4.1 British Red Data Books for invertebrates
The first Red Data Book (RDB) for Insects was published by the government agency the Nature Conservancy Council in 1987 (Shirt, 1987). It was com- piled after almost a decade of detailed work by the RDB Criteria and Species Selection Committee, and a further 3 years by an RDB Production Committee.
These Committees consulted a wide range of experts in different taxonomic groups, and called on data that had been gathered by the Biological Records Centre at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), Monks Wood.
The RDB for Insects listed 1786 species as threatened using the origin al IUCN criteria, 14.5% of the total insect fauna. This was followed by a RDB for other invertebrates, which covered 144 species (Bratton, 1991). In the absence of detailed criteria for each IUCN category, criteria were defined for use at the national level (Table 4.1). Although most species that fell into the Endangered and Vulnerable category were undoubtedly under great threat, over half of the species listed fell into category 3, Rare, which was defined as any species found in 15 or fewer 10 km grid squares. Although some of these may be threatened, many had always been highly restricted due to their spe- cific ecological requirements.
Despite the enormous effort in compiling the two RDBs, their impact on con- servation policy was somewhat limited. The presence of Red Listed invertebrates
was included in the criteria for the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Nature Conservancy Council, 1989), but few sites were designated specif- ically for invertebrates. The majority of SSSIs were designated primarily on habitat grounds, with the aim of covering the best examples of each habitat within each
‘area of search’ within Britain. Perhaps the most important legacy of the RDBs was that they raised awareness of the huge number of insects under threat in Britain and the need to find out more about them. The need to identify important sites for RDB species also helped start the Invertebrate Site Register Project, which aimed to identify and document important sites for the conservation of invertebrates in Britain. The publications also provided a clear focus for the many invertebrate recording schemes that were run by volunteers and coordinated by the Biological Records Centre (see list in Shirt, 1987; Hawksworth, 2001).
4.2 The habitats versus species debate
A key question for conservationists at the time was does habitat conserva- tion lead to effective species conservation? It was widely assumed that this was the case and that if you conserved the best habitats across the coun- try, most species would also be conserved. However, most invertebrate ecol- ogists knew that this argument did not follow, because many invertebrates have very demanding requirements that may or may not be met within these habitats, and a large number of species did not occur in the ‘best’ selection of habitats because these were chosen largely on botanical grounds.
Thus key invertebrate habitats, such as dead wood and river shingles were rarely included, and the designated sites were rarely managed sufficiently to sustain populations of the more specialized invertebrates (e.g. Fry and Lonsdale, 1991). Two classic examples are those of National Nature Reserves at Monks Wood and Castor Hanglands in Cambridgeshire, which have lost 11 and 14 species of butterfly, respectively (one-third of their totals), including most of the threatened species listed in the RDB and many other habitat specialists (Thomas, 1991). With hindsight, we now know that some of these losses may have been inevitable because the reserves are too small and isolated to maintain viable populations in the long term. However, many others were lost due to insufficient habitat management. For example, at Monks Wood the cessation of coppicing, which formerly provided open habitats for many butterflies, is seen as a major cause of the loss of specialist species. The wood still holds some important inverte- brate populations, but it is a shadow of its former self. The sad part is that the same story has been repeated in hundreds of sites up and down Britain, which has resulted in major declines in butterflies and many other invertebrates (e.g.
Thomas and Morris, 1994; Asher et al., 2001; Hawksworth, 2001).
4.3 The UK biodiversity action plan
Following the signing of the Convention on the Conservation of Biodiversity at the Rio de Janeiro conference in 1992, the UK government initiated its
own response: the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). In order to press the case for greater action, a group of NGOs came together to form the Biodiversity Challenge Group. This group published its own detailed plans of how the government could take concerted action to conserve dwindling wildlife and wild habitats (Wynne et al., 1995). The Biodiversity Challenge Report took the pragmatic view that a combined habitat and species approach was necessary to conserve biodiversity, and to take tar- geted action for species most under threat, or for which the UK had par- ticular global responsibility (e.g. endemics). The UK BAP took on board much of the rationale of this document, which led to the publication of a series of species action plans and habitat action plans (Department of the Environment, 1994, 1995).
To qualify as Priority Species (on the short list), they had to meet one of two main criteria:
1. Rapidly declining (>50% in the last 25 years);
2. Globally threatened.
Thus, although the list took into account some of the principles of the IUCN criteria, the intention was to produce a list of conservation priorities. Detailed species action plans were published for each priority species, including the following sections:
1. Current status;
2. Current factors causing decline;
3. Current action;
4. Action plan objectives and targets;
5. Proposed action with lead agencies (including sections on policy and legislation, site safeguard and management, species management and protection, advisory, future research and monitoring, communication and publicity).
The plans also established a cycle to review and modify plans at intervals of 3 years.
Although government agencies were identified for taking the lead on each individual action in the plans, a novel approach was to nominate a
‘Lead Partner’ for each species from the NGO community. Thus, the imple- mentation of the plans was intended to be a partnership that involved numerous government departments, NGOs and volunteers, and the busi- ness community.
Building on the platform of the British RDBs, new data flowing from numerous recording schemes, and the expertise of Alan Stubbs, it was pos- sible to compile a more relevant list of invertebrate priorities within the UK BAP (based on Wynne et al., 1995). The initial UK BAP list contained over 300 priority species, over half of which were invertebrates from a wide range of taxa (Table 4.3). This is the first time that invertebrates had been recognized in such a prominent way within the UK and has led to concerted action in recent years. The following two sections give two examples.
4.4 Implementing plans for Lepidoptera
Within the UK BAP, Butterfly Conservation was appointed as Lead Partner (or Joint Lead Partner) for 61 priority species of Lepidoptera, comprising 9 butterflies and 52 moths. The butterfly list was taken from an assessment of priorities using the three axes of a ‘conservation cube’: (i) national status (populations and trends using the new IUCN criteria adapted for use with the distribution survey data available for butterflies); (ii) international importance; and (iii) European/global conservation status (Warren et al., 1997). The listing of priority moths used simi- lar criteria and trends, which were taken from an analysis of pre- and post-1960 records held by the National Scarce Moth Recording Scheme (Wynne et al., 1995).
A series of UK-wide conservation projects have since been started under the Action for Butterflies and Action for Threatened Moths programmes funded in a large part by the statutory conservation agencies. This has led to positive action for all the species listed, involving a wide range of organizations at local and national level, as well as the involvement of many thousands of volun- teers (Warren, 2002). Several of these projects have received high profile media coverage and ministerial involvement, which has helped to raise awareness of biodiversity loss and the plight of invertebrates in general. The need to objec- tive information to identify conservation priorities and review progress has also been a major driver to develop a detailed recording scheme for butterflies (Asheret al., 2001) and more recently one planned for moths (Fox et al., 2005).
4.5 The Action for Invertebrates project
Nine of the priority species of invertebrate listed in the UK BAP, initially had no obvious organization to act as Lead Partner. To ensure that conserva-
Table 4.3. Invertebrates listed as Priority Species within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. (From Department of the Environment, 1995.)
No. spp.
Ants 4 Beetles 53 Bees 10
Butterfl ies 9
Crickets 4 Crustacea 3
Damselfl ies 1
Flies/mayfl ies 12
Molluscs 12 Moths 53 Worms 1 Total 164
tion effort was directed at these species, a consortium was formed in 2000 through members of the Biodiversity Challenge group, English Nature and Invertebrate Link. This led to a Project Officer being employed under the Action for Invertebrates project, which covers a diverse group of invertebrates including a freshwater Bryozoan, Lophopus crystallinus, a stonefly, Brachyptera putata, and several Coleopteran and other species. The project continues today with support from English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Butterfly Conservation and Buglife (Middlebrook, 2000, 2002 and 2005).
One of the species that the project currently covers is the cranefly, Lipsothrix nigristigma, which breeds in coarse woody debris within woodland streams. When it was originally listed as a priority species, there were recent records from only two sites but, thanks to targeted survey work funded by the BAP process, knowledge of the species has grown substantially and 34 sites had been identified by 2004 (S. Hewitt and J. Parker, 2004; A. Godfrey, 2005, unpublished data). In addition to providing specific conservation advice at these sites, the project has acted as a spear-head for raising aware- ness of a whole suite of invertebrates associated with woody debris in rivers and streams (see Table 4.4).
There are similar examples of other BAP priority species spear-heading several other crucial invertebrate conservation issues, such as the importance of dead wood and veteran trees (Bowen, 2003). The focus on threatened inver- tebrates listed in the BAP has led to widespread media coverage, even for some unlikely species. The media seems to be particularly fascinated by the ‘intrigue factor’ for species, such as the Depressed River Mussel (Pseudanodonta compla- nata) and the New Forest Beetle (Tachys edmondsi). It has also stimulated some popular surveys, including one for the Stag Beetle (Lucanus cervus), which involved 1300 recorders (Smith, 2003).
Table 4.4. Species associated with dead, wet timber: a neglected habitat for invertebrates that has been highlighted by action for the threatened cranefl y Lipsothrix nigristigma.
(From Godfrey, 2003.)
Group No. associated species Molluscs 6
Crustaceans 4
Mayfl ies 4
Damselfl ies 2
Stonefl ies 4
True bugs 1
Caddisfl ies 25
Beetles 21
True fl ies 79
Total 146
4.6 Revising the UK BAP lists
A significant difference between ‘traditional red lists’ and BAP listings is the strong commitment to review the relevance of the BAP priorities on a regular cycle. Within the BAP a review of the priority species and habitats was set in place on a 10-year cycle and was initiated late in 2004 for intended publication in 2005. A working group of Invertebrate Link, a UK wide gathering of invertebrate specialist and conservation organizations, which is co-chaired by Butterfly Conservation and the government’s Joint Nature Conservation Committee, contracted Buglife to coord- inate the invertebrate specialists of the UK. The review is a good example of how the BAP process has brought together statutory, NGOs and other expertise.
To date, over 40 specialist taxonomic coordinators have brought together the views of over 300 experts to develop the initial invertebrate species lists. The cri- teria were similar to those used in the original BAP (Department of Environment, 1995), but with much more flexibility to enable use of the best data-sets available.
For example, if survey intervals produce decline rates for 35 years rather than the preferred 25 years these have been accepted provided the rate is high enough to meet the criteria when adjusted to take into account the longer recording period.
This approach has enabled the working group to recommend over 500 candidate species that meet the criteria for inclusion in the new list. In add- ition, there is an agreed second stage to the process where consideration will be given to the practical mechanisms necessary to deliver conservation action. The working group is currently developing this approach with a view to the government publishing the updated list in 2006. A large number of additional Lepidoptera spp. are included in the proposed list due to new data on their rate of decline. They also include for the first time a group of 71 widespread moth species that meet both IUCN vulnerable criteria and BAP criteria due to their rapid rate of decline (Conrad et al., in preparation).
It is proposed that these are grouped into a single plan for action, mainly to research the reasons for their decline, which are still a matter for conjecture.
Overall, it is expected that the number of all priority species (animals and plants) in the UK BAP will rise from ~300 to over 1500 at the forthcoming review, as a result of the rapid decline and better knowledge of many groups.
To cope with this large number of additional species, there will have to be renewed effort to integrate species action plans within the relevant habitat action plans, a process which so far has been very patchy. This would also be a very healthy process as it would force better communication between ento- mologists and practitioners primarily concerned with habitat conservation, a process which has also been very partial in the past.