Discussion

The evidence reviewed in this chapter demonstrates the complexity of climate change risks to the UK’s natural environment. Ecosystems are sensitive to multiple climate variables and these variables interact with a range of other factors to define current and future risk.

The evidence strongly suggests that climate change is already having an influence on the natural environment and the goods and services it provides. We can say with good confidence, based upon current climate sensitivity and future climate projections, that in general risks (along with some opportunities) are very likely to increase.

There is strong evidence of changes to species distributions in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. This trend is related to increases in both air and water temperatures for which the climate change signal is now strong enough to be detected against natural variability. By contrast, a trend is more difficult to detect for risks associated with changing precipitation or wind patterns. Although there is evidence of wetter winter conditions in the north and west of the UK in recent decades, this cannot be conclusively attributed to climate change. Similarly, a shift to a more westerly airflow, with implications for exposed locations, especially on coasts and mountains, has not been established as a long-term trend.For the coastal zone, there is high confidence of ongoing, and possibly accelerating, sea-level rise.

These trends suggests there is a clear rationale for ensuring action is taken now to build the resilience of the natural environment so it is more able to accommodate change in the future. Anticipatory adaptation is necessary because of the complexity of the systems involved and the long lead times from policy development to implementation on the ground. It is also usually much easier to take action now than to try and restore biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services once they have been irreversibly degraded.

Climate change risks are exacerbated because they occur in combination with existing pressures, particularly for biodiversity, soils and water. A key finding from this chapter is that many risks are interrelated, therefore adaptation responses need to be co-ordinated so that risks

are not tackled in isolation. There are trade-offs between different sectors in the way risks to soils, land and water are being managed. In the absence of further planned adaptation it seems likely that reactive responses will dominate, which will potentially exacerbate inefficiencies and resource depletion. For freshwater, the requirement to achieve good ecological status of water bodies under the EU WFD is an important driver for adaptation. But maintaining good status in the future will require further integration with land use and holistic catchment-scale

approaches. With the exception of the Land Use Strategy in Scotland, there are no similar approaches to the WFD for delivering integrated adaptation in respect of soil and land resources.

Across many risks, notably in relation to agricultural and forest productivity, differences between the north/west compared to the south/east of the UK have been highlighted, with climate change seeming, as a broad generalisation, to provide new opportunities in the former and increased risks for the latter.

Although the evidence for this chapter strongly suggests that risks will outweigh opportunities, it is important for adaptation that any potential benefits from a changing climate are realised. This is particularly the case for changes in the current distribution of species, crops and land uses. It is also possible that some ‘risks’ could become opportunities, or at least reduced risks, if proactive adaptation measures are implemented now, as for example with crop productivity and yields. This will not occur with simply continuing ‘business as usual’ strategies, as more co-

ordinated investment is required to maximise potential opportunities.

In the marine environment, although the EU MSFD recognises the need for adaptability due to changing environmental conditions, in practice this is often difficult to achieve. The

interpretation of ‘fair’ national quotas for fishery stocks, given the observed and projected changes in species distributions, is a particularly challenging issue.

This chapter has aimed to develop a systematic approach to risk assessment, with a view to aiding the identification of policy priorities for forthcoming national adaptation programmes. In this regard, further work is still required as prevailing attitudes in both science and policy tend to favour taking a sectoral approach. Nevertheless, a series of cross-cutting issues have been

identified that should act as a stimulus for further cross-sectoral initiatives.

Particularly notable is the importance of co-ordinated efforts to monitor and address the risks from pests, diseases and INNS. Climate change is very likely to lead to an increase in these risks, but there is significant uncertainty as to the nature of new threats. The degraded condition of many ecosystems is also likely to increase virulence when pests, diseases and INNS become established. In some cases, however, non-native species may provide opportunities, such as by restoring ecosystem function to degraded sites where native species can no longer be re- established. Furthermore, the processes of change are likely to challenge traditional attitudes regarding distinctions between ‘native’ and ‘non-native’.

Finally, there is a growing recognition that taking an ecosystem-based approach has the

potential to deliver more synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation. Actions to protect and restore natural carbon stores, such as woodlands, peatlands and saltmarsh, can not only contribute to the UK’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions, but also directly increase the resilience of the natural environment and communities to climate hazards such as flooding and erosion. There is considerable scope to further develop measures that link climate adaptation and mitigation responses in more synergistic strategies.