Twenty-eighth Report Adapting Institutions to Climate Change Cm ...

Chapter 4
4.23
4.24
BOX 4A THE RIVER INVERTEBRATE PREDICTION AND CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM (RIVPACS) 7
Although the approach to ecological quality in the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)
itself is flexible (see Box 3C), the River InVertebrate Prediction And Classification System
(RIVPACS) is an example of how national interpretation could reduce that flexibility. RIVPACS
is a classification system used by the UK to monitor water quality through the presence and
abundance of invertebrate species, against a predicted baseline of ‘undisturbed conditions’.
RIVPACS predicts the expected species composition of aquatic invertebrates for rivers in good
(undisturbed) conditions based on their geographical distributions. As the geographical ranges
of species change with climate change (2.67), so there might be a diminution in the ability of
the model to predict which species to expect because it is based on a reference dataset which
was collected primarily in the late 1970s. The Commission received conflicting evidence on
whether the reference dataset is regularly updated. 8 However, time lags in species’ responses to
climate change are inevitable, and RIVPACS cannot predict the presence of species which are
not well represented in the reference database, such as newly arriving species. The ecological
classification of water bodies is therefore tied to a reference state that will inevitably change
as the climate changes.
The potential impact of climate change on the efficacy of ecological classification tools, and
the resulting implications for compliance with the WFD, have not yet been fully resolved.
However, through not strictly defining ‘undisturbed conditions’, the language of the WFD
allows for the species baseline to be dynamic. Furthermore, the WFD has a review process
built into it that works on a six-year cycle, through which reference conditions can be revisited.
This provides a mechanism by which any shifts in species distributions can be incorporated
into improved management and compliance.
Another example of path dependency results from the outcome of the fragmentation of responsibility
and accountability across government, its agencies, regulators and (largely private sector)
operators, as illustrated in Chapter 3. This can encourage a narrow view of the world, where
agencies find it difficult to consider issues beyond their own brief, and which necessitates careful
co-operation and dialogue. In Scotland, for example, responsibilities for different elements of
flood risk management are shared between the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
and local authorities, whereas land management responsibility is shared by a plethora of bodies.
Such fragmentation can be problematic: there can be significant inertia to structural change, not
least because the costs involved can be high – although in this example the land use strategy under
the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 has the potential to improve matters.
Examples of path dependency can also be found in the statutory responsibilities that are placed
on an institution, which clearly define the functions that should be delivered and which are often
quite tightly defined. The Commission notes, for example, that although economic regulation
of water services is required to have regard to or contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development, it has tended to give priority to consumer interests and to the sustainability of water
utilities (whilst meeting the environmental and water conservation objectives). There has been
some recent evolution of regulation, but the balance of the focus is unlikely to change radically
until the statutory duties are revised.
70