OBSTACLES TO PROGRESS

Factors causing loss or decline of species and habitats

Since Lead Partners reassessed the factors causing loss or decline of their UK BAP priority species and habitats and ranked them according to their significance, a good indication of the key factors impacting on biodiversity has been provided. This is the first time that Lead Partners have had the opportunity to review the factors, identify emerging issues and rank the level of impact since the action plans were published. The UK Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group and the UK Biodiversity Research Action Group will take account of these results in setting forward work programmes.

Examination of these factors at a UK-wide scale should provide an overview of main issues affecting status and recovery of the UK BAP priority species and habitats and those areas where broad action would have most benefit. Lead Partners identified between one and 25 factors causing loss and decline (click here) to see how factors were ranked. Habitat loss, as a broad category, was clearly the dominant factor causing loss or decline of species (295 plans) or habitats (43 plans) in the UK, accounting for 61% of the total number of factors (Figure 1). Pollution was a distant second at 18% overall (24% for factors affecting habitats and 16% affecting species), and intrinsic factors (poor recruitment, restricted range, natural fluctuations, low population density / size etc.) accounted for 6% of the total number of factors. These top three issues account for nearly 85% of the factors causing loss or decline.

At a finer scale of detail, the factors are more evenly distributed, though habitat loss and degradation due to agriculture (18%), management practice (13%) and infrastructure development (9%) occupy the three top positions, accounting for 40% of the total (Figure 2). More detailed examination of the agricultural factors reveals that the key agricultural impacts include, grazing pressure, intensive cropping regimes and grassland management, and loss of hedgerows and field margins (Sustainable Development).

Habitat loss or degradation due to changes in woodland or forestry practice, (including decline of coppicing, loss of dead wood and lack of regeneration) and extraction or drainage are other significant factors (Figure 2). Land and freshwater pollution factors, particularly nutrient enrichment from agriculture and agro-chemical usage, contribute 11% of the total and were ranked higher than atmospheric pollution (5%) which includes impacts associated with global warming.

Constraints to plan implementation

The previous section looked at the ranked factors responsible for the loss or decline of UK BAP priority species and habitats. Changes to, or reduction of, the main factors identified above may have important positive affects on these species and habitats. Related to the topic of obstacles to progress, Lead Partners and Local Biodiversity Action Plan officers were asked to list the main constraints to implementation of their plans. The constraints are independent of the factors but their analysis below provides supplementary information to the overall obstacles to plan progress.

Species and habitat action plans

Lead Partners considered the top three constraints to account for 82% of all constraints cited, identifying key areas where change could positively influence success in delivering the species and habitat targets (Figure 3). Improving knowledge by undertaking further research is essential, with research, survey and information most frequently cited as a constraint and accounting for 40% of all constraints, impacting on 206 plans.

Other needs focus on more positive species and habitat management to address habitat fragmentation and declining habitat quality for species and habitats identified in 23% of constraints (131 plans) and increased and targeted funding and incentives (19% of constraints; 119 plans). Lead Partners also identified the need for change to European Union agricultural policy, enhanced site protection, more effective links between local and national action plans, and widening communication and involvement.

Looking at the issues in more detail, the key research, survey and information-related constraints encompass poor knowledge of autecology, genetics and taxonomy, a requirement for better understanding of habitat creation or restoration techniques and the need for baseline and monitoring surveys to assess status and trends (Figure 4).

If the categories are grouped, survey, monitoring and inventory-type categories rank highly accounting for 32% of the total. Identification techniques and specialist skills also rank high with 10% of the total while database type needs score 4%.

Lead Partners cited in particular, poor management and inappropriate grazing regimes leading to declining habitat quality and a lack of progress in achieving habitat creation and restoration as the most important species and habitat management-related constraints (Figure 5).

The most second important factor causing loss or decline of species or habitats was habitat loss due to management practice. It is interesting that habitat creation / restoration is also an important constraint (Figure 5).

Additional resources in terms of grants and staff time are significant issues for Lead Partners, whilst changes to agri-environment scheme criteria and payments would be beneficial (Figure 6).

Grouping all of the different incentive schemes accounted for 40% of the total with agricultural schemes accounting for 33%.

Solutions and opportunities

Addressing constraints is a key aspect of meeting the biological targets, tackling declines and reversing the negative trends of UK BAP priority species and habitats. Importantly Lead Partners identified specific solutions and opportunities to tackle these issues and in turn improve the potential for recovery of many of the species and habitats. Lead Partners felt that they could resolve 43% of the constraints they identified, either by themselves or through the collective efforts of their steering group. However the 57% of constraints (71% identified by habitat Lead Partners and 55% by species plans) represent real blockages to progress where additional and sustained input involving research, funding and sympathetic management would realise significant benefits.

Proposed solutions include:

• allocating funding for additional survey and research;
• extending agri-environment schemes that encompass prescriptions that target the requirements of a suite of species and habitats;
• influencing modulation and reform of the Common Agricultural Policy;
• additional staff resources, security of funding and access to specialist expertise, particularly to identify and survey those species that are difficult to recognise in the field;
• identifying suitable habitat and sites for habitat expansion or species re-introductions.

Local Biodiversity Action Plans

Local Biodiversity Action Plan officers identified a number of obstacles to progress for plans across England, Scotland and Wales. Funding, research and the action plan process emerged as the top three constraints accounting for 67% of all constraints cited (Figure 7). Funding and incentives account for 31% of all constraints impacting on Local Biodiversity Action Plan implementation for 65 partnerships, especially the lack of dedicated staff resources.

The most important broad constraints for Local Biodiversity Plans are funding and incentives and research, survey and information, which were similar to the main constraints identified by Lead Partners.

Other issues include the need for further survey and research with research, survey and information identified in 19% of all constraints (41 Local Biodiversity Action Plans) and resolving aspects of the action plan process, particularly the need to establish work plans and foster effective links with national action plans, 17% of constraints (33 Local Biodiversity Action Plans). Local Biodiversity Action Plan officers also identified the need for greater resonance of biodiversity with the general public, the need for change to European Union agricultural policy, greater support of the Local Biodiversity Action Plans by Government and the need to support Local Records Centres.

At a finer scale of detail, Local Biodiversity Action Plans are particularly concerned with addressing levels of staff resourcing as highlighted above and influencing the criteria and payments structure of agri-environment schemes (Figure 8).

Local Biodiversity Action Plan officers identified the need to undertake baseline and ongoing monitoring surveys to establish status and trends of national and locally important species and habitats within their area. This clear information requirement coupled with the valuable role of Local Records Centres in mobilising, managing and exchanging key datasets across the wider biodiversity partnership is confirmed by Local Biodiversity Action Plans (Figure 9).

Ensuring the action planning process is effective in supporting implementation rather than creating ‘plan fatigue’ is essential to the conservation and recovery of locally important species and habitats as well as those that are rare or rapidly declining. Developing effective and well-motivated partnerships, supported by dedicated officers, working towards clearly defined and measurable targets are aspects where there is more to do (Figure 10).