From a conservation perspective, I think that more sense can be made of the climate change if we take an international perspective. Some of our current conservation priorities are seemingly perverse when looked at in this way. Species which are common in other parts of Europe are sometimes given a high priority for conservation in the UK ( I am not aware of evidence these populations are always genetically distinct from those in Continental Europe). We seldom focus on those aspects of international biodiversity which are centred on the British Isles (e.g. oceanic species some of which I assume are relicts of the Tertiary flora and fauna displaced in other parts of Europe as colder and drier conditions prevailed in the late Tertiary / Holocene- has anyone looked at this issue?).

The "value" I here promote is an importance attached to the conservation of the distinctive elements of European biodiversity in a global context, as opposed to narrow perspectives developed around ecologically arbitrary national and regional boundaries. I am by no means confident that the species highlighted in various international conservation frameworks (e.g. Habitats Directive, Berne Convention) reflect this thinking.

I would argue that, in the face of climate change effects upon species distributions, the more geographically narrow we are in framing our conservation targets the less successful we will be in the long term.

John Hopkins