A debate in Parliament on the funding of our waterways has been secured. This comes at a time when public awareness is being raised about the shortfall in funding the waterway system and how that could be made worse were the Government to sell-off BW's property portfolio, profits from which make up a significant proportion of BW's income for maintaining canals.
Linda Waltho has won a ballot to secure an End of Day Adjournment Debate on Monday 30th November on the subject "Funding for British Waterways". You will be able to watch this on the BBC Parliament channel.
It might be worth contacting your MP with some background information on the effects of underfunding and encouraging them to attend the debate.
Bob Laxton has put forward Early Day Motion 233 "Inland Waterways and Funding".
The motion notes that nearly half of the money that BW needs to maintain the network comes from its property portfolio, and that cuts in BW's grant-in-aid mean a shortfall in the money needed to properly fund the waterways of about £40m. It calls for the inland waterways to be made a national park and for BW's property portfolio to be protected so that it can provide a secure funding stream. The full text of the motion can be read here.
At the time of writing 26 MPs have signed the motion. Please contact your MP and encourage him or her to sign. Tell them it's EDM 233.
Saturday 28 November 2009
Tuesday 24 November 2009
Please Help - Another E-Petition to sign!
As speculation about whether the Government will sell off BW's assets continues to cause alarm, a new petition has been launched on the Downing Street web site.
The speculation follows an item on The Politics Show, although nothing has been said by the Government. However, what is clear is that the Government will be looking for ways to rake in money to plug some of the deficits. We, who are concerned for the future of the country's waterways, should look for ways of trying to persuade the Government that depriving BW of a key source of income is not a good idea.
The new E-Petition on the Downing Street website simply reads:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to protect our canals by not selling off property owned by British waterways."
The petition creator explains the reasons for the petition: "Further to recent announcements concerning the potential sell-off of properties owned by British Waterways by the Treasury, we petition the Prime Minister to give assurances that our canals will be protected and recent levels of investment, a credit to Labour, is maintained.
"Our canals are great source of pleasure for many people in the country, providing a source of employment through tourism and associated businesses. They're also home to many forms of wildlife. Without proper management this will ebb away and the network return to a state of decay and ruin.
"We urge the Government to allow British Waterways to retain its property portfolio, protecting its essential source of revenue and ensure the sustainability of its work."
The IWA and other organisations are encouraging people to sign this petition, and we would, too. Some people are doubtful as to whether such petitions have much effect but the Powers That Be will certainly be aware when a petition on a particular issue is gaining a lot of support. If the Government is still making up its mind, a demonstration of the strength of feeling might just tip the scales. The IWA points out: "The worst outcome now that this is in the public domain, would be if this petition receives scant support. That might give Ministers the impression that there are few waterways supporters who care very much about the issue. On the other hand, if it is well supported, the Government, this close to an election, is very sensitive to actions it might take which may lose votes."
Please look at the petition by following this link http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/protectourcanals/ and, if you agree with it, add your name to the more than a thousand already there!
Please tell other people about the petition, too, to help boost the numbers!
When you have done that, please consider visiting this site: www.writetothem.com and sending a message to your own MP. You could aquaint them with a few facts about the financial situation BW is in and how taking away the income from its property portfolio will make things even worse. You could mention recent examples of how the fabric of the system is falling apart and ask them to ask questions of the Environment Secretary or other ministers concerned.
The speculation follows an item on The Politics Show, although nothing has been said by the Government. However, what is clear is that the Government will be looking for ways to rake in money to plug some of the deficits. We, who are concerned for the future of the country's waterways, should look for ways of trying to persuade the Government that depriving BW of a key source of income is not a good idea.
The new E-Petition on the Downing Street website simply reads:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to protect our canals by not selling off property owned by British waterways."
The petition creator explains the reasons for the petition: "Further to recent announcements concerning the potential sell-off of properties owned by British Waterways by the Treasury, we petition the Prime Minister to give assurances that our canals will be protected and recent levels of investment, a credit to Labour, is maintained.
"Our canals are great source of pleasure for many people in the country, providing a source of employment through tourism and associated businesses. They're also home to many forms of wildlife. Without proper management this will ebb away and the network return to a state of decay and ruin.
"We urge the Government to allow British Waterways to retain its property portfolio, protecting its essential source of revenue and ensure the sustainability of its work."
The IWA and other organisations are encouraging people to sign this petition, and we would, too. Some people are doubtful as to whether such petitions have much effect but the Powers That Be will certainly be aware when a petition on a particular issue is gaining a lot of support. If the Government is still making up its mind, a demonstration of the strength of feeling might just tip the scales. The IWA points out: "The worst outcome now that this is in the public domain, would be if this petition receives scant support. That might give Ministers the impression that there are few waterways supporters who care very much about the issue. On the other hand, if it is well supported, the Government, this close to an election, is very sensitive to actions it might take which may lose votes."
Please look at the petition by following this link http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/protectourcanals/ and, if you agree with it, add your name to the more than a thousand already there!
Please tell other people about the petition, too, to help boost the numbers!
When you have done that, please consider visiting this site: www.writetothem.com and sending a message to your own MP. You could aquaint them with a few facts about the financial situation BW is in and how taking away the income from its property portfolio will make things even worse. You could mention recent examples of how the fabric of the system is falling apart and ask them to ask questions of the Environment Secretary or other ministers concerned.
Thursday 19 November 2009
The Future of the Waterways – Communities Working together
A Paper for Discussion....
At the National Festival in August the IWA announced the Save Our System (SOS 2010) campaign. Members of Save Our Waterways (SOW) and other waterways' enthusiasts could be forgiven for being a mite confused as the name and detail of the campaign seemed strangely familiar.
SOW takes this as a compliment and, as such, we had no problems in deciding to support the aims of the campaign along with other boating user groups.
The central theme of the campaign is to encourage the formation of community-based advocacy groups who will identify and promote local benefits and issues to their communities at wide. The Winter 2009 issue of IWA's 'Waterways' magazine encourages branches and regions to take the lead and convene local meetings with other stakeholders and centres of influence. This is a great opportunity for IWA to demonstrate the grass roots influence that should be part and parcel of an organisation with 18,000 members, and I look forward to being contacted by my local branch.
As IWA Chairman, Clive Henderson has pointed out, the cut recently announced by DEFRA has virtually wiped out the £5-10 million annual saving that BW will be squeezing from their operating costs over the next 10 years.
These savings have largely come at the cost of jobs and, as such, this seems a particularly pernicious act on Government's part. Furthermore, there are now renewed reports that BW's property portfolio is to be put up for sale and if there is any substance in this report we have solid grounds for mass protests.
Clearly any campaign activity needs to allow enough time to influence election manifesto promises and as the election date could be as early as the first week in May 2010, it is clear that we need to making preparations for a campaign no later than March. We organised 50 protests in November 2006 from scratch in 6 weeks so we can surely achieve that by working together with determination and commitment.
SOW believes that any protest should focus on stopping the 'sale of the family silver' and to use the £30 million funding short-fall to emphasize the critical state of BW finances. As long as this country is recovering from the recession, we suggest that it will be counter-productive to focus the campaign on trying to get DEFRA or any other government department, to cover the £30 million funding shortfall. In our view, the answer to medium and long term funding is to transfer more financial responsibility to local and regional authorities.
When the re-write of 'Waterways for Tomorrow' is released this winter, it is expected to contain numerous references to 'greater community' involvement. It will also feature the research commissioned by DEFRA/IWAC which clearly demonstrates that waterways are a sound economic investment as well as meeting universally held social objectives.
The central theme of the BW AGM in October, 2009 was its 2020 Vision, which sees its future as a Third Sector, charity-like organisation that relies more heavily on volunteers, public donations and working more closely with local authorities. Comparisons were made with comparable Third Sector organisations that are managing their 'estates' without being reliant on financial support from government. Organisations like the RNLI, RSPB, Ramblers and, notably, the National Trust and the Woodland Trust, do so with the support of thousands of volunteers and significant fund raising activities.
The better use of volunteers has, of course, long been a point of contention with BW. The culture within BW – from top to bottom – needs to change dramatically from one that gives lip-service to the concept to one that embraces the volunteer culture and delegates functional and managerial responsibilities to volunteers. WRG and the societies that run restoration projects and manage navigations on a volunteer basis are excellent examples of professionalism that should be an intrinsic part of a Third Sector BW and we all need to find ways to catalyse the formation of complementary groups in other areas of expertise. The formation of community support groups would be a good start.
BW have a significant advantage in this regard. As NABO has pointed out, which other Third Sector organisations have such a large body of boat-owning stakeholders with a vested interest of perhaps as much as a billion pounds? Which other body has a defined market of property-owners along 2,200 miles of waterway? Which other body takes care of a recreational resource that passes through the local community of nearly 20 million people (250 parliamentary constituencies)? All of these people are potential supporters of any initiative that will want to protect and improve the recreational value of our waterways.
The idea that riparian communities should play a greater role in the upkeep and future of their local waterway makes a lot of sense. It is, after all, local residents that reap most of the benefits of a thriving, vibrant waterways: the recreational benefits; enhanced property values; the trade and related jobs from passing boaters, walkers, cyclists, anglers etc. Conversely, it is the anti-social behaviour of those local residents that use the waterway for fly-tipping and honing their graffiti skills – acts that cost BW millions each year to clear and deter paying visitors. Factor this with statistics from BW's surveys which suggest that 95% of users are local people enjoying the towpaths as a means of personal recreation and it is clear that local authorities should be taking more responsibility for the costs of maintaining the waterside in good order.
With or without a protest campaign, we could make good use existing waterside festivals to start to build community-based groups of activists from all types of users. We must find ways to involve all types of users; it simply must be a priority to make sure that we have non-boating interests properly represented.
At the beginning of 2009, SOW chaired a meeting in Westminster where the heads of major user groups briefed Ann McIntosh, Shadow Environment Minister, on the major issues facing the waterways. During that meeting, the idea of a National Waterways Authority was raised and Ms McIntosh referred us to a website which contained a series of documents that represented current Conservative thinking, thinking that we presume will become a part of their election manifesto..
The most relevant of these is entitled 'Water – The First Essential' and it makes a powerful case for a National Water Association which would regulate all aspects of sustainable water management. The rationale for a single overseeing body is that 'integrated water management cannot be provided while the responsibilities for regulating its interrelated components remain in different hands'. Central to this is the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) which is targeted to be implemented by 2015. The paper was written
While the NWA 'would have overall responsibility for all matters related to water, is not intended that it should act as an arm of government. It is intended that it should be an instrument of all those who have a direct interest in the good, long term management of water. In voluntary terms, it is more like the CPRE or the Wildlife Trusts whose strength lies in their local organisations.' The NWA envisages the establishment of volunteer community groups based on local water catchments. Bodies – such as private companies, local interest groups, local authorities, community collective, etc – would be invited to tender for the responsibility to establish these community catchment groups and ensure that they were fully integrated into the local decision process.
The document names British Waterways as one of these 'bodies' and it may be more than coincidence to that much of BW's 2020 Vision plan is designed to neatly fit this proposal. The proposal is that BW 'be entrusted with responsibility for navigation and recreation in all inland and transitional waterways, man-made and natural. The Port of London Authority would be disbanded and its duties subsumed by BW. The former EA responsibilities relating to navigation and recreation would also be transferred to BW. The new BW would be regulated as a service provider by the NWA in order to ensure that it acted in a sustainable manner and balanced navigation and recreation needs against the other components of sound integrated water management.'
The devil in this proposal is the detail. Clearly, a straight merging of EA (and by implication other navigations too) would attract a significant amount of opposition from waterway stakeholders. SOW's paper on the concept of a strategic waterways authority approached this particular issue in a less contentious way but there are clearly many other implications of such a dramatic new concept that need to be debated by all stakeholders with a view of reaching a consensus before Conservative election policy is finalised.
Will Chapman
Please add your thoughts on this by clicking the link below.
At the National Festival in August the IWA announced the Save Our System (SOS 2010) campaign. Members of Save Our Waterways (SOW) and other waterways' enthusiasts could be forgiven for being a mite confused as the name and detail of the campaign seemed strangely familiar.
SOW takes this as a compliment and, as such, we had no problems in deciding to support the aims of the campaign along with other boating user groups.
The central theme of the campaign is to encourage the formation of community-based advocacy groups who will identify and promote local benefits and issues to their communities at wide. The Winter 2009 issue of IWA's 'Waterways' magazine encourages branches and regions to take the lead and convene local meetings with other stakeholders and centres of influence. This is a great opportunity for IWA to demonstrate the grass roots influence that should be part and parcel of an organisation with 18,000 members, and I look forward to being contacted by my local branch.
As IWA Chairman, Clive Henderson has pointed out, the cut recently announced by DEFRA has virtually wiped out the £5-10 million annual saving that BW will be squeezing from their operating costs over the next 10 years.
These savings have largely come at the cost of jobs and, as such, this seems a particularly pernicious act on Government's part. Furthermore, there are now renewed reports that BW's property portfolio is to be put up for sale and if there is any substance in this report we have solid grounds for mass protests.
Clearly any campaign activity needs to allow enough time to influence election manifesto promises and as the election date could be as early as the first week in May 2010, it is clear that we need to making preparations for a campaign no later than March. We organised 50 protests in November 2006 from scratch in 6 weeks so we can surely achieve that by working together with determination and commitment.
SOW believes that any protest should focus on stopping the 'sale of the family silver' and to use the £30 million funding short-fall to emphasize the critical state of BW finances. As long as this country is recovering from the recession, we suggest that it will be counter-productive to focus the campaign on trying to get DEFRA or any other government department, to cover the £30 million funding shortfall. In our view, the answer to medium and long term funding is to transfer more financial responsibility to local and regional authorities.
When the re-write of 'Waterways for Tomorrow' is released this winter, it is expected to contain numerous references to 'greater community' involvement. It will also feature the research commissioned by DEFRA/IWAC which clearly demonstrates that waterways are a sound economic investment as well as meeting universally held social objectives.
The central theme of the BW AGM in October, 2009 was its 2020 Vision, which sees its future as a Third Sector, charity-like organisation that relies more heavily on volunteers, public donations and working more closely with local authorities. Comparisons were made with comparable Third Sector organisations that are managing their 'estates' without being reliant on financial support from government. Organisations like the RNLI, RSPB, Ramblers and, notably, the National Trust and the Woodland Trust, do so with the support of thousands of volunteers and significant fund raising activities.
The better use of volunteers has, of course, long been a point of contention with BW. The culture within BW – from top to bottom – needs to change dramatically from one that gives lip-service to the concept to one that embraces the volunteer culture and delegates functional and managerial responsibilities to volunteers. WRG and the societies that run restoration projects and manage navigations on a volunteer basis are excellent examples of professionalism that should be an intrinsic part of a Third Sector BW and we all need to find ways to catalyse the formation of complementary groups in other areas of expertise. The formation of community support groups would be a good start.
BW have a significant advantage in this regard. As NABO has pointed out, which other Third Sector organisations have such a large body of boat-owning stakeholders with a vested interest of perhaps as much as a billion pounds? Which other body has a defined market of property-owners along 2,200 miles of waterway? Which other body takes care of a recreational resource that passes through the local community of nearly 20 million people (250 parliamentary constituencies)? All of these people are potential supporters of any initiative that will want to protect and improve the recreational value of our waterways.
The idea that riparian communities should play a greater role in the upkeep and future of their local waterway makes a lot of sense. It is, after all, local residents that reap most of the benefits of a thriving, vibrant waterways: the recreational benefits; enhanced property values; the trade and related jobs from passing boaters, walkers, cyclists, anglers etc. Conversely, it is the anti-social behaviour of those local residents that use the waterway for fly-tipping and honing their graffiti skills – acts that cost BW millions each year to clear and deter paying visitors. Factor this with statistics from BW's surveys which suggest that 95% of users are local people enjoying the towpaths as a means of personal recreation and it is clear that local authorities should be taking more responsibility for the costs of maintaining the waterside in good order.
With or without a protest campaign, we could make good use existing waterside festivals to start to build community-based groups of activists from all types of users. We must find ways to involve all types of users; it simply must be a priority to make sure that we have non-boating interests properly represented.
At the beginning of 2009, SOW chaired a meeting in Westminster where the heads of major user groups briefed Ann McIntosh, Shadow Environment Minister, on the major issues facing the waterways. During that meeting, the idea of a National Waterways Authority was raised and Ms McIntosh referred us to a website which contained a series of documents that represented current Conservative thinking, thinking that we presume will become a part of their election manifesto..
The most relevant of these is entitled 'Water – The First Essential' and it makes a powerful case for a National Water Association which would regulate all aspects of sustainable water management. The rationale for a single overseeing body is that 'integrated water management cannot be provided while the responsibilities for regulating its interrelated components remain in different hands'. Central to this is the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) which is targeted to be implemented by 2015. The paper was written
While the NWA 'would have overall responsibility for all matters related to water, is not intended that it should act as an arm of government. It is intended that it should be an instrument of all those who have a direct interest in the good, long term management of water. In voluntary terms, it is more like the CPRE or the Wildlife Trusts whose strength lies in their local organisations.' The NWA envisages the establishment of volunteer community groups based on local water catchments. Bodies – such as private companies, local interest groups, local authorities, community collective, etc – would be invited to tender for the responsibility to establish these community catchment groups and ensure that they were fully integrated into the local decision process.
The document names British Waterways as one of these 'bodies' and it may be more than coincidence to that much of BW's 2020 Vision plan is designed to neatly fit this proposal. The proposal is that BW 'be entrusted with responsibility for navigation and recreation in all inland and transitional waterways, man-made and natural. The Port of London Authority would be disbanded and its duties subsumed by BW. The former EA responsibilities relating to navigation and recreation would also be transferred to BW. The new BW would be regulated as a service provider by the NWA in order to ensure that it acted in a sustainable manner and balanced navigation and recreation needs against the other components of sound integrated water management.'
The devil in this proposal is the detail. Clearly, a straight merging of EA (and by implication other navigations too) would attract a significant amount of opposition from waterway stakeholders. SOW's paper on the concept of a strategic waterways authority approached this particular issue in a less contentious way but there are clearly many other implications of such a dramatic new concept that need to be debated by all stakeholders with a view of reaching a consensus before Conservative election policy is finalised.
Will Chapman
Please add your thoughts on this by clicking the link below.
Tuesday 17 November 2009
BW Talks Down Sell-off Story
Following an item on The Politics Show on Sunday 15th November, speculating that the government could be about to sell off British Waterways' property asset portfolio, BW has played down the story.
BW points out that the government decided earlier in the year, following a Treasury-led review, that British Waterways' 1,400 canalside properties should not be sold. (See earlier story.)
BW chairman, Tony Hales, said: "We were comforted by the Government's report in April. We generate almost half of our annual maintenance budget through property-related activities which have been fundamental to the renaissance of our 200-year old waterways over the last decade. Without it the public cost of caring for the waterways would increase significantly. With the reduction in grant funding in recent years the income we have generated from property and other sources has been crucial to the funding and revival of the 2,200-mile network."
"Earlier this year we proposed setting up a "national trust" for the waterways to safeguard their future and lessen the call on the public purse. The proposal, which has received widespread support, would only be possible with the income we generate from our property and with long-term government funding agreements."
It seems possible that the programme was running with the story from earlier in the year as there is not thought to have been any new decision about BW, although BW acknowledges that the government keeps all assets under review in the light of the current financial situation.
It would be a very short-sighted decision if the government were to sell off BW's property portfolio. Not only would the amount raised not be great in a recession, but it would deprive BW of a vital source of income, meaning that the government would have to pump additional money into BW in the future just to maintain the system at a basic level.
This might be a good time to contact your MP to make sure they are aware of this and to encourage them to use what influence they may have to help ensure that BW's assets are not flogged off in a pointless fire sale.
BW points out that the government decided earlier in the year, following a Treasury-led review, that British Waterways' 1,400 canalside properties should not be sold. (See earlier story.)
BW chairman, Tony Hales, said: "We were comforted by the Government's report in April. We generate almost half of our annual maintenance budget through property-related activities which have been fundamental to the renaissance of our 200-year old waterways over the last decade. Without it the public cost of caring for the waterways would increase significantly. With the reduction in grant funding in recent years the income we have generated from property and other sources has been crucial to the funding and revival of the 2,200-mile network."
"Earlier this year we proposed setting up a "national trust" for the waterways to safeguard their future and lessen the call on the public purse. The proposal, which has received widespread support, would only be possible with the income we generate from our property and with long-term government funding agreements."
It seems possible that the programme was running with the story from earlier in the year as there is not thought to have been any new decision about BW, although BW acknowledges that the government keeps all assets under review in the light of the current financial situation.
It would be a very short-sighted decision if the government were to sell off BW's property portfolio. Not only would the amount raised not be great in a recession, but it would deprive BW of a vital source of income, meaning that the government would have to pump additional money into BW in the future just to maintain the system at a basic level.
This might be a good time to contact your MP to make sure they are aware of this and to encourage them to use what influence they may have to help ensure that BW's assets are not flogged off in a pointless fire sale.
Thursday 5 November 2009
Who Pays for Waterways?
Who Pays for Waterways? Who should pay? SOW's Will Chapman stresses that we need to keep the plight and opportunities of the waterways in the public eye:
Even before the recession, the navigation authorities have been severely under-funded. Brititish Waterways is short by as much as £30 million a year and, as a result, cannot do even the minimum maintenance required. This is having an effect on the condition of canal assets, such as bridges and locks, dredging canals and maintaining towpaths and the surrounding vegetation.
On top of that, there is an unreasonable expectation from some local authorities who seem to think that vandalism caused by local residents should be cleaned up by the navigation authority rather than themselves. In some areas fly tipping is a major problem, with supermarket trolleys, household furniture, fridges, bikes, tyres, etc. being dumped in the canal and left for BW to remove. BW spends between £8-10 million a year on clearing up after local residents.
Local Groups Can Help, Too
Fortunately, some local authorities recognise their obligations in this regard but it is by no means universal. Credit should also be given to those local organisations like the Birmingham Canal Navigations Society (BCNS) that organise regular cleaning parties of Black Country canals. I think that one of these recently removed 12 supermarket trolleys from a single lock!
If our inland waterways are to survive the long recovery period that will be necessary as we come out of the current recession, we will need more cooperation from local authorities and groups like the BCNS as it is extremely unlikely that any additional support wil be coming from central government (in fact, they have recently imposed yet another cut of £5 million).
Should Users Bear The Costs?
It's not practical to fund waterways by increasing the charges to boaters and anglers - by far the greatest number of users of the waterways use the towpaths rather than the water. Annual surveys by British Waterways show that of 250+ million visits each year, over 95% of those using the towpaths are enjoying a family walk, exercising dogs, etc. and it is generally accepted that they could only be ‘charged’ through their local council.
Cyclists are subject to permits in some areas but these are usually free even though cyclists are amongst the main beneficiaries of towpaths, with many using the towpaths to travel to and from work.
The remaining 5% of users are those who actually make use of the water - boaters and anglers. These users do pay and some would say heavily (an average narrowboat will pay some £500 a year for the right to cruise and probably another £1,000 for mooring all before the cost of fuel etc). Members of angling clubs pay for fishing rights (around a £1,000 a mile I understand) and also pay up to £25 each for a rod license. Businesses that depend on the waterway – marinas, boat yards, boat hire firms, moorings etc. also pay BW for the privilege of having a connection to the water.
All told these charges raise about £20 million per annum from 33,000 boats and an estimated 500,000 anglers. Money from the rod license, which amounts to over £20 million a year, goes to the Environment Agency for maintaining fish stock but doesn't contribute directly to the upkeep of the waterway itself.
Bridging The Funding Gap
The issue for the future is therefore how can the millions who use the waterways cover the £30 million annual gap? It seems unfair - if not self-defeating - to expect those who are already paying to more than double their contribution as they are less than 5% of users. As the vast majority of people who enjoy the canals (and also benefits from the jobs and passing trade) are local residents, then local authorities should take on more responsibility.
Of course, local authority budgets are already hard pressed, but the £30 million shortfall spread amongst the residents of over 250 parliamentary constituencies through which waterways pass (about 19 million people) seems a reasonable return for an amenity that brings a substantial return to the community. An about-to-be-published Government funded study shows a return of £10-15 on every £1 invested in waterways.
It's time for more Local Authorities to wake up to the opportunities that waterways can bring and to be wary of the folly of neglecting these wonderful assets.
Even before the recession, the navigation authorities have been severely under-funded. Brititish Waterways is short by as much as £30 million a year and, as a result, cannot do even the minimum maintenance required. This is having an effect on the condition of canal assets, such as bridges and locks, dredging canals and maintaining towpaths and the surrounding vegetation.
On top of that, there is an unreasonable expectation from some local authorities who seem to think that vandalism caused by local residents should be cleaned up by the navigation authority rather than themselves. In some areas fly tipping is a major problem, with supermarket trolleys, household furniture, fridges, bikes, tyres, etc. being dumped in the canal and left for BW to remove. BW spends between £8-10 million a year on clearing up after local residents.
Local Groups Can Help, Too
Fortunately, some local authorities recognise their obligations in this regard but it is by no means universal. Credit should also be given to those local organisations like the Birmingham Canal Navigations Society (BCNS) that organise regular cleaning parties of Black Country canals. I think that one of these recently removed 12 supermarket trolleys from a single lock!
If our inland waterways are to survive the long recovery period that will be necessary as we come out of the current recession, we will need more cooperation from local authorities and groups like the BCNS as it is extremely unlikely that any additional support wil be coming from central government (in fact, they have recently imposed yet another cut of £5 million).
Should Users Bear The Costs?
It's not practical to fund waterways by increasing the charges to boaters and anglers - by far the greatest number of users of the waterways use the towpaths rather than the water. Annual surveys by British Waterways show that of 250+ million visits each year, over 95% of those using the towpaths are enjoying a family walk, exercising dogs, etc. and it is generally accepted that they could only be ‘charged’ through their local council.
Cyclists are subject to permits in some areas but these are usually free even though cyclists are amongst the main beneficiaries of towpaths, with many using the towpaths to travel to and from work.
The remaining 5% of users are those who actually make use of the water - boaters and anglers. These users do pay and some would say heavily (an average narrowboat will pay some £500 a year for the right to cruise and probably another £1,000 for mooring all before the cost of fuel etc). Members of angling clubs pay for fishing rights (around a £1,000 a mile I understand) and also pay up to £25 each for a rod license. Businesses that depend on the waterway – marinas, boat yards, boat hire firms, moorings etc. also pay BW for the privilege of having a connection to the water.
All told these charges raise about £20 million per annum from 33,000 boats and an estimated 500,000 anglers. Money from the rod license, which amounts to over £20 million a year, goes to the Environment Agency for maintaining fish stock but doesn't contribute directly to the upkeep of the waterway itself.
Bridging The Funding Gap
The issue for the future is therefore how can the millions who use the waterways cover the £30 million annual gap? It seems unfair - if not self-defeating - to expect those who are already paying to more than double their contribution as they are less than 5% of users. As the vast majority of people who enjoy the canals (and also benefits from the jobs and passing trade) are local residents, then local authorities should take on more responsibility.
Of course, local authority budgets are already hard pressed, but the £30 million shortfall spread amongst the residents of over 250 parliamentary constituencies through which waterways pass (about 19 million people) seems a reasonable return for an amenity that brings a substantial return to the community. An about-to-be-published Government funded study shows a return of £10-15 on every £1 invested in waterways.
It's time for more Local Authorities to wake up to the opportunities that waterways can bring and to be wary of the folly of neglecting these wonderful assets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)