Alan Lee1 , David E. Smith1 , Domitilla C Raimondo2 , Dewidine van Der Colff2 , Shae-Lynn E. Hendricks2 , Kyle Lloyd1

1. Birdlife South Africa

2. South African National Biodiversity Institute

Published

November 11, 2025


Cape rockjumper (Chaetops frenatus). Climate change and habitat loss are two of the main drivers of declines of South Africa’s birds. Now Near Threatened, the Cape Rockjumper epitomises the threats that are faced by endemic and range-restricted bird species. © Krista-Oswald
13%
of 728 taxa assessed are
Threatened
86%
of 652 taxa assessed are
Well Protected
7%
of 652 taxa assessed are
Poorly Protected

Key findings

  • In the current assessment, 728 taxa have been evaluated, and 26 of these species are endemic to South Africa, Eswatini, and Lesotho.

  • Nearly 13% (93) of assessed birds are threatened with extinction, with another 7% (54) assessed as Near Threatened.

  • Thirty-four percent (9 out of 26) of South Africa’s endemic birds are threatened with extinction, placing full responsibility for their protection on the Republic of South Africa.

  • Birds are becoming increasingly threatened with extinction, with 39 species uplisted to higher threat categories. While eight species were downlisted, showing some improvement in status.

  • The main pressures driving change in threat status have remained similar to those driving change in the previous assessments, but in this assessment, the plight of waterbirds has been highlighted, with many water birds being uplisted to a higher category of threat.

  • Freshwater health needs improvement to protect these species; however, it will require strong political commitment and resources. Many freshwater species are congregatory and thus vulnerable to disease outbreaks, making greater protection of key sites essential to slow declines. At the same time, urban freshwater systems offer valuable opportunities for citizen-led restoration and monitoring.

  • Using a subpopulation method based on proximal protected areas, a large proportion of birds are Well protected within the South African Protected Area Network (86% - 561 species); with only 7% Poorly Protected and in need of intervention to increase their protection level.

  • When protection level is assessed using a Minimum Conservation Population (MCP) approach that incorporates species-specific abundance thresholds, protection levels are far lower: only 10% of Red Listed species are Well Protected, while the vast majority (90%) remain inadequately protected despite occurring within the protected area network.

Figure 1. Density of 63 threatened terrestrial (i.e. non-seabird) bird species in South Africa (10 x 10 km grid) based on modelled distribution at the pentad scale, following the methods of Lee et al. 2020.

Protection level

To measure protection status, BirdLife South Africa applied two complementary approaches: a subpopulation-based method covering 667 terrestrial bird species, and a population-based method applied to 130 Red List species with available abundance estimates. (see approach below). The subpopulation approach confirms that most birds are spatially well represented within the protected area network, with over 84% classified as “Well Protected” in both 2017 (84.1%) and 2025 (84.9%), in broad agreement with the Retief and Marnewick (2017) study. Between 2017 and 2025, mean Protection Level scores increased from 7.50 (±0.32 SE) to 8.53 (±0.35 SE), representing a 13.7% increase, although only nine species (1.3%) showed improved protection categories between assessment periods – most gains were for species of low conservation concern.

The population-based analysis paints a more sobering picture, revealing that only 10% of threatened species meet minimum viable population thresholds inside protected areas. However, there was a positive movement to improved category status from 2017 to 2025: 123 of the 130 red list species did not reach the ‘well protected’ category in 2017, compared to 117 for 2025, representing an improvement of 4.6%. Together, these results highlight both the conservation value of South Africa’s protected areas and the gaps that remain, particularly for threatened, range-restricted and habitat-dependent species that require targeted expansion and improved management of the network (Lee and Ehlers Smith 2025).

Figure 6. Protection level for birds was assessed for 667 taxa. Analysis excluded peripheral taxa (those with less than 5% of distribution range occurring in South Africa); (A) shows the protection level for all taxa; (B) shows the protection level for South African endemics using the spatial protection method.
Figure 7. The overall protection level of bird species varies dramatically depending on the assessment method used as well as sets of species used. The analysis is based on actual populations for 130 of 193 species which were comprehensively assessed during the 2025 Red Listing process. ‘Subpopulations’ represents populations in connected protected area clusters, not subpopulations as per the IUCN definition for Red Listing.
Figure 8. The endemic, range-restricted and Vulnerable red lark (Calendulauda burra) is an example of a species receiving marginal benefit from the Protected Area Network in 2017. However, with the advent of the declaration of Meerkat National Park, the number of pentads under the Protected Area Network rose from five to 28. © David Ehlers Smith

Species recovery

Despite South Africa’s extensive protected area network, many bird species remain at high risk of extinction because they face pressures that persist even when habitat is nominally safeguarded. Large birds, including vultures and storks, are prime examples. Recovery interventions are therefore critical to prevent imminent extinctions and to reverse long-term declines. Birds requiring recovery action tend to fall into three groups: (1) highly range-restricted endemics whose tiny populations are declining faster than habitat loss alone can explain; (2) species exposed to direct anthropogenic pressures such as poisoning, fisheries interactions, or collisions with energy infrastructure; and (3) island or seabird populations threatened by invasive predators at breeding sites.

Priority areas for bird recovery are guided by the 2025 Red List assessments and subsequent expert consultations. These processes identified species whose continued declines are unlikely to be halted by protected area coverage alone, and which therefore require targeted interventions. While the expansion of protected and conserved areas under Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 3 is essential, recovery planning shows that protection alone is insufficient unless paired with targeted species-focused measures. Where published prioritization exists, such as the Biodiversity Management Plan for Vulturesd2024a? or the Mouse-Free Marion Project plans, these form the basis for coordinated action. In other cases, BirdLife South Africa and partners use a combination of Red List urgency, ecological feasibility, and opportunity for partnerships with landowners or government to determine priorities.

Selected active recovery projects are highlighted below (Table 4). This showcases both the diversity of interventions needed and the scale of resources required. Some species, such as Botha’s Lark, require stewardship agreements and changes in land-use practices to secure remnant grassland habitat. Others, such as the Blue Swallow, demand artificial nest-site provisioning and alien clearing in addition to site protection. For marine birds such as the African Penguin, population recovery hinges on fisheries reform, fishery closures around key colonies, and advocacy on threats such as ship-to-ship bunkering.

Several threatened vultures (White-backed, Lappet-faced, Hooded and White-headed Vultures) require landscape-scale threat reduction, including poison-response networks, regulation of traditional medicine markets, a change in the hunting culture for a preference for lead-based ammunition, and mitigation of electrocution and collision risks. In contrast, the Bearded Vulture recovery strategy combines in situ action with a long-term ex situ programme (“Bearded Vulture Captive Breeding Project”), where harvested eggs are raised in captivity and juveniles reintroduced. Species like the Black Harrier highlight the urgent need for collision mitigation at wind energy facilities, given population viability models showing extreme sensitivity to adult mortality.

On Marion Island, a suite of seabird species (including albatrosses, petrels, and prions) are threatened by invasive House Mice, which predate on chicks and even adults. Without eradication, local extinctions are predicted within a century. The Mouse-Free Marion Project, budgeted at over R560 million, represents the largest single bird recovery initiative underway in southern Africa. See marine bird page for further details.

Collectively, these examples illustrate that recovery work is expensive and long-term, with estimated costs for the next five years exceeding R695 million and current funding falling short by hundreds of millions. While interventions are in place for many species, most require upscaling if they are to prevent extinctions. Success will depend on strong partnerships among government, NGOs, researchers, landowners, and local communities, and on mobilising significant new resources to match the scale of the challenge, in alignment with global commitments such as GBF Target 3 (expansion and effective management of protected areas) and GBF Target 4 (halting species extinctions and promoting recovery).

Table 3. Some of the active recovery projects on South African birds.
Species Status Key Recovery Needs Current Interventions
Botha’s Lark CR Stewardship outside reserves; research into grazing impacts Stewardship and landowner engagement (BLSA, EWT)
Blue Swallow CR Stewardship; artificial burrows; alien clearing Stewardship and monitoring (BLSA, Conservation Outcomes)
White-backed Vulture CR Landscape-level poisoning prevention; population supplementation EWT Vultures for Africa; BLSA lead ammo awareness
Lappet-faced Vulture CR Landscape-level poisoning prevention; population supplementation EWT Vultures for Africa; poisoning intervention
Hooded Vulture CR Habitat protection; poisoning prevention EWT Vultures for Africa; habitat and poisoning response
Bearded Vulture CR Captive breeding programme with egg harvesting; threat mitigation Bearded Vulture Task Force, Bred-for-the-Wild project
African Penguin EN Fishery closures; colony stewardship; advocacy Colony management, BMP-S, new De Hoop colony, advocacy
Bank Cormorant EN Research; colony stewardship Linked to African Penguin work
Cape Gannet EN Colony stewardship; foraging management Linked to African Penguin work
White-headed Vulture EN Landscape-level poisoning prevention; population supplementation EWT Vultures for Africa; poisoning intervention
Black Harrier EN Collision mitigation at wind farms; habitat protection Research and advocacy on renewable energy impacts
Marion Island breeding spp Varies Eradication of invasive mice at Marion Island Mouse-Free Marion Project (BLSA, DFFE)

The Cape Vulture has suffered severe historical declines due to multiple threats, including poisoning (both intentional and accidental), collisions and electrocutions on powerlines, food shortages, disturbance at colonies, and illegal harvesting for the traditional medicine trade. Once widespread across southern Africa, the species has disappeared from large parts of its former range, and today is largely confined to South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, and parts of Mozambique.

In response, the species has become the focus of intensive conservation action. South African based NGO VulPro, established in 2007, has played a central role in rescue, rehabilitation, and release of injured birds, returning over 600 vultures to the wild and pioneering one of the only dedicated captive-breeding programmes for African vultures. Their facilities in Hartbeespoort and the Eastern Cape also provide a base for research on movement ecology, toxicology, and disease, alongside extensive education and community outreach.

Complementary initiatives by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) address systemic threats at both national and continental scales. Through its Vultures for Africa Programme, the EWT has trained more than 6,500 people in 17 African countries to respond to and manage poisoning incidents, produced a multilingual Wildlife Poisoning Response Protocol, and supported the adoption of at least nine national response plans in poisoning hotspots. The organisation also spearheaded International Vulture Awareness Day, now celebrated annually in over 40 countries, as well as long-term tracking and monitoring programmes that have established tagged populations in Mozambique, Zambia, Malawi, Namibia, Botswana and Uganda. At home, EWT leads South Africa’s Wildlife and Energy Programme, marking thousands of kilometres of powerlines in partnership with Eskom, and sits on the National Vulture Task Force and the Lead Task Team addressing poisoning and lead exposure.

At the international level, multiple conservation organisations have played a pivotal role in developing and reviewing the Multi-species Action Plan for African–Eurasian Vultures (Vulture MsAP) under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). Its 2023–24 mid-term review highlighted the escalating risks of belief-based use, bushmeat-related poisoning, and the collision threats posed by expanding renewable energy infrastructure. These findings underline the urgency of both national and transboundary collaboration to secure vulture populations. But as a result of these efforts, Cape Vulture was downlisted from Endangered (2015) to Vulnerable (2025).

Despite these successes, ongoing recovery remains essential. Cape Vultures face intensifying threats, particularly from collisions with rapidly expanding wind energy facilities where mitigation measures are not applied, and from increasing demand in the traditional medicine market. Sustained investment in rescue, rehabilitation, population supplementation, and systemic threat reduction (alongside continued political commitment, regional cooperation, and community involvement) will be vital to secure the long-term survival of this species.

Knowledge gaps

While many longstanding pressures on South Africa’s birds are well recognised, a number of emerging threats and uncertainties require urgent research attention.

Agriculture and expansion of croplands continues to be linked to biodiversity loss, but the dynamics of this have been poorly quantified. For example, the rapid expansion of shaded agriculture, where fruit orchards are increasingly sealed under giant greenhouse structures will likely have negative impacts on avian biodiversity. These prevent access to flowering trees by natural pollinators and may have cascading impacts on terrestrial biodiversity. Parallel to this, agrochemical use has grown substantially, yet its full impact on South African birds and other wildlife is poorly understood. In addition, the spread of novel crops, including genetically modified organisms introduced into new habitats, raises questions about long-term ecosystem impacts.

Climate change represents a cross-cutting pressure whose biodiversity impacts remain poorly quantified at the species level. Although broad projections suggest range contractions and distribution shifts for many taxa, very few South African birds have been assessed using bespoke best-practice models that integrate climatic, habitat and demographic data. This leaves major uncertainty about which species are most vulnerable, the likely magnitude of impacts, and where conservation interventions should be prioritised. Incorporating climate velocity, dispersal capacity, and habitat quality into future assessments will be critical to identify both high-risk species and potential refugia.

Energy demand is another fast-moving frontier. The growth of cryptocurrency mining and AI technologies is driving global electricity consumption, yet the scale and consequences for South Africa remain largely unquantified. At the same time, renewable energy developments, particularly the rapid rollout of wind energy projects in Mpumalanga and along the coast, pose escalating risks for birds and bats. Offshore wind is also emerging as a potential future pressure on marine biodiversity.

New biological challenges are also evident. The proliferation of novel diseases, often exacerbated by climate change and land-use shifts, poses unknown risks to terrestrial bird populations. Bush encroachment in the karoo, grasslands and savannas, inappropriate fire regimes, and habitat fragmentation continue to alter habitat quality for specialist species. Illegal ploughing and clearing of natural habitats remain a widespread challenge, often circumventing environmental impact assessments.

Marine and coastal systems face their own suite of emerging pressures. Sardine stocks remain depleted, yet sardines are a keystone prey resource for seabirds and other predators; current operational management procedures inadequately account for ecosystem needs. Coastal aquaculture, including reliance on fishmeal and bonemeal inputs, has ecological knock-on effects that are poorly quantified. Sand mining is expanding along the east coast, threatening coastal biodiversity. Meanwhile, ship-to-ship bunkering operations, paused off Algoa Bay but likely to increase elsewhere, introduce additional risks of oil spills, noise pollution, and chronic disturbance in sensitive seabird areas.

Addressing these gaps will require both targeted research and systematic integration of new pressures into future Red List and protection level assessments. Improved data on novel threats, particularly energy infrastructure, agrochemical exposure, and marine resource exploitation, will strengthen conservation planning and ensure that the National Biodiversity Assessment reflects the full scope of pressures shaping South Africa’s birdlife.

Aknowledgement

Coordinated by:

Table 4. List of contributors to mobilising IUCN Red List assessments ad support with field work during SANSA.
Contributor Affiliation
Hanneline Smit-Robinson Birdlife South Africa
Chris Kelly Wildlife ACT

Approach

Threat status

The Regional Conservation Assessment for the birds of South Africa, Lesotho, and Eswatini was conducted by BirdLife South Africa with contributions from 138 species experts. It was initiated in late 2021, and assessments concluded at the start of 2025. This assessment builds upon the 2015 Eskom Red Data Book findings. All of Southern Africa’s non-vagrant species were assessed for signs of decline using citizen science datasets such as SABAP2, CWAC and CAR3. Taxon experts conducted assessments, updating assessments conducted in 2015 and conducting new ones for newly identified species (See Regional Red List of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Eswatini here - https://www.birdlife.org.za/red-data-book/ ).

Species deemed vagrants or introduced to the assessment region were excluded. At least 5% of a species’ global population or distribution needed to fall within the region to qualify for an assessment. We used as a starting point BirdLife South Africa’s Checklist of South Africa’s birds for 2023. This lists 876 species, but 123 were vagrant and 10 introduced. Introduced and vagrant species are not assessed during the Red Listing process, leaving 753 species. The taxonomy followed is that of the IOC World Bird Listgill2024a?. During 2023, a focus was on assessing Seabird species, for which there are few public datasets available, and where assessments rely heavily on expert knowledge. In 2023, a comprehensive synthesis of citizen science datasets for terrestrial (including freshwater) bird species was undertaken and these datasets fed the 2024 assessments of terrestrial and freshwater birds3 4. The thresholds and methods follow IUCN Global and Regional Red List guidelines and take into account new data on distribution, population trends, and known threats (IUCN Red Listing process summary here).

Protection level

Protected areas are the backbone of biodiversity conservation in South Africa. To measure protection status, BirdLife South Africa first piloted a species-level Protection Level (PL) metric in 2017, measuring the number of viable bird subpopulations occurring in well-managed protected areas (Retief and Marnewick 2017). Species occurring in >20 protected areas were deemed to be well protected. The method was refined for the current National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) using improved spatial data, updated land-cover information, and a cluster-based definition of subpopulations, with >10 subpopulations required in protected area clusters. This framework allows a systematic comparison between 2017 and 2025, providing an evidence-based measure of how effectively the protected area network supports the long-term persistence of South Africa’s avifauna4.

Data source

4barnes2000a?

References

1. Butchart, S.H.M. et al. 2004. Measuring global trends in the status of biodiversity: Red list indices for birds. PLoS Biology 2: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383
2. Forestry, D. et al. 2024. Public notice for the national vulture multi-species biodiversity management plan (BMP). National environmental management: Biodiversity act, 2004 (act 10 of 2004), government notice 4517. Government Gazette 50306: 3–128.
3. Brooks, M. et al. 2022. The african bird atlas project: A description of the project and BirdMap data-collection protocol. Ostrich 93: 223–232. https://doi.org/10.2989/00306525.2022.2125097
4. Lee, A.T.K. & D.A. Ehlers-Smith. 2025. Measuring protection effectiveness for terrestrial bird species in protected areas in south africa. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.