Biodiversity loss and nature recovery

Elena Ares; Jonathan Wentworth

Overview

In England, there are legally binding targets for 2030 and 2042 on species abundance, improving habitats and reversing species loss. There is also an international target for the UK to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 (House of Commons Library Insight).

Horizon scan contributors highlighted a need to increase understanding of biodiversity loss and its implications for a range of policy areas if targets are to be met.

The government publishes annual UK biodiversity indicators (UKBIs, PN 644, PB 41). The majority of 2023 UKBIs showed declines or little change since 1970s and 1980s.[1] The government has highlighted that the all-species indicator has shown an overall decline to around 69% of its starting value in 1970. In Great Britain, 16% of animal and plant species are currently in a high extinction risk category.[2][3][4]

The government set out polices for reversing biodiversity loss in England in its Environment Improvement Plan (EIP) in January 2023.[5] In January 2024, the Office of Environmental Protection, England’s environment regulator, concluded that the government’s prospects of meeting key targets and commitments were “largely off track”.[6] In July 2024, the new government published its annual report on the EIP. It also announced a rapid review and update of the EIP by the end of 2024.[7]

The horizon scan identified several areas as relevant to the next parliament for addressing biodiversity loss. These included:

determining the best approaches for data gathering, to enable mapping existing biodiversity and monitoring any changes over time[8]
the poor condition of existing protected sites, and a need to ensure enough land is available to create a well-connected network of nature recovery sites (PN 652)
the use of approaches such as rewilding and species reintroductions (PN 537)
improving soil health as part of reversing biodiversity declines (PN 601)
the importance of human-nature interactions, and how these may benefit human health and wellbeing, as well as increasing support for the delivery of nature recovery policies[9]

Challenges and opportunities

Under the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) the UK has committed to protecting 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030.[10] The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee highlighted the “extraordinary challenge” ahead, estimating there will be a need to protect a further three million hectares of land in England by 2030 to achieve “30 by 30”.[11] The Committee also concluded that the complexity of delivering the 30 by 30 target at sea is even greater than on land.[8]

In 2023, in England the Wildlife and Countryside link stated that 8.45% of land had a nature designation whereas the UK biodiversity indicators stated 6.5%.[12][13] A significant proportion of protected sites are in a poor condition and studies estimate only around 5% of land is estimated to be effectively protected.[14] Researchers suggest a better understanding of the condition of existing protected areas and how to improve them will be important.[15] With this aim, the government has introduced targets for Protected Landscapes, such as National Parks, to improve the condition of protected sites and priority habitats.[16]

71% of UK land is used for agriculture and several studies suggest the intensification of agricultural production has led to the decline of species such as farmland birds.[17][18][19][20] Meeting national biodiversity targets will also require extending nature recovery to encompass other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM) outside protected areas.[21] OECMs are a newly defined conservation area type that does not need to have conservation as its primary objective, so most of the focus here will be on identifying and formally recognising such sites .[22]

Studies suggest a better understanding is needed of how to map, measure and improve connectivity between biodiverse areas.[23][24] Natural England and other partners announced six areas covering 176,000 hectares that will form part of England’s Nature Recovery Network.[25][26][27] The government has committed to publishing a land use framework, which may help to clarify some of these issues.[28]

Protected area and OECM management increasingly encompass approaches such as rewilding and species reintroduction. Rewilding works to restore whole ecosystem function, rather than focusing on recovering individual species or habitats (as do established ecological restoration approaches, PB 48). In England, there is currently no official definition of rewilding, whereas in Scotland the government has defined what it means with the aim of informing policy.[29] There are challenges around how rewilding approaches sit alongside traditional conservation activities (PN 537).[30]

A better understanding of the role and impact of species translocations and reintroductions, including of ecosystem engineers such as beavers, will also be important.[31] The Environment Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Select Committee has previously recommended the government produce a list of priority species for reintroduction as part of a species reintroduction strategy.[32] The government did not accept this. It set up the England Species Reintroduction Taskforce in 2023 as an independent advisory body that has the objective of realising “the full benefits of species conservation translocations for nature recovery and society”.[33]

Climate change affects species distributions (PN 617), presenting further challenges for traditional conservation approaches, such as novel groups of non-native species occurring in habitats (PN 679, PN 678, PN 673).[34] Management actions can include species reintroductions and translocations of species to help adaptation to climate change, but are not an alternative to reversing wider biodiversity loss and promoting nature recovery (PN 678, PN 679).

Nature based solutions (NbS), such as natural flood control and reforestation using native species, offer opportunities to simultaneously address climate impacts and improve biodiversity, while also creating societal benefits.[35] Natural England is exploring and developing the evidence base for NbS via its Nature Returns programme.[36]

Researchers suggest that increasing and improving the use of technology will be needed for establishing and mapping biodiversity baselines, and monitoring any changes, if land use policies are to deliver for nature.[37][38] The government published a policy paper from the Geospatial Commission in May 2023 on integrating data, science and innovation for better use of land.[39] This identified understanding the biodiversity baseline and monitoring change as crucial in delivering the commitments in the EIP. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has launched funding rounds for innovative approaches to environmental monitoring.[40]

There is ongoing work at Natural England on mapping species, habitats (using machine learning) and peat soils.[41][42] Monitoring and mapping will be important in delivering key policies including Local Nature Recovery Strategies (PN 652),[43] Biodiversity Net Gain (PN 728),[44] and assessing the condition of protected areas and OECMs.[45] Monitoring to increase understanding of how climate change affects species distributions will also be important.[25] Improved monitoring and reporting of marine biodiversity (PN 698) has been highlighted as key to meeting the 30 by 30 target at sea.

Soil health, and its role in sustaining healthy biodiverse ecosystems[46] was highlighted as important in addressing biodiversity loss. For example, eroding agricultural soil washed into streams and waterways along with pesticides and fertilisers impacts freshwater biodiversity.[47][48] Previous POST horizon scanning identified soil as an essential national asset. Soil health is an outcome indicator framework for the EIP, but the soil indicator is still being developed.[49] The EFRA Select Committee has called for the government to publish a soil health map by 2028. Improved understanding of soil health may increase resilience in agricultural productivity, creating opportunities for a regenerative approach, with lower inputs and costs in the long-term that will benefit farmers and biodiversity.[50]

Contributors to the horizon scan identified increasing human-nature interactions as creating a positive framework for nature recovery policies.[51] There is increasing research evidence of the positive impacts of nature for mental health and general wellbeing and of the intrinsic social and cultural value of nature.[52][53][54][55] The government has said that nature will have “a key part to play” in its mission to ”rebuild the NHS” and improve the health of the nation.[56]

There are tensions between protecting or setting aside spaces for nature to recover and increasing access to nature for everyone. Increasing access to nature has potential benefits for biodiversity, such as reducing visitor concentrations in over-visited areas.[57] Time spent in nature is also associated with positive attitudes and behaviours towards the natural environment.[58] However, there are potential negative impacts of increasing disturbance in existing and new areas and addressing these will be challenging.[59]

Key uncertainties/unknowns

Changes to existing policies such as Biodiversity Net Gain (PN 728) or Environmental Land Management (House of Lords Library, In Focus) because of the change in government.

The outcome of the Environment Improvement Plan review expected by the end of 2024. Outcomes of proposed policies such as the new National Planning Policy Framework and house building targets, or a Land Use Framework.

The impacts of interactions between the effects of climate change and efforts to restore biodiversity.

Key questions for parliament

How effective and co-ordinated are polices across the UK’s administrations for delivering the UK’s international obligations?
How coherent is the policy landscape in addressing biodiversity loss, and how might policy changes effect progress?
To what extent does the lack of comprehensive data on biodiversity (both land and marine) accessible to agencies and government departments hamper progress on delivering targets? Are funding needs for science and technology to monitor and measure change being met in agency and public body budgets? Are the funding and ecological skills required available to support the work that is needed?
What are the best approaches for maximising the co-benefits of nature-based solutions for climate change, biodiversity and society? What is the best way to increase access to good quality green spaces and nature? What does “increased responsible access to the countryside” referred to by the government look like in practice? How effective is farm funding, including for nature friendly approaches, for improving soil health?

References

[1] JNCC (2023). Overview of assessment of change for all indicators

[2] Defra (2024). Government launches rapid review to meet Environment Act target

[3] NBN (2023). State of Nature 2023

[4] UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (2023). Landmark Report Shows UK’s Terrestrial Wildlife Is Continuing To Decline

[5] Defra (2023)., Environment Improvement Plan

[6] OEP (2024). Government remains largely off track to meet its environmental ambitions, finds OEP in annual progress report

[7] Defra (2024) Government launches rapid review to meet Environment Act target

[8] Fenichel, E, et al. (2024). The path to scientifically sound biodiversity valuation in the context of the Global Biodiversity Framework. PNAS 121 (34) e2319077121

[9] Whitburn, J et al. (2020). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and pro-environmental behaviour. Conservation biology, Volume 34, Issue 1, pg 180-193

[10] House of Commons Library (2024). Biodiversity Loss: UK’s international obligations

[11] Environment and Climate Change Committee (2023). An extraordinary challenge: Restoring 30 per cent of our land and sea by 2030

[12] Wildlife and Countryside Link (2023). 30×30 in England 2023 Progress Report (PDF)

[13] JNCC (2021). UKBI – C1. Protected areas

[14] Bailey, J., et al. (2022). Protected Areas and Nature Recovery, British Ecological Society

[15] Starnes, T, et al. (2021). The extent and effectiveness of protected areas in the UK, Global Ecology and Conservation, Volume 30, e01745, ISSN 2351-9894

[16] Defra (2024). Protected Landscapes Targets and Outcomes Framework,

[17] Guerrero, I, et al. (2024). Agricultural intensification affects birds’ trait diversity across Europe. Basic and Applied Ecology, Volume 74, pg 40-48

[18] Rigal, S, et al. (2023). Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe. PNAS, 120 (21) e2216573120

[19] Burian, A. (2024). Biodiversity–production feedback effects lead to intensification traps in agricultural landscapes. Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 8, pg 752–760

[20] Defra and Government Statistical Service (2022). Agriculture in the UK Evidence Pack

[21] BES (2024)., A step forward in the journey towards 30by30 in England

[22] World Commission on Protected Areas Task Force on OECMs (2019). Recognising and reporting other effective area-based conservation measures

[23] Species have widely differing dispersal abilities, such as birds compared to reptiles. Understanding whether improving an area of land would lead to healthier overall populations of a species at the landscape level is not yet well supported by ecological data.

[24] Mancini, F. et al. (2022) Co-designing an Indicator of Habitat Connectivity for England. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10:892987

[25] Defra (2023). Nature recovery projects to boost wildlife and access to nature

[26] Natural England (2023). Nature Recovery Projects (England), Natural England Open Data Publication

[27] Defra (2024). The Nature Recovery Network]

[28] Written Question: Land use UIN HL398, 8 August 2024

[29] Scottish Government (2024). Defining rewilding for Scotland’s public sector: research findings, 3

[30] Carver, S, et al. (2021). Guiding principles for rewilding. Conservation Biology 35: 1882–1893

[31] IUCN, Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations [PDF], 2013

[32] Efra Select Committee Report, Species Reintroductions, HC849, 11 July 2023

[33] Defra, England Species Reintroduction Taskforce

[34] Harris, J, et al. (2024). Novel ecosystems: the new normal? The Niche, British Ecological Society

[35] BES (2021). Nature-based solutions for climate change in the UK

[36] Natural England (2024). Nature Returns Programme: interim report

[37] Crowther, L, et al. (2023). Harnessing biodiversity data to inform policy: Rapid regional audits should underpin Local Nature Recovery Strategies. Biological Conservation, 282, p.110004

[38] González, A. (2022). Strategic environmental assessment monitoring: the enduring forgotten sibling. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 40(2), 168–176.

[39] DSIT Policy Paper (2023). Finding common ground: Integrating data, science and innovation for better use of land

[40] UKRI (2024). Innovation in environmental monitoring

[41] Natural England (2024). Living England Habitats Map (Phase 4)

[42] Natural England (2024). With a lot of help from our friends: assembling an England Peat Map

[43] Crowther, L, et al. (2023). Harnessing biodiversity data to inform policy: Rapid regional audits should underpin Local Nature Recovery Strategies. Biological Conservation, 282, p.110004

[44] Rampling, E, et al. (2024). Improving the ecological outcomes of compensatory conservation by addressing governance gaps: A case study of biodiversity net gain in England. Conservation Biology, Volume38, Issue2, e14198

[45] Starnes, T, et al. (2021). The extent and effectiveness of protected areas in the UK, Global Ecology and Conservation, Volume 30, e01745, ISSN 2351-9894

[46] JRC European Soil Data Centre (2018). Soil biodiversity and soil erosion.

[47] Haase, P, et al. (2023). The recovery of European freshwater biodiversity has come to a halt. Nature volume 620, pg 582–588

[48] Dudgeon, D. (2019). Multiple threats imperil freshwater biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Current Biology, Volume 29, Issue 19, pg R960-R967

[49] Defra (2024. Outcome Indicator Framework for the 25 Year Environment Plan, E7: Healthy Soils

[50] Demos, Sowing resilience: unlocking the potential for regenerative farming, September 2023

[51] Richardson, M, et al. (2022). Country-level factors in a failing relationship with nature: Nature connectedness as a key metric for a sustainable future. Ambio 51, 2201–2213.

[52] Mental Health Foundation (2021). Nature: How connecting with nature benefits our mental health

[53] O’Brien, L, et al. (2024). Exploring the social and cultural values of trees and woodlands in England: A new composite measure. People and Nature, 00, 1–21.

[54] Irvine, K. et al. (2023). BIO-WELL: The development and validation of a human wellbeing scale that measures responses to biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 85, 101921

[55] Jones, F, et al. (2024). Testing the BIO-WELL Scale in Situ: Measuring Human Wellbeing Responses to Biodiversity within Forests. Available at SSRN.

[56] Defra, Speech by Defra Secretary of State at Summer Stakeholder Reception, 31 July 2024

[57] BES-EPG (2023). People, Policy & Nature: Public Access to Nature