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 Survey3 Tweed Forum

4 Scottish Environment Protection Agency

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

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

Paradigm lock in integrated catchment management

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

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

Characterisation and current status: land cover

Km

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

Characterisation and current status: landscapesSources

Pathways

Characterisation and current status: channelisation

Main stem sinuous c.1750: but extensively channelised by 1811

Minimal recovery since and main reason for ‘poor’ WFD status because of current hydromorphology

Roy Map

Characterisation and current status: habitat

Bad Moderate GoodPoor Satisfactory Very good

Characterisation and current status: fisheries

Characterisation and current status: hydrometry

Poor current hydrometry: 2 stage only gauging stations and 1 raingauge.

Estimates of bankfulldischarge on tributaries (blue) and main stem (yellow)

Waterheads: c. 3 m3s-1

Eddleston Village c. 10 m3s-1

Peebles c. 19 m3s-1

Characterisation and current status: flood risk

Source: JBA Consulting 2008

Scottish Borders Council identifies 589 properties within SEPA’s 1:200 year flood envelope.

Peebles flooded every 5-10 years.

Currently no structural defences, only flood warning scheme.

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

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 bankfulldischarge

• catchment ideal exemplar for flood risk management measures (source-pathway-receptor) no structural defences

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.

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).

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

Proposed measures: flood storage Site A

• 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.

Opportunities, constraints and barriers

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;

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);

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.

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.