Current warming and likely future impacts - Climate Change: Biological and Human Aspects - page 313

of climate change, even if there may be interactions and synergies between the two.)
MONARCH I was a detailed report and its overall conclusions were that a more
proactive and flexible management of ecological sites is required. It recognised that
many existing protected sites were not in the right place to fulfil current protection
goals in the future but that such sites will continue to be important for maintaining
certain species populations.
Virtually echoing the US GCRP report discussed in the previous section, the
MONARCH I report's authors also pointed to the difficulty in developing response
strategies when the regional and local nature of future climate change was so uncer-
tain. They noted that, up to the report's publication, the only detailed monitoring of
biological climate indicators had been those commissioned by the UK Government's
environment ministry, the then DETR. There the focus had been change across a wide
range of sectors and not just natural ecosystems. However, MONARCH I also made
research recommendations, including the following:
refining models predicting change and the use of field studies for model validation;
applying the MONARCH methodology to different scales;
improving understanding of ecosystem dynamics;
identifying possible natural adaptations to climate change.
The MONARCH report noted that for wildlife conservationists to address climate
change their response must lie somewhere between two extremes. At one end there
is a 'King Canute' ( sic )-type approach, resisting change and trying to maintain
existing natural communities. (An historical analogy that does not bear too close a
scrutiny as Canute 'attempted' to hold back the tide to show that even he, a king,
was not impervious to natural order and not, contrary to popular belief, in a bid to
demonstrate his regal power.) At the other end of the spectrum is 'wildlife gardening',
with species translocation and habitat-type creation in suitable areas, or areas due to
become suitable through change climate.
The MONARCH authors also drew attention to the plight of the natterjack toad
( Bufo calamita ) as an example of special conservation interest, as its habitat area
will become reduced before climate change creates new areas for it. The authors
therefore recommended consideration to purchasing likely areas to facilitate such
species translocation, and even provide 'holding bays'.
A second report, MONARCH II, was published in 2005 (Berry et al., 2005). It
took the MONARCH I climate space approach but downscaled it for use at the local
level. A dispersal and ecosystem function model was also developed to run alongside
the climate space models. MONARCH II focused on methodological development
and testing in four case-study areas. A third study, MONARCH III (Walmsley et al.,
2007), began in April 2004 and was published in May 2007. It refined and applied
the output from MONARCH II in the context of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.
(Biodiversity Action Plans themselves were a result of the aforementioned 1992
international Biodiversity Convention - see Chapter 8 - and so relate MONARCH
III to Britain's UN obligations.)
MONARCH III's species range map scenario forecasts up to the 2080s did not
attempt to simulate the future distribution of species in response to climate change
(it left forecast scenarios to UKCIP). However, in presenting likely shifts they did