1) The document proposes integrated catchment management measures for the Eddleston Water basin in Scotland to improve ecological status and reduce flood risk through river restoration. 2) It characterizes the basin and identifies it as failing to achieve good ecological status due to channelization and poor habitat. High flood risk in the lower catchment is also noted. 3) Fifteen proposed measure types aim to improve physical habitat, reduce flood risk, and promote sustainable land use through actions like increasing channel sinuosity, planting riparian vegetation, installing woody debris, and slowing runoff.

1. Integrated catchment management: from
rhetoric to reality in a Scottish HELP basin
Alan Werritty 1, Chris Spray1, Tom Ball 1 Mike Bonell 1,
Josselin Rouillard 1, Alan MacDonald 2, Luke Comins 3 and
Roy Richardson 4
1 UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science,
University of Dundee
2 British Geological Survey
3 Tweed Forum
4 Scottish Environment Protection Agency

2. Outline
• UNESCO HELP programme: promoting ‘healthy rivers’
• Policy drivers for river restoration: Eddleston Water
• Characterisation and current status
• Proposed measures
• Opportunities, constraints and barriers
• Conclusions

3. UNESCO HELP programme
• Hydrology for the Environment, Life and Policy
(HELP) established by UNESCO in 1999
• Global network of c. 90 basins “delivering social,
economic and environmental benefits to stakeholders
through research towards sustainable and
appropriate use of water”
• Articulation between stakeholders and scientists
means breaking the paradigm lock yielding rapid and
agreed solutions and, if needed, resetting policy.
• River Tweed designated a HELP basin in 2008 –
Eddleston Water proposed for river restoration 2009

4. Paradigm lock in integrated catchment management

5. Policy drivers for river restoration: Eddleston Water
Two main policy drivers:
• EC Water Framework Directive => Water Environment
and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003: Eddleston Water
characterised as having “poor” ecological status
• EC Directive on the Assessment and Management of
Floods => Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009:
section 20 requires SEPA to assess whether the
“alteration ... or restoration of natural features and
characteristics ... could contribute to management of
flood risk” often referred to as natural flood
management

6. Characterisation and current status: topography
Eddleston Water a south-flowing
tributary of Tweed draining 69 km2
• fractured greywackes mantled with
highly variable covers of till, fluvio-
glacial outwash and peat
• annual precipitation: 850 mm (valley
floor)-1500 mm (summits)
• steeper slopes east of main stem =>
flashy runoff: gentler slopes west of
main stem => delayed flow.
QMED c. 23 m3s-1 , Q10 c. 38 m3s-1
• ideal exemplar of “source-pathway-
receptor” flood risk management
model

7. Characterisation and current status: land cover
Land cover
• improved grassland
dominate valley floor and
lower slopes
• extensive Forestry
Commission woodland
west side of catchment
• small areas of fen and
incipient wetlands
adjacent to main stem
Km

8. Characterisation and current status: landscapes
Sources
Pathways

9. Characterisation and current status: channelisation
Roy Map
Main stem sinuous c.1750: but
extensively channelised by 1811
Minimal recovery since and main
reason for ‘poor’ WFD status
because of current
hydromorphology

10. Characterisation and current status: habitat
Bad Poor Moderate Satisfactory Good Very good

11. Characterisation and current status: fisheries

12. Characterisation and current status: hydrometry
Poor current hydrometry:
2 stage only gauging stations
and 1 raingauge.
Estimates of bankfull
discharge on tributaries (blue)
and main stem (yellow)
Waterheads: c. 3 m3s-1
Eddleston Village c. 10 m3s-1
Peebles c. 19 m3s-1

13. Characterisation and current status: flood risk
Annual flood Return Discharge
risk probability period (yrs) (m3s-1)
QMED 2 22.8
0.2 15 31.7
0.1 10 38.1
0.05 20 47.1
0.02 50 54.8
0.01 100 63.5
0.005 200 73.2
Source: JBA Consulting 2008
Peebles
flooded
every 5-10
years.
Currently no
structural
Scottish Borders defences,
Council identifies 589 only flood
properties within warning
SEPA’s 1:200 year flood scheme.
envelope.

14. Characterisation and current status: summary
• fails to achieve WFD ‘good’ status –
because of ‘poor’ hydromorphology
• channelised reaches of main stem poor
habitat (poor mix of channel types, lack of
riparian vegetation)
• highest runoff from eastern tributaries and
rapid increase in downstream bankfull
discharge
• catchment ideal exemplar for flood risk
management measures (source-pathway-
receptor) no structural defences

15. Proposed measures: overall aim
... “to restore river and its whole catchment
whilst at the same time promoting
livelihoods of those who derive income
from the sustainable management of
farms, forests and fishery”:
• improved physical habitat;
• reduction in flood risk;
whilst promoting sustainable management of
farms, fisheries and forestry and recreational
opportunities for tourists.

16. Proposed measures: typology
Groups of 15 measures:
1 and 2 designed to improve habitat (planting riparian vegetation
and restricting stock access to the channel);
3, 4 and 5 create more natural channel morphology (increased
sinuosity with decreased plane beds and greater differentiation into
pools, riffles and glides)
6, 7 and 8 (breaching/removing embankments, planting floodplain
forests, introducing large woody debris) to provide temporary flood
storage, increase roughness and enhance riparian habitat
9 to 15 to reduce flood risk by decreasing the rate at which runoff is
generated in source areas:
• by increasing infiltration and storage of surface and soil water
(9, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
• by slowing rate at which runoff is conveyed via tributaries to
main stem (14, 15).

17. Proposed measures: location
Selected groups of measures:
A: breach/set back embankments,
new fence margins, riparian
woodland, wet woodland, large
woody debris
C: re-meander channel, riparian
woodland
L: Reduced stocking density, tributary
woodland, floodplain forest
N: create ponds, wetlands, riparian
woodland block ditches, large woody
debris

18. Proposed measures: flood storage Site A

19. Opportunities, constraints and barriers
• Interviews with key
stakeholders: Scottish Govt,
SEPA, Tweed Forum, Scottish
Borders Council, SNH, Tweed
Foundation, Scottish Water,
NFU(Scotland), Scottish Wildlife
Trust, Country Landowners
Business Association.
• Interviews with five landowners
(three floodplain and two
upland famers) middle-aged,
male, long-term landowners in
the valley (>30 years) with
several sources of income.

20. Opportunities, constraints and barriers: institutional
• Legal constraints: EC Environmental regulation (Water
Framework Directive and Habitats Directives) operation of
statutory duties by SEPA and SNH;
• Land use policy: high quality agricultural land on floodplains
for food or flood control? Delivery of agri-environmental
schemes over longer timespans (eg planting woodlands);
• Land tenure: contrasting planning horizons for tenant
farmers, owner-occupiers and large estates – value of multiple
benefit measures (eg Coed Cymru project in Central Wales);
• Quality of science: nature of science evidence base crucial in
persuading land managers;

21. Opportunities, constraints and barriers: farmers
• understand aspirations and
land tenure systems of the
farming community – a real
opportunity and a threat;
• develop trust and a common
vision for aims of the restoration
programme;
• role of intermediary,
stakeholder-led organisation, via
technical and social support
networks (Tweed Forum highly
valued);

22. Opportunities, constraints and barriers: farmers
• local expert knowledge must be
factored in to any planning;
• financial incentives must be set
at the right level – to sustain farm
units and to attract engagement;
• long-term, guaranteed
contractual arrangements to
deliver focused outcomes;
• simplicity in any contractual
arrangements.

23. Conclusions
• Scientists lose some professional autonomy and deliver to
agendas set by the stakeholders – this a challenging change;
• Significant time and effort to engage with the local
community and landowners in framing project prior to
implementation – building up trust key to success;
• “Politics is the art of the possible”. Insights in terms of
potential legal, organisational, socio-economic, cultural and
scientific barriers should facilitate next phase and increase
chances of success;
• Crucial to work ‘with nature’ in ways that sustainably
maintain livelihoods of those who derive their living from
the river basin.