Report produced by Dr Jacky Birnie

return to main index

Contextual summary

Mike Harley, English Nature, Climate Change Advisor

Climate change is a natural process. Human activity is accelerating it. An increase in surface air temperature of 5oC took 15,000 years, it is now predicted that there will be a change of a similar order over the next 100 years. Increased temperatures will affect species, habitats and limestone scenery. The sea level will rise, primarily due to thermal expansion of sea water, but this will lag behind the air temperature change. Various predicted outcomes include wetter/windier/warmer.

Species responses will depend on available climate space. Climate is only one factor, space is also determined by geology, hydrology, land use. E.g. chalk grassland on the Chilterns, if pushed north, no limestone within reach. Species may variously adapt, migrate, become extinct, alter their range, change their population, reproduction, competition within natural communities and with alien species.

English Nature has invested in a major piece of impact research 'MONARCH' (see document in conference pack) which takes the UKCIPS scenarios and builds them into computer-generated models which will be able to be applied to species to predict responses. The model provides a bioclimatic baseline on a 10km grid. The full technical report (due April 2001) will describe the methodology and provide some examples. A second phase of research is planned to take the methodology down to a 1km grid which means the outputs will be of relevance to nature reserves. Land use factors will be added in, and species responses of adaptation and competition may be included.

Russell Marsh, WWF, Climate Change Officer

Global view. Climate change could affect one third of all plant and animal species by the end of this century. Plant movements in response to climate change will have to be ten times faster than under natural change, and they just can't do it. Anecdotal evidence suggests the Costa Rica Golden Toad is the first extinction resulting from current climate change. In the UK butterfly ranges have moved north. In the South West there have been sightings of warm water shark spp., gold star coral (Med.) and ocean sunfish. May be seen as tourism benefits.

Mark O'Connell, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge

Adding to his written statement. Any strategy of response to climate change will need to (a) detect species changes (not just predict) (b) locate habitats affected (c) establish the magnitude of change and (d) implement remedial action. Major problem in the region with (a) due to lack of biodiversity monitoring. (This was challenged from the floor, discussion ensued re audits/inventories and monitoring. Accepted that there were good audits of some taxa in some areas. Agreed that National Biodiversity Network contributed. However non-standard formats, paper-based, and only some groups - hence not possible to integrate a computerised database to provide baseline data from which to measure change. Also need to monitor to detect trends, not just audit. Countryside 2000 does some monitoring - best practice? Needs widening. Monitoring needed for slime moulds as well as birds. Mark believes this should be a priority for resourcing).
The problem with (b) is that we don't have habitat monitoring. We should prioritise a range of habitats and instigate a program e.g for lowland bogs. The problem with (c) is that very few taxa have had the data collected. The Wetland Bird Survey has 30yrs of data, possible to identify trends. Exceptional. The problem with (d) is that remedial action depends on secure knowledge, and we often don't know if a change is due to climate or something else, such as land use.

Workshop Discussion

Is this acceptable? We may be able to measure it all wonderfully, but how can we stop it?

Could Environmental Groups advise on mitigation proposals? There seems to be an economic drive, with proposals based on people's needs. We should ensure that proposals are best for the natural environment, and do not create further problems. An example might be biomass planting.

The SW may have a unique problem in the UK due to 'an awful lot of water to the south west' meaning that there is a major barrier to species invasion. Scenario of 'massive' species loss and depauperate region. Need for management.

Not so. The Lusitanian element in the flora is here, but currently rare and therefore does not contribute to general biodiversity. Climate warming will allow it to expand.

Development of corridors to facilitate migration?

A fierce 'corridor' debate ensued. Conventional corridor planning to link habitats has been discredited by the lack of scientific evidence that the assumed biological processes actually take place. The professional scientists downplayed corridors, committed local conservationists hung on. In the context of climate change the idea of a 'corridor' might be modified to indicate a recognition of the need of species to move spatially as a response. Could be seen as through time (i.e. leave part of an area behind and allow to change, as species extends into new area) as much as through space, and that individuals do not need to 'pass through' corridors. 'Buffers' or 'large areas' or 'landscape scale conservation' might also permit this idea of mobility.

Why bother about adaptation? Why not just create a broadly benign environment for biodiversity in general, and not worry about particular species coming and going?

But we should have a response to extinction caused by us.
We can't stop change. Dartmoor is now drier than it was 25 years ago, probably due to climate change. You can reduce the intensity of grazing but it won't bring back the blanket bog.

It's true that statutory protection has tended to want to fossilize, to see nature as static. It has focussed on mitigating land use problems at local sites and ignored global environmental change. We need to see nature as dynamic and conservation has to change.

We shouldn't automatically run around conserving the status quo. We should accept that some species will be lost. We should focus resources on those that have a better chance - otherwise a zoo situation.

Yes, but we should still do something. Food miles? Holiday locally? Ride a bike?
Responsibility for the whole planet. Effects on us may be quite benign, but not elsewhere.
(As people, yes, but as a Natural Environment Workshop what do you suggest? (Chair))

Broad agreement from the floor that we do have a mitigation responsibility and it is to inform about the consequences for threatened species.

Sea level rise threatens the Scilly Isles. We should be building sea defences at Tresco.

(What about the Severn wetlands? (chair). No response).

Perhaps it is unsustainable to protect the Scillies as a resource?

We need more knowledge. Inventories and monitoring of resource.

We need to identify what is special in South West key habitats and then focus on threats - climate change in the longer term, perhaps other threats in the medium term.

The lists exist in SACs, but the Habitats Directive is too static.

Summary points for the plenary session:

Mitigation 1: Responsibility to inform about consequences
Mitigation 2: Need to ensure proposed mitigation is positive for the natural environment

Adaptation 1: Conservation tools (e.g. designations) need to reflect change
Adaptation 2: Conserving what? What are the priorities for this region?

Barrier 1: Lack of monitoring
Barrier 2: Disputed responses : walls/corridors/buffers/do nothing

Dr Jacky Birnie
Geography and Environmental Management Research Unit
Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education
March 2001