Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > reptile > Turtle |
| Red List Status: | (Not Relevant) [(not listed)(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | Leathery Turtle |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Dermochelys coriacea |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Vandelli, 1761) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | (not listed) |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | The leatherback turtle is classed by IUCN Red List Authority as Vulnerable and declining globally. It is a regular visitor to UK waters, where there are harmful but typically accidental encounters resulting in mortality. With a vulnerable and declining population, even low levels of mortality could be problematic. Recovery actions to reduce incidental mortality are warranted. In addition, this species acts as a good flagship for marine conservation and for connecting the UK to global conservation; this promotes a wider engagement with conservation in the UK Overseas Territories, some of which host important breeding areas for this species. The species may be found more frequently in UK waters in the coming decades due to climate change-related increases in ocean temperatures. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | This species has a very distinct ecology and behaviour that makes it vulnerable to certain decline factors; these would not be addressed by generic actions. |
| Question 3: | At a landscape scale, would the species benefit from untargeted habitat management to increase habitat mosaics, structural diversity, or particular successional stages? |
| Response: | No |
| Justification: | The species is marine and untargeted habitat management would therefore presumably not apply. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 6. Recovery solutions trialled |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Medium-high |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Opportunistic - sufficient |
| Species Comments: | Note that there needs to be more security around continuity of monitoring. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Encounters with fishing gear are known to be a common cause of mortality in UK waters. Promote turtle-friendly fishing practices in UK waters, via guidance and targeted communications with the fishing industry. This to cover steps to reduce the chance of accidental capture, entanglement and boat collisions, and steps to take should these occur.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Advice & support
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: "Scale of Implementation" and "High Priority Sites" fields not completed as, being marine, the species does not use "sites" as such. The action would include updating and promoting the UK Turtle Code, and interaction with fishing industry representatives in regions where encounters are most likely (especially SW England and Cumbrian coast.)
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: The species is known to experience mortality due to ingestion of marine litter, including discarded fishing gear, plastic bags and balloons. Support efforts to reduce litter ending up in the sea.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Education/awareness raising
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: "Scale of Implementation" and "High Priority Sites" fields not completed as, being marine, the species does not use "sites" as such. The action would include working with existing efforts on communications to reduce plastic waste, ensuring that the particular types of waste causing problems for turtles are targeted. Advice and support should be available on what to do if this species is found. Important to have good interpretation on marine conservation in general.
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: The significance of the use of UK waters, and in particular the effect of mortalities and injuries in UK waters, are poorly understood. Filling these evidence gaps would assist efforts in the UK and co-ordinate more closely with overseas conservation efforts. Undertake research on the significance of UK waters to Atlantic populations, and the effect of mortalities and injuries sustained whilst in UK waters.
Action targets: 4. Autecology and pressures understood
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 3-5 years
Scale of Implementation: Not applicable
High priority sites: N/A
Comments: "Scale of Implementation" and "High Priority Sites" fields not completed as, being marine, the species does not use "sites" as such.
Acknowledgment:
Data used on this website are adapted from Threatened species recovery actions 2025 baseline (JP065): Technical report and spreadsheet user guide (Natural England, 2025). Available here.