03/2023]; Available from:https://www.seawilding.org/
aboutus202. Borders Forest Trust.
Carrifran Wildwood. 2021 [cited
2023 15/03/2022]; Available from:https://bordersforesttrust.org/
wild-heart/carrifran-wildwood
203. Forest Research, F., Woodland
Area and Planting. 2022.
204. JNCC, Article 17 Habitats
Directive Report 2019. 2019, JNCC:
UK.
205. Vina-Herbon, C., Meakins, B.,
Carter, A., Edwards, D., Duncan,
G., Lillis, H., Pettit, L., Robson,
L., Singleton, G., Young, M.,
Robison, K., Clements, A., Mackie,T., Hawkridge, J., Vaughan, D.,
Boulcott, P., Phillips, G., Extent of
Physical damage to Predominantseafloor habitats, in UK Marine
Online Assessment Tool. 2018.
206. Evans, C., et al.,
Implementation of an emission
inventory for UK peatlands. Reportto the Department for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy,
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology,
Bangor. 2017.
207. NatureScot. 2023 Peatland
restoration in Scotland increases
by 25% over last year. Available
at: https://www.nature.scot/
peatland-restoration-scotlandincreases-25-over-last-year Last
accessed 1st July 2023.
208. Burgess, H., et al., Saltmarsh
Restoration Handbook: UK &Ireland. 2021.

202

209. JNCC, Guidelines for Habitat
Condition Assessment Version 2.0,
JNCC, 2019.
210. Taylor, D.L., et al., The
impacts of commercial woodland
management on woodland
butterfly biodiversity in
Morecambe Bay, UK. Conservation
Evidence, 2013. 10: p. 10-15.
211. Carr, A., A. Weatherall, and
G. Jones, The effects of thinning
management on bats andtheir insect prey in temperatebroadleaved woodland. Forest
Ecology and Management, 2020.
457: p. 117682.
212. Alison, J., et al., Successful
restoration of moth abundanceand species-richness in grassland
created under agri-environment
schemes. Biological Conservation,2017. 213: p. 51-58.
213. Rahman, M.L., et al.,The conservation value of
restored landfill sites in the East
Midlands, UK for supporting bird
communities. Biodiversity andConservation, 2011. 20: p. 18791893.
214. Jellesmark, S., et al., A
counterfactual approach tomeasure the impact of wet
grassland conservation on UK
breeding bird populations.
Conservation Biology, 2021. 35(5):p. 1575-1585.
215. Armstrong, S., Pearson, Z.,
Williamson, D., Frost, N., Scott,C. , Restoring marine and coastal
habitats in Wales: identifying
spatial opportunities and benefits.
2021, Natural Resource Wales.
216. Green, B.C., et al., Seasonalchanges in community
composition and trophic structureof fish populations of five salt
marshes along the Essex coastline,
United Kingdom. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, 2009.
85(2): p. 247-256.

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

217. Environment Agency,
The state of the Environment:
the urban environment. 2021,
Environment Agency, Chief
Scientist’s group.
218. Natural Resources Wales,
2021. State of Natural Resources
Report (SoNaRR): Assessment of
the achievement of sustainable
management of natural resources.
Urban. Natural Resources Wales.
219. Schüle, S.A., et al., Social
inequalities in environmental
resources of green and blue
spaces: A review of evidence
in the WHO European region.
International Journal ofEnvironmental Research andPublic Health, 2019. 16(7): p. 1216.
220. Bush, J. and A. Doyon,
Building urban resilience withnature-based solutions: How canurban planning contribute? Cities,
2019. 95: p. 102483.
221. Seddon, N., et al.,Understanding the value andlimits of nature-based solutions toclimate change and other global
challenges. Philos Trans R Soc
Lond B Biol Sci, 2020. 375(1794):
p. 20190120.
222. David McLennan, etal., The English Indices ofDeprivation 2019 -Technicalreport. 2019, Ministry of Housing,Communities and Local
Government.
223. Earthwatch, Tiny Forest
monitoring report. 2022,
Earthwatch.
224. Payne, R.J., et al., The futureof peatland forestry in Scotland:balancing economics, carbon andbiodiversity. Scottish Forestry,
2018: p. 34-40.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

attitudinal support for rewilding
among the English farming
community. People and Nature,2022. 4(6): p. 1435-1449.
227. Carver, S., et al., Guiding
principles for rewilding.
Conservation Biology, 2021. 35(6):p. 1882-1893.
228. Wynne-Jones, S., et al.,Rewilding – Departures inConservation Policy and Practice?
An Evaluation of Developments in
Britain. Conservation & Society,2020. 18(2): p. 89-102.

ecosystem functioning? Evidence
from a large-scale reforestation
project in the Scottish Highlands.
Restoration Ecology, 2022. 30(3):p. e13530.
237. UK Government, Policy
Paper: British Energy Security
Strategy. 2022, UK Government.
238. Committee on Climate
Change, The Sixth Carbon Budget:
The UK’s path to net zero. 2020,
Committee on Climate Change:
London.

229. Jørgensen, D., Rethinking
rewilding. Geoforum, 2015. 65:
p. 482-488.

239. Committee on Climate
Change, Land use: Policies for a
Net Zero UK. 2020, Committee on
Climate Change: London.

230. Scottish Parliament, 2019.
Climate Change (Emissions
Reduction Targets (Scotland) Act
2019-2019 asp 15).

240. Defra, Policy paper: At aglance: summary of targets in our
25 year environment plan, Defra,
2023.

231. Welsh Government, Wales
commits to net zero by 2050, but
sets out ambitions to get there
sooner. 2021, Welsh Government.

241. Defra, Environment
Improvement Plan 2023:
First revision of the 25 year
Environment Plan. 2023, Defra.

232. Priestley, S., Net zero in the
UK. Commons library briefing.
2019, UK Government.168.
DAERA, The Climate Change Act(Northern Ireland) 2022 - Keyelements, DAERA, 2022.

242. Scottish Government.
2023 Access to Green and BlueSpace. Available at: https://nationalperformance.gov.scot/
access-green-and-blue-space
Last accessed 1st August 2023.

233. Warner, E., et al., The
response of plants, carabid beetles
and birds to 30 years of nativereforestation in the Scottish
Highlands. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 2021. 58(10): p. 21852194.

243. The Welsh Assembly
government strategy for sportand physical activity. Climbing
Higher. 2005 https://www.
gov.wales/sites/default/files/
publications/2019-06/climbinghigher.pdf

234. Bradfer-Lawrence, T., et al.,The potential contribution ofterrestrial nature-based solutions
to a national ‘net zero’climate
target. Journal of Applied Ecology,
2021. 58(11): p. 2349-2360.

244. Scottish Government,
CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN: The
Third Report on Proposals andPolicies 2018-2032. 2018, Scottish
Government.

225. Löfqvist, S., et al., How social
considerations improve the equity
and effectiveness of ecosystem
restoration. BioScience, 2023.
73(2): p. 134-148.

235. Friggens, N. L., et al. 2020
Tree planting in organic soils
does not result in net carbon
sequestration on decadal
timescales. Global Change Biology
26, 5178-5188.

226. Mikołajczak, K.M., etal., Rewilding—The farmers’
perspective. Perceptions and236. Warner, E., et al., Does
restoring native forest restore

245. Scottish Government, 2020.
Increased offshore wind ambition
by 2030, Scottish Government.
246. Welsh Government,
Woodlands for Wales: The Welsh
Government’s strategy for
Woodlands and Trees. 2018, Welsh
Government.

203

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

247. DAERA. Forests for Our
Future - Forest Expansion Scheme
reopens. 2020 [cited 2023 15/03];
Available from: https://www.
daera-ni.gov.uk/news/forest-ourfuture-forest-expansion-schemereopens
248. Northern Ireland Executive,
Energy strategy for Northern
Ireland: The path to Net Zero
Energy. 2022, Northern Ireland
Executive.
249. Office for National Statistics,
2020-based Interim National
Population Projections. 2022,
Office for National Statistics.
250. Stoker, B., et al., Marine
Climate Change Impacts: Report
Card 2020. 2020.
251. Cook, A.S., et al., Quantifying
avian avoidance of offshore windturbines: current evidence andkey knowledge gaps. Marine
Environmental Research, 2018.
140: p. 278-288.
252. Drewitt, A.L. and R.H.
Langston, Assessing the impactsof wind farms on birds. Ibis, 2006.
148: p. 29-42.
253. Garthe, S., et al., Large-scaleeffects of offshore wind farms
on seabirds of high conservation
concern. Scientific Reports, 2023.
13(1): p. 4779.
254. Natural Resources Wales,
Indicative feature conditionassessments for European
marine sites (EMS). 2021, Natural
Resources Wales.
256. Masden, E.A., et al., Barriers
to movement: modelling energetic
costs of avoiding marine windfarms amongst breeding seabirds.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2010.
60(7): p. 1085-1091.
257. Arnett, E.B., et al., Impacts ofwind energy development on bats:a global perspective. Bats in the
Anthropocene: conservation ofbats in a changing world, 2016:p. 295-323.

204

Historical change
How to interpret this report258. Browning, E., et al., Drivers ofEuropean bat population change:a review reveals evidence gaps.
Mammal Review, 2021. 51(3):p. 353-368.
259. Bailey, H., et al., Assessing
underwater noise levels duringpile-driving at an offshore
windfarm and its potential effects
on marine mammals. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 2010. 60(6):p. 888-897.
260. Popper, A.N. and A.D.
Hawkins, An overview of fishbioacoustics and the impacts ofanthropogenic sounds on fishes.
Journal of Fish Biology, 2019.
94(5): p. 692-713.

266. Methratta, E.T. and W.R.
Dardick, Meta-analysis of finfish
abundance at offshore wind farms.
Reviews in Fisheries Science &Aquaculture, 2019. 27(2):p. 242-260.
267. Gill, A.B., et al., Setting
the context for offshore winddevelopment effects on fish andfisheries. Oceanography, 2020.
33(4): p. 118-127.
268. Marques, Ana Teresa, et al.
Understanding bird collisions at
wind farms: An updated review on
the causes and possible mitigation
strategies. Biological Conservation
179 (2014): 40-52.

261. Galparsoro, I., et al.,
Reviewing the ecological impacts
of offshore wind farms. npj Ocean
Sustainability, 2022. 1(1): p. 1.

269. van Berkel, J., et al., The
effects of offshore wind farms onhydrodynamics and implications
for fishes. Oceanography, 2020.
33(4): p. 108-117.

262. Hutchison, Z.L., D.H. Secor,and A.B. Gill, The interaction
between resource species andelectromagnetic fields associatedwith electricity production
by offshore wind farms.
Oceanography, 2020. 33(4):p. 96-107.

270. Stanbury, A., et al., The statusof our bird populations: the fifth
Birds of Conservation Concern
in the United Kingdom, Channel
Islands and Isle of Man andsecond IUCN Red List assessmentof extinction risk for Great Britain.
British Birds, 2021. 114: p. 723-747.

263. Cresci, A., et al., Atlanticcod (Gadus morhua) larvae are
attracted by low-frequency
noise simulating that ofoperating offshore wind farms.
Communications Biology, 2023.
6(1): p. 353.

271. Department for Business,
E.I.S. Energy Security Billfactsheet: Offshore windenvironmental improvement
package. 2022 [cited 2023 28th
April]; Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/energysecurity-bill-factsheets/
energy-security-bill-factsheetoffshore-wind-environmentalimprovement-package

264. Dannheim, J., et al., Benthic
effects of offshore renewables:
identification of knowledge gaps
and urgently needed research.
ICES Journal of Marine Science,
2020. 77(3): p. 1092-1108.
265. Bergström, L., et al., Effects
of offshore wind farms on marine
wildlife—a generalized impact
assessment. Environmental
Research Letters, 2014. 9(3):p. 034012.

272. Searle, K., et al., Developmentof a’Seabird Sensitivity Mapping
Tool for Scotland’. Report to
Carbon Trust, 2019.
273. The Scottish Government,
Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore
Wind Energy. 2020, The Scottish
Government.

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References274. Department for the Economy,
Consultation on the draft offshore
renewable energy action plan for
Northern Ireland. 2022, Northern
Ireland Government.
275. Donovan, G.H., et al.,Vegetation diversity protects
against childhood asthma: resultsfrom a large New Zealand birthcohort. Nature Plants, 2018. 4(6):p. 358-364.
276. Hartig, T., et al., Nature andhealth. Annual review of publichealth, 2014. 35: p. 207-228.
277. Mitchell, R. and F.
Popham, Effect of exposure tonatural environment on healthinequalities: an observational
population study. The Lancet,
2008. 372(9650): p. 1655-1660.
278. Garrett, J., et al., Association
between greenspace and timespent in nature with subjective
wellbeing: a cross-sectional data
linkage study. The Lancet, 2021.
398: p. S47.
279. Defra, OIF Indicator G7:
Health and wellbeing benefits.
2022, Defra.
280. Mullin, K., et al., Natural
capital and the poor in England:
Towards an environmental justiceanalysis of ecosystem services ina high income country. Landscapeand Urban Planning, 2018. 176:
p. 10-21.
281. Eastwood, A., et al.,Connecting young people
with greenspaces: The case forparticipatory video. People andNature, 2023. 5(2): p. 357-367.
282. Miró, A., et al., Links between
ecological and human wealthin drainage ponds in a fastexpanding city, and proposals
for design and management.
Landscape and Urban Planning,2018. 180: p. 93-102.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

283. ONS. One in eight British
households has no garden Office for National Statistics
Available from: https://www.ons.
gov.uk/economy/environmental
accounts/articles/oneineight
britishhouseholdshasnogarden/
2020-05-14. 2020 [cited 2023
26th February]
284. ONS. Access to garden
spaces: England - Officefor National Statistics. 2020
[cited 2023 26th February];
Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/
environmentalaccounts/
methodologies/
accesstogardenspacesengland285. Defra, OIF Indicator G3:
Enhancement of green/blue
infrastructure. 2022, Defra.
286. Reid, C., et al., State of the
UK’s Woods and Trees 2021. 2021,
Woodland Trust.
287. Beynon-Davies, C., Marine
and coastal environments andwell-being: a summary of theevidence base. 2022, NRW
Evidence Report No: 661, NRW:
Cardiff.
288. Marselle, M.R., et al., Reviewof the mental health and wellbeing benefits of biodiversity.
Biodiversity and health in the faceof climate change, 2019:p. 175-211.
289. Wood, E., et al., Not
All Green Space Is CreatedEqual: Biodiversity Predicts
Psychological Restorative
Benefits From Urban Green Space.
Frontiers in Psychology, 2018. 9.
290. Cox, D.T., et al., Doses ofneighborhood nature: the benefits
for mental health of living withnature. BioScience, 2017. 67(2):p. 147-155.
291. Dallimer, M., et al.,Biodiversity and the feel-goodfactor: understanding associations
between self-reported humanwell-being and species richness.
BioScience, 2012. 62(1): p. 47-55.

292. Seddon, N., et al., Getting themessage right on nature-based
solutions to climate change.
Global change biology, 2021. 27(8):p. 1518-1546.
293. Warner, E., et al., Does
restoring native forest restore
ecosystem functioning? Evidence
from a large-scale reforestation
project in the Scottish Highlands.
Restoration Ecology, 2021.
294. UK Government. Decision
support framework for peatland
protection, the establishmentof new woodland and reestablishment of existingwoodland on peatland in England.
2022 [cited 2023 15th May];
Available from: https://www.gov.
uk/government/publications/decision-support-frameworkfor-peatland-protection-theestablishment-of-new-woodlandand-re-establishment-ofexisting-woodland-on-peatlandin-england295. Finch, T., et al. Co-benefits
and trade-offs associated witha net zero UK land sector. One
Earth, 2023, in Press.
296. Outhwaite, C.L., et al.,Complex long-term biodiversity
change among invertebrates,
bryophytes and lichens. Nature
Ecology & Evolution, 2020. 4(3):p. 384-392.
297. BRC, National Recording
Schemes and Societies. 2023,
Biological Records Centre:
Wallingford, UK.
298. Dennis, E.B., et al., Efficient
occupancy model-fitting forextensive citizen-science data.
PloS one, 2017. 12(3): p. e0174433.
299. Isaac, N.J., et al., Statistics for
citizen science: extracting signalsof change from noisy ecological
data. Methods in Ecology and
Evolution, 2014. 5(10): p. 10521060.

205

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

300. Outhwaite, C.L., et al.,Prior specification in Bayesian
occupancy modelling improves
analysis of species occurrence
data. Ecological Indicators, 2018.
93: p. 333-343.
301. Van Turnhout, C.A., et al.,Scale-dependent homogenization:changes in breeding bird diversity
in the Netherlands over a 25-year
period. Biological Conservation,
2007. 134(4): p. 505-516.
302. Zuckerberg, B., W.F. Porter,and K. Corwin, The consistency
and stability of abundance–
occupancy relationships inlarge-scale population dynamics.
Journal of Animal Ecology, 2009.
78(1): p. 172-181.
303. Chamberlain, D.E. and R.
Fuller, Contrasting patterns ofchange in the distribution andabundance of farmland birds
in relation to farming system inlowland Britain. Global Ecology
and Biogeography, 2001. 10(4):p. 399-409.
304. Dennis, E.B., et al., Trends
and indicators for quantifying
moth abundance and occupancy
in Scotland. Journal of Insect
Conservation, 2019. 23: p. 369380.
305. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators. 2023, JNCC.
306. Burns, F., et al., An
assessment of the state of naturein the United Kingdom: a review
of findings, methods and impact.
Ecological indicators, 2018. 94:
p. 226-236.
307. Outhwaite, C.L., et al.,Annual estimates of occupancy
for bryophytes, lichens andinvertebrates in the UK, 1970–2015. Scientific data, 2019. 6(1):p. 259.
308. Isaac, N.J.B., et al., C4b:
Status of UK priority species– Distribution D1c. Status ofPollinating Insects , Technicalbackground document: Deriving

206

Historical change
How to interpret this report

Indicators from Occupancy
Models in UK Biodiversity
Indicators 2018 2018, Biological
Records Centre, Centre for
Ecology and Hydrology309. Pocock, M.J., et al., Rapid
assessment of the suitability ofmulti-species citizen sciencedatasets for occupancy trend
analysis. bioRxiv, 2019: p. 813626.
310. Stroh, P., et al., Plant Atlas
2020, in Plant Atlas 2020. 2023,
Princeton University Press.
311. Dennis, E.B., et al., A
generalized abundance index forseasonal invertebrates. Biometrics,
2016. 72(4): p. 1305-1314.
312. Harrower, C., et al., UK mothtrends from Rothamsted Insect
Survey light-trap network (1968 to
2016). CENTRE, NEID (ed.), 2019.
313. Hill, M.O., Local frequency
as a key to interpreting species
occurrence data when recording
effort is not known. Methods in
Ecology and Evolution, 2012. 3(1):p. 195-205.
314. Greenstreet, S.P.R. and M.
Moriarty, Manual for Version 3 of
the Groundfish Survey Monitoringand Assessment Data Product.
Scottish Marine and Freshwater
Science, 2017. 8(18): p. 77.
315. Moriarty, M., S. Greenstreet,and J. Rasmussen, Derivation ofgroundfish survey monitoring andassessment data product for the
Northeast Atlantic Area. Scottish
Marine and Freshwater Science,2017. 8(16): p. 1984-1.
316. Boyd, R.J., et al., occAssess:
An R package for assessing
potential biases in species
occurrence data. Ecology and
Evolution, 2021. 11(22): p. 1617716187.
317. Gregory, R.D., et al.,Developing indicators for
European birds. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society
B-Biological Sciences, 2005.
360(1454): p. 269-288.

318. Freeman, S.N., S.R. Baillie,
and R.D. Gregory, Statisticalanalysis of an indicator of
population trends in farmlandbirds, BTO Research Report no.
251. 2001, BTO: Thetford.
319. Wood, S.N., Fast stable
restricted maximum likelihood
and marginal likelihood
estimation of semiparametric
generalized linear models. Journalof the Royal Statistical Society:
Series B (Statistical Methodology),
2011. 73(1): p. 3-36.
320. Pescott, O., et al., Simple
methods for improving thecommunication of uncertainty
in species’ temporal trends.
Ecological Indicators, 2022. 141:
p. 109117.
321. IUCN, The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 20222. 2023, IUCN.
322. IUCN, Guidelines forApplication of IUCN Red List
Criteria at Regional and National
Levels: Version 4.0. 2012,
IUCN: Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK. p. iii + 41.
323. IUCN, Guidelines forreporting on the proportion
threatened. Version 1.1. October
2016. 2016, IUCN.
324. Watson, R., et al., UK National
Ecosystem Assessment: Technical
Report. 2011: United Nations
Environment Programme World
Conservation Monitoring Centre.
325. NRW, A new baseline of
the area of semi-natural habitat
in Wales for Indicator 43. 2018,
Natural Resources Wales.
326. Natural Resources Wales,
State of Natural Resources Report(SoNaRR): Assessment of the
Sustainable Management of
Natural Resources. Technical
Report 2016, Natural Resources
Wales.

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

327. Defra. Wild bird populationsin the UK, 1970 to 2021. 2023
[cited 2023 10th May]; Available
from: https://www.gov.uk/
government/statistics/wild-birdpopulations-in-the-uk/wild-birdpopulations-in-the-uk-1970to-2021
328. Barlow, K., et al., Citizen
science reveals trends in bat
populations: the National Bat
Monitoring Programme in GreatBritain. Biological Conservation,2015. 182: p. 14-26.
329. Salmon Stocks and Fisheries
in England and Wales 2021
(https://assets.publishing.service.
gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/1093963/SalmonReport-2021assessment.pdf)
330. Ellis, C.J., R. Yahr, andB.J. Coppins, Quantifying theanthropocene loss of bioindicators
for an early industrial region: anequitable baseline for biodiversity
restoration. Biodiversity andConservation, 2018. 27: p. 23632377.
331. Oliver, T.H., et al., Declining
resilience of ecosystem functions
under biodiversity loss. Naturecommunications, 2015. 6(1): p. 1-8.
332. Fox R, et al., The Stateof Britain’s Larger Moths
2021. Butterfly Conservation,
Rothamsted Research and UK
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology,
Wareham, Dorset, UK.
333. Outhwaite, C.L., et al.,Complex long-term biodiversity
change among invertebrates,
bryophytes and lichens. Nature
ecology & evolution, 2020. 4(3): p.
384-392.
334. IUCN, IUCN Red List
Categories and Criteria: Version
3.1. Second edition. 2012,
IUCN: Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK. p. iv + 32pp.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

335. Natural Resources Wales,
2021. State of Natural Resources
Report (SoNaRR): Assessment of
the achievement of sustainable
management of natural resources.
Biodiversity Assessment. Natural
Resources Wales.

340. Capuzzo, E. et al, 2018 A
decline in primary productionin the North Sea over 25 years,
associated with reductions inzooplankton abundance and fishstock recruitment. Global change
biology 24, e352-e364.

336. Lohrengel, K., et al.,Bottlenose Dolphin Monitoring in
Cardigan Bay 2014 - 2016, NRW
Evidence Report No: 191 2018,
Natural Resources Wales: Bangor.
p. 162.

UKMMAS. 2018 UK marine
monitoring and assessment
strategy: Biodiversity, food webs
and marine protected areas,
Available at: https://moat.cefas.
co.uk/biodiversity-food-websand-marine-protected-areas/

337. Smart, S.M., et al.,Environment and Rural Affairs
Monitoring & Modelling
Programme (ERAMMP). ERAMMP
Report-85: Developmentof Indicator 44: Status of
Biological Diversity in Wales
Final Report. 2022, Report toWelsh Government (Contract
C210/2016/2017)(UK Centre for
Ecology & Hydrology Projects
06297 & 06810).
338. ICES. 2023 ICES Advice on
fishing opportunities, catch,and effort Greater North Sea
Sandeel (Ammodytesspp.) indivisions 4.a–b, Sandeel Area
4 (northern and central NorthSea),Available at: https://iceslibrary.figshare.com/articles/
report/Sandeel_Ammodytes_spp_
in_divisions_4_a_b_Sandeel_
Area_4_northern_and_central_
North_Sea_/21815193?backTo=/collections/ICES_
Advice_2023/6398177.
339. Welsh Government. 2023
June 2022 Survey of Agricultureand Horticulture: Results forWales,Available at: https://www.
gov.wales/sites/default/files/
statistics-and-research/2022-11/
survey-agriculture-andhorticulture-june-2022-005.pdf

Pinnegar, J., et al. 2020 The
impacts of climate change on
fisheries, relevant to the coastal
and marine environment aroundthe UK. MCCIP Sci. Rev 2020, 456581.
341. Burns, F., et al., Agricultural
management and climaticchange are the major drivers of
biodiversity change in the UK.
PLoS One, 2016. 11(3): p. e0151595.
342. Climate Exchange. 2016 NB4Proportion of ancient woodlands
with declining overall suitability
for lichen epiphytes, available
at: https://www.climatexchange.
org.uk/media/2477/nb4_ancient_woodlands_suitability_for_lichens.pdf.
343. Climate Exchange. 2016 B16a:
Abundance and frequency ofspecialist and generalist species:
snow_bed species, available at:https://www.climatexchange.org.
uk/media/2517/nb16a_snowbed_
species_210316_branded_
template_010416.pdf.
344. Watts, S. H., et al. 2022
Riding the elevator to extinction:
Disjunct arctic-alpine plants ofopen habitats decline as theirmore competitive neighbours
expand. Biological Conservation
272, 109620.

207

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

Historical change
How to interpret this report345. Kirkpatrick Baird, F., etal. 2023 Projected increases inextreme drought frequency andduration by 2040 affect specialist
habitats and species in Scotland.
Ecological Solutions and Evidence(online first).

354. Pescott, O.L., et al., Air
pollution and its effects on lichens,
bryophytes, and lichen-feeding
Lepidoptera: review and evidence
from biological records. Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society,2015. 115(3): p. 611-635.

346. Mitchell, et al. (2018) Decline
in atmospheric sulphur depositionand changes in climate are themajor drivers of long-term change
in grassland plant communities in
Scotland. Environmental Pollution
235 (2018) 956e964.

355. Pakeman, R.J., et al., Using
species records and ecologicalattributes of bryophytes to develop
an ecosystem health indicator.
Ecological Indicators, 2019. 104: p.
127-136.

347. Pearce, I.F.K. and Van derWal, R. 2002 Effects of nitrogen
deposition on growth andsurvival of montane Racomitrium
lanuginosum heath BiologicalConservation 104 83-89.
348. SEPA. 2019 Long-term riverwater quality indicator, available
at: https://www.sepa.org.uk/
environment/water/aquaticclassification/river-water-qualityindicator/.
349. Whelan, M. J., et al. 2022
Is water quality in British rivers“better than at any time since theend of the Industrial Revolution”?
Science of the Total Environment
843, 157014.
350. Wilson, M. W., et al. 2023
An analysis of Scottish Raptor
Monitoring Scheme data to
improve understanding of
the impact of the 2022 Avian
Influenza outbreak on raptors andraptor populations in Scotland.
351. Blackstock, T.H., Habitatsof Wales: A comprehensive Field
Survey, 1979-1997 2010: Universityof Wales Press.
352. Johnstone, I.G., et al., Birds
of Conservation Concern Wales
4: the population status of birds
in Wales. Milvus: the Journal of
the Welsh Ornithological Society,2023. Online first.
353. Blockeel, T., et al., Atlas ofBritish & Irish Bryophytes. 2014:
Pisces publications.

208

356. Rowe EC, et al., Trends Report2022: Trends in critical load andcritical level exceedances in theUK. 2022, Report to Defra underContract AQ0849, UKCEH project
07617.
357. Martay, B., et al., Impactsof climate change on national
biodiversity population trends.
Ecography, 2017. 40(10): p. 11391151.
358. Welsh Government. Written
Statement: Taking forwardmarine planning following thethree-year review of the Welsh
National Marine Plan. 2023
[cited 2023 28th April]; Available
from: https://www.gov.wales/
written-statement-takingforward-marine-planningfollowing-three-year-reviewwelsh-national-marin359. Brand, A. Land use andrural policy: subject profile.
2021 [cited 2023 17th January];
Available from: https://digitalpublications.parliament.
scot/ResearchBriefings/
Report/2021/8/19/fd352596-863e4e0f-9a5e-84af26856d74-1
360. NatureScot. Scotland’s
indicators - Terrestrial Insect
Abundance – Butterflies. 2023;
Available from: https://www.
nature.scot/doc/scotlandsindicators-terrestrial-insectabundance-butterflies
361. NatureScot. 2023 Scottish
Terrestrial Breeding Birds 1994 –2021. Available at: https://www.
nature.scot/doc/official-statistics-

scottish-terrestrial-breedingbirds-1994-2021 Last accessed 1stJune 2023.
362. Buchanan, G.M., et al.,Quantifying the importance ofmulti-scale management andenvironmental variables onmoorland bird abundance. Ibis,
2017. 159(4): p. 744-756.
363. NatureScot. Scotland’s
Indicators - Wintering Waterbird
Indicator. 2023 [cited 2023 10thMay]; Available from: https://www.nature.scot/doc/scotlandsindicators-wintering-waterbirdindicator
364. NatureScot. Scotland’s
Indicators. 2023 [cited 2023 10thMay]; Available from: https://www.nature.scot/informationhub/indicators-trends/scotlandsindicators
365. Walker, K., et al., Britain’s
changing flora: a summary of theresults of Plant Atlas 2020. 2023.
366. Environment Agency.
State of the water environment
indicator B3: supporting evidence.
2023 [cited 2023 1st August];
Available from: https://www.gov.
uk/government/publications/state-of-the-water-environmentindicator-b3-supporting-evidence
367. Pakeman, R.J., et al.,Identifying drivers of change inbryophyte and lichen species
occupancy in Scotland. Ecological
Indicators, 2022. 139: p. 108889.
368. Ellis, C. and B. Coppins, Five
decades of decline for old-growthindicator lichens in Scotland.
Edinburgh Journal of Botany,
2019. 76(3): p. 319-331.
369. NatureScot. Scottish
Biodiversity Indicator - The
Numbers and Breeding Success of
Seabirds (1986 - 2019). 2023 [cited
2023 10th May]; Available from:https://www.nature.scot/doc/scottish-biodiversity-indicatornumbers-and-breeding-successseabirds-1986-2019

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References370. Scottish Government.
Sustainability of Fish Stocks.
2020 [cited 2023 10th May];
Available from: https://nationalperformance.gov.
scot/chart/sustainability-fishstocks#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20
an%20estimated%2069%20per%20
cent%20of,from%202019%20
and%2035%20percentage%20
points%20from%202000
371. Camphuysen, C., S. Gear, andR. Furness, Avian influenza leads
to mass mortality of adult Great
Skuas in Foula in summer 2022.
Scottish Birds, 2022. 4: p. 312-23.
372. DAERA, Statistical Review ofNorthern Ireland Agriculture 2021:
Agriculture, Fishing & Forestry.
2022, DAERA.
373. DAERA/NIEA, Northern
Ireland Environmental Statistics:
Table 5.3a Wild bird populations inNorthern Ireland, 1996 – 2019, 56
species. 2022, DAERA/NIEA.
374. Burns F, et al., The state of
the UK’s birds 2020. 2020, The
RSPB, BTO, WWT, DAERA, JNCC,
NatureScot, NE and NRW: , Sandy,
Bedfordshire.
375. Fox R, et al., The State of
the UK’s Butterflies 2022. 2023,
Butterfly Conservation: Wareham,UK.
376. Fox R, et al., The Stateof Britain’s Larger Moths
2021. Butterfly Conservation,
Rothamsted Research and UK
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology,
Wareham, Dorset, UK.
377. Gilbert, G., A. Stanbury, andL. Lewis, Birds of conservation
concern in Ireland 4: 2020–2026.
Irish Birds, 2021. 43: p. 1-22.
378. Newton, S., et al., Birds ofconservation concern in Ireland.
Irish Birds, 1999. 6(3): p. 333-344.
379. DAERA, Statistical review ofNI agriculture 2007 onward. 2022,
DAERA.

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

380. DAERA. Farmlands andgrasslands. 2023 [cited 2023 14thMay]; Available from: https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/
farmlands-and-grasslands
381. DAERA, Northern Ireland
Peatland Strategy 2021-2040.
Consultation Document 2021.
2021, DAERA.
382. DAERA. 2023 Draft Ammonia
Strategy, Available at: https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/sites/
default/files/consultations/
daera/Draft%20Ammonia%20
Strategy%2003%2001%2023.PDF.
383. DAERA, Water Framework
Directive Statistics Report. 2021,
DAERA.
384. Booth Jones, K.e., The
Northern Ireland Seabird Report
2022. 2023, British Trust for
Ornithology: Thetford.
385. Defra. Wild bird populations
in England, 1970 to 2021. 2023
[cited 2023 10th May]; Available
from: https://www.gov.uk/
government/statistics/wild-birdpopulations-in-england/wildbird-populations-in-england1970-to-2021#executive-summary
386. Woodward, I., et al.,Population estimates of birds
in Great Britain and the United
Kingdom. British Birds 2020. 113:
p. 69-104.
387. Defra. England Biodivesrity
indicators. 4a. Status of priority
species: relative abundance. 2021
[cited 2023 10th May]; Available
from: https://www.gov.uk/
government/statistics/englandbiodiversity-indicators
388. Wilkins, T.C., R.J. Wilson, and
A.F. Brown, Outcome Indicator
Framework for England’s 25
Year Environment Plan: D5
Conservation status of our native
species – Technical Document
2022. NERR124. 2022, Natural
England: York, UK.

390. UK Government, Structureof the agricultural industry inEngland and the UK at June. 2019,
UK Government.
391. JNCC, UK Biodiversity
Indicators: B1a. Agri-environment
schemes, JNCC, 2021.
392. UK Government, Policy
Paper: British Energy Security
Strategy. 2022, UK Government.
393. Lim, D.Y., T. Starnes, and
A.J. Plumptre, Global priorities
for biodiversity conservation in
the United Kingdom. BiologicalConservation, 2023. 277: p.
109798.
394. Defra, 2023. OIF Indicator K4:
Extent and condition of terrestrial
and marine protected areas in the
UK Overseas Territories, Defra.
Available at: https://oifdata.defra.
gov.uk/themes/international/K4/
395. UK Biodiversity Clearing
House Mechanism. UKOT
and CD implementation of
CBD. 2023 [cited 2023 27th
January]; Available from: https://
uk.chm-cbd.net/ukot-and-cdimplementation-of-cbd
396. Churchyard, T., et al.,The biodiversity of the United
Kingdom’s Overseas Territories: astock take of species occurrence
and assessment of key
knowledge gaps. Biodiversity andConservation, 2016. 25: p. 16771694.
397. IUCN, The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 20222. 2023, IUCN.
398. Bubb, P., et al., IUCN Red List
index: Guidance for national andregional use. Version 1.1. 2009:
IUCN.
399. Defra, 2023. OIF Indicator
K3: Status of endemic andglobally threatened species in the
UK Overseas Territories, Defra.
Available at: https://oifdata.defra.
gov.uk/themes/international/K3/

389. UK Government, 2021.
Environment Act 2021, UK
Government.
209

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

400. Dulvy, N.K., et al., Overfishing
drives over one-third of all
sharks and rays toward a global
extinction crisis. Current Biology,
2021. 31(21): p. 4773-4787. e8.
401. Morris, N.G. and C.M. Sharpe,
Birds of Conservation Concern in
the Isle of Man 2021. British Birds
2021. 114 p. 526–540.
402. Caravaggi, A., et al., The
impacts of introduced House Miceon the breeding success of nestingseabirds on Gough Island. Ibis,
2019. 161(3): p. 648-661.
403. Bell, E.A. and J.C. Daltry, Dog
Island Restoration Project: Twoyear Assessment Following theEradication of Black Rats (Rattus
rattus) From Dog Island, Anguilla.
2014, Wildlife Management
International Ltd and Fauna &Flora International: New Zealandand UK.
404 Natural History Museum,
Data Portal Query on “long_data.
csv” created at 2023-07-12
20:26:18.425729 PID https://doi.
org/10.5519/qd.n6iir63t. Subset
of “The Biodiversity Intactness
Index - country, region andglobal-level summaries for theyear 1970 to 2050 under various
scenarios” (dataset) PID https://doi.org/10.5519/he1eqmg1 2023

Historical change
How to interpret this report

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

407. Aughney, T., N. Roche, and
S. Langton, Irish Bat Monitoring
Programme 2018-2021. Irish
Wildlife Manuals, No. 137. 2022,
National Parks and Wildlife
Service: Department of Housing,
Local Government and Heritage,
Ireland.).
408. Boyd, R.J., et al., ROBITT: A
tool for assessing the risk-of-bias
in studies of temporal trends inecology. Methods in Ecology and
Evolution, 2022. 13(7): p. 14971507.)
409. DAERA, The Climate Change
Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 – Keyelements, DAERA, 2022.
410. DAERA. 2021 Draft
Environment Strategy for
Northern Ireland, Available at:https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/
sites/default/files/consultations/
daera/Draft%20Environment%20
Strategy.PDF

405. RSPB. Wallasea Island Wild
Coast Project. 2022 [cited 2023
01/08/2023]; Available from:https://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/casework/cases/wallaseaisland/
406. Welsh Government. Energy
Generation in Wales. 2020. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/
publications/2022-06/energygeneration-in-wales-2020.pdf

RSPB Haweswater Nature Reserve,
Rosie Dutton (rspb-images.com)

210

211

Summary

Key findings

State of biodiversity data

Historical change
How to interpret this report

Report citation

Collecting biodiversity data

Burns, F, Mordue, S, al Fulaij, N, Boersch-Supan, PH,
Boswell, J, Boyd, RJ, Bradfer-Lawrence, T, de Ornellas,P, de Palma, A, de Zylva, P, Dennis, EB, Foster, S, Gilbert,
G, Halliwell, L, Hawkins, K, Haysom, KA, Holland,
MM, Hughes, J, Jackson, AC, Mancini, F, Mathews, F,
McQuatters-Gollop, A, Noble, DG, O’Brien, D, Pescott,
OL, Purvis, A, Simkin, J, Smith, A, Stanbury, AJ,
Villemot, J, Walker, KJ, Walton, P, Webb, TJ, Williams,
J, Wilson, R, Gregory, RD, 2023. State of Nature 2023,
the State of Nature partnership, Available at:

Structured monitoring schemeswww.stateofnature.org.uk

Acknowledgements
The monitoring and research that underpins
this report, and our wider knowledge of thestate of nature in the UK, its four component
countries and its Crown Dependencies andOverseas Territories, is conducted by a wide
variety of organisations and thousands ofindividuals. We do not have space here torecognise all their contributions individually
but offer our collective thanks to them all.

Valuing volunteers
We wish to thank the thousands of dedicatedvolunteers who collect much of the data
upon which our knowledge of the state ofnature is based. Many are supporters of theorganisations within the State of Nature
partnership and contribute to systematic
monitoring and recording schemes. Without
their efforts, our knowledge of the health of
the UK’s nature would be just a fraction ofwhat it is.
Additionally, we would like to thank all of
the volunteers who are involved in the many
conservation projects underway around the
UK to address the issues facing our wildlife.
Without them, the challenge would bemuch greater.

A number of organisations play a key role inrunning structured monitoring schemes forwildlife in the UK, providing the trends inabundance that underpin key State of Nature
metrics. With some examples of the schemes
run, these include:
Bat Conservation Trust (National Bat Monitoring
Programme), British Trust for Ornithology/RSPB/JNCC (Breeding Bird Survey, Wetland Bird Survey),
Butterfly Conservation/Centre for Ecology andHydrology (UK Butterfly Monitoring Programme),
People’s Trust for Endangered Species (National
Dormouse Monitoring Programme), Rare Breeding
Birds Panel and Rothamsted Research (Rothamsted
Insect Survey). Marine data were provided largelyby the Marine Biological Association, JNCC, Marine
Conservation Society and the Sea Mammal
Research Unit.

Recording societies
Data were provided by the Biological Records
Centre from the following recording schemes
and societies:
Aquatic Heteroptera Recording Scheme; Bees, Wasps
and Ants Recording Society; Botanical Society of
Britain and Ireland; British Arachnological Society –Spider Recording Scheme; British Bryological Society;
British Dragonfly Society – Dragonfly Recording
Network; British Lichen Society; British Myriapod andIsopod Group – Centipede and Millipede Recording
Schemes; Chrysomelidae Recording Scheme;
Conchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland;
Cranefly Recording Scheme; Empididae, Hybotidae& Dolichopodidae Recording Scheme; Fungus Gnat
Recording Scheme; Gelechiid Recording Scheme;
Grasshopper Recording Scheme; Ground Beetle
Recording Scheme; Hoverfly Recording Scheme;
Lacewings and Allies Recording Scheme; National
Moth Recording Scheme; Riverfly Recording Schemes:
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera; Soldier
Beetles, Jewel Beetles and Glow-worms Recording
Scheme; Soldierflies and Allies Recording Scheme;
Staphylinidae Recording Scheme; Terrestrial
Heteroptera Recording Schemes; UK Ladybird Survey;
Weevil and Bark Beetle Recording Scheme and by theMammal Society.

Many other State of Nature partners
contribute biological records to theseschemes, and support the evidence basethat underpins this report in a myriad of212

Conservation response
Methods

UK countries
References

ways. National governments and nongovernmental bodies support the monitoringof wildlife within the UK Overseas Territories.

Supporting report production
In addition to the authors of this report,
conservationists from the State of Nature
partners and other organisations haveprovided data, analyses, case studies andguidance, and have given their time to review
drafts during the production of the State of
Nature 2023 report. In particular, we wish
to thank:
Alex Phillips, Alex Scorey, Alex Try, Ali Hood, Ali
Morse, Ali Plummer, Alice Hardiman, Alison Debney,
Alison Kuznets, Alistair Whyte, Andrew Callender,
Andy Lester, Anna Moscrop, Anne-Marie McDevitt,
Antje Steinfurth, Anton Kuech, Barnaby Coupe, Ben
Darvill, Ben Dempsey, Ben James, Ben McCarthy,
Bruce Wilson, Bryony Townhill, Calum Duncan, Carl
Bunnage, Caroline Mead, Caroline Offord, Charlie
Butt, Charlotte Coombes, Chris Ellis, Chris Lynam,
Christine Edwards, Christine Reid, Claire Dinham,
Clare Ostle, Clarus Chu, Colin Charman, Craig
Macadam, Daisy Durden, Damian McFerran, Danae
Orellana, Daniel Barrios-O’Neill, Daniel Hayhow,
Daniel Whitelegg, David Johns, David Reed, Deborah
Long, Eleanor Colver, Elliott Newton , Emily Williams,
Emma Durham, Emma Lowe, Fiona Dobson, Fiona
Sanderson, Frances Winder, Fred Rumsey, GarethThomas, Gary Powney, Glyn Young, Gordon Rothero,
Graham Walley, Hannah Ryan-Leah, Harriet Downey,
Hazel Forrest, Heather Lewis, Helen Mclachlan, Helen
Smith, Hendrikus van Hensbergen, Hugh Wright, Ian
Johnstone, Ian Mitchell, Isobel Mercer, Jack Renwick,
Janet Simkin, Janice Ansine, Jason Reeves, Jen
Smart, Jenny Hawley, Jenny Oates, Jeremy Wilson,
Jo Richards, Jo Riggall, Joe Taylor, John Jackson,
John Wilkinson, Jonathan Hall, Julia Henney, Kate
Jennings, Katherine Boughey, Katherine Griffith,
Katherine Hawkins, Kenny Bodles, Kirsten Carter,
Kirsten Ramsay, Kirsty Meadows, Kit MacLeod ,Laura Bambini, Laurence Jarvis, Leah Farquharson,
Leigh Morris, Liam Matear, Linda Wilson, Lindsay
Pyne, Lisa Chilton, Liz Carney, Lizzie Wilberforce,
Lorna Holloway, Lucy Babey, Lucy Rogers, Lucy
Young, Lyndon John, Maggie Hatton-Ellis, Malcolm
Ausden, Mandy Henshall, Marc Woodhall, Mark
Eaton, Mark Gurney, Mark Jacob, Mark Woodall, Mark
Wright, Martin Willing, Mary Gagen, Matt Harding,
Matt Heydon, Matt Larsen-Daw, Matthew Lewis,
Matthew Murphy, Meg Griffiths, Megan Towers, Mel
Broadhurst-Allen, Michael Dodd, Mike Shurmer,
Murray Thompson, Naomi Ewald, Natasha Lough,

UKOTs and CDs

AppendicesAcknowledgements and Partners

Neil Morris, Neil Sanderson, Niamh Roche, Nick
Birula, Nicola Hodgins, Nicola Rimmington, Nigel
Bourn, Niki Clear, Nina Cornish, Nina Schonberg,
Patrick Lindley, Paul Armstrong, Pete Chaniotis,Peter McEvoy, Philip Whelpdale, Poppy Cooney,
Rachel Sharp, Rachel Taylor, Randolph Velterop,
Richard Bradbury, Richard Comont, Richard Hearn,
Richard Selman, Rob Field, Rob Hughes, Rob Ward,
Robin Pakeman, Roland Gauvain, Rona Sinclair, RoyTapping, Russell Galt, Ruth Taylor, Sam Bosanquet,
Sandy Coppin, Sara McGuckin, Sarah Bird, Sarah
Havery, Sarah Young, Shayla Ellick, Sian Thomas,
Simon Duffield, Simon Walmsley, Sinead Lynch,
Sophie Rosas, Steve Whitbread, Teresa Osborne, Tim
Birch, Tom Brereton, Tom Evans, Tom Finch, Tom
Stringell, Tristan Hatton-Ellis, Una Fitzpatrick, Vanessa
Amaral-Rogers, Will George and Yvette Martin as well
as all the photographers for the use of their images.
We would also like to thank colleagues at The Point for
producing the report.

Providing funding
In addition to data, time, effort and expertisefrom individuals and organisations acrossthe partnership, JNCC, the People’s Trustfor Endangered Species, National Museums
Northern Ireland, National Trust, RSPB,
Scottish Environment Link, the Wildlife
Trusts and WWF funded production ofthis report.
We are grateful to the many charitable
trusts, grant-giving bodies, companies
and private individuals that provide vitalfunding for the monitoring of wildlife in
the UK. Additionally, government agencies
conduct or support much of the recording,data collation, analysis and reporting of thestate of the UK’s wildlife that has made thisreport possible. In particular, the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee, Natural England,
Natural Resources Wales, the Department for
Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs
Northern Ireland and NatureScot makesignificant contributions to the provision ofmonitoring across the separate parts of the
UK. Other UK, national and local government
bodies also do much to support the recordingof wildlife and habitats, as do a wide variety
of non-governmental organisations not
represented within the State of Nature
partnership.
213

The State of Nature 2023 report is acollaboration between the conservation
and research organisations listed below:

2023

Birds
Science
PeopleVincent Wildlife Trustwww.stateofnature.org.uk

PARTNERSHIP