There has been a lot of head-scratching over the weekend following an article in The Guardian reporting on an interview with Liam Byrne, the chief secretary to the Treasury. The article reads:
A total of £16bn will be saved by pressing ahead with the sale of public assets from April. Assets for sale will include the Dartford crossing, the Tote, the student loans portfolio, Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry. In some cases ministers will wait for assets to recover their value after the recession. "This is not a firesale," Byrne says. "But this is stuff we will bring to the market when the price is right over the next two to three years." Assets such as British Waterways will be reorganised as mutuals.
So what did this mean? On the face of it, BW is not being lumped in with other assets to be sold off, but it does not promise that BW won't be separated from its property assets, which is a current concern of many people, as witnessed by the Online Petition, now in the "top ten" of current petitions on the Downing Street website.
"Mutual" status suggests something that is paid for or owned by those who benefit from it. How could this idea be reconciled with the fact that only a small percentage of waterway users (boaters and anglers) contribute any money to them directly? The only practical way that the other 95%+ of users can contribute is through taxation.
Perhaps the term "mutual" is misleading and this is just another way of describing the "third sector" model that BW has said it wants to become?
The mystery may have been solved this morning, as the Government has issued a report called "Putting The Front Line First" which outlines how the Government hopes to "drive up standards by strengthening the role of citizens and civic society, to free up public services by recasting the relationship between the centre and the frontline, and to streamline the centre of government, saving money for sharper delivery".
The report states: "We are publishing now a portfolio of assets to discuss ownership options with the private sector, including full or partial sale or mutualisation. We will consider new ownership structures that release value from the government estate by creating one or more public property companies".
A chapter of the report's Asset Portfolio (pages 5 to 7) is specifically about British Waterways and includes the section:
"At Budget 2009, it was announced that BW would transfer its property activities (including
joint ventures) into a wholly-owned property subsidiary – in order to ensure clear separation
of, and focus on, both maximising gains from its property and best management of the waterways.
"This process is being taken forward by BW in consultation with HM Treasury, the Shareholder Executive and Defra. However, the Government recognises that there may be benefits in considering alternative structures for BW’s business as a whole, including its property portfolio. We will therefore consider alternative models for the business as a whole, such as mutual or third sector structures. As part of any such future structure for BW, therefore, there may be opportunities for the private sector to invest in the portfolio.
"Under any scenario, ensuring the continued maintenance and protection of the waterways will continue to be an important objective for the Government."
BW has taken this to mean an end to the speculation about a property sell-off [link]. Many waterway users will find this re-assuring although the property portfolio only contributes a part of BW's income. There would still be the problem of obtaining enough additional funding to maintain our waterways adequately.
And reading between the lines the report does not rule out the possibility of some of the property being sold off over time...
[Click below to add your own opinion.]
.
Monday 7 December 2009
Thursday 3 December 2009
What's going at Marsworth?
A couple of weeks ago someone noticed that two planning application had been submitted by to demolish the Marsworth yard and build 14 houses on the site. On closer investigation it turned out the applicant was H2O one of BW's property development partners. (To view the applications and submissions visit http://tinyurl.com/yepu8c2 and search for references 09/01945/APP and 09/01946/ACD).
At the time of the discovery just a couple of days remained before the deadline for objections but the reach of the internet ensured within a few hours the word had spread and a number of people and stakeholders put in their objections.
As one might expect, the objections express a mix of concern about the loss of part of our heritage, appearance, style and number of the proposed new buildings and whether the current boating facilities would be retained. One respondent complained about a local press feature which reported a BW representative as saying 'demolition was expected to start on Nov 30th.'
A few of us made the point that the planning process should halt until BW had performed its obligations to consult with its stakeholders on what is clearly a sensitive issue. It wasn't long before Stuart Mills, BW Property Director published an informative clarification in which he apologises for not consulting with a 'wider range of stakeholders' and states that boaters facilities will be relocated (see http://tinyurl.com/5abxc). This was followed by an invitation to local boaters to attend an open meeting on Dec 10th with BW and the developers H2O. The date clashes with the local IWA Chiltern Branch Christmas celebration but at least the proper consultation process is starting.
Ed Fox, PR Officer from BW, added that it's going to be all right anyway because BW have already got 'plans' to sort out the boaters issues and preserve the odd crane and bit of the wharf. But good intentions aside, the fundamental issue is that NONE of this is written into the current planning application(s). BW don't have any planning approval to construct alternative boaters facilities, nor is there any way to legally enforce the preservation of any parts of the old yard based on the current planning application. Some commentators have observed that the suggested site for the replacement boater facilities is itself in a conservation area which, if true, may mean that the chances of getting permission granted are minimal if not zero.
What people don't seem to realise is that the outcome of the planning application dictates only what must happen; anything else can be and usually is avoided. IF the current planning applications are allowed, then neither BW or the developers are under ANY obligation to provide relocated facilities or preserve any heritage, so no amount of bolting of stable doors will change anything.
Our hope is that someone will raise these points at the meeting on December 10th.
At the time of the discovery just a couple of days remained before the deadline for objections but the reach of the internet ensured within a few hours the word had spread and a number of people and stakeholders put in their objections.
As one might expect, the objections express a mix of concern about the loss of part of our heritage, appearance, style and number of the proposed new buildings and whether the current boating facilities would be retained. One respondent complained about a local press feature which reported a BW representative as saying 'demolition was expected to start on Nov 30th.'
A few of us made the point that the planning process should halt until BW had performed its obligations to consult with its stakeholders on what is clearly a sensitive issue. It wasn't long before Stuart Mills, BW Property Director published an informative clarification in which he apologises for not consulting with a 'wider range of stakeholders' and states that boaters facilities will be relocated (see http://tinyurl.com/5abxc). This was followed by an invitation to local boaters to attend an open meeting on Dec 10th with BW and the developers H2O. The date clashes with the local IWA Chiltern Branch Christmas celebration but at least the proper consultation process is starting.
Ed Fox, PR Officer from BW, added that it's going to be all right anyway because BW have already got 'plans' to sort out the boaters issues and preserve the odd crane and bit of the wharf. But good intentions aside, the fundamental issue is that NONE of this is written into the current planning application(s). BW don't have any planning approval to construct alternative boaters facilities, nor is there any way to legally enforce the preservation of any parts of the old yard based on the current planning application. Some commentators have observed that the suggested site for the replacement boater facilities is itself in a conservation area which, if true, may mean that the chances of getting permission granted are minimal if not zero.
What people don't seem to realise is that the outcome of the planning application dictates only what must happen; anything else can be and usually is avoided. IF the current planning applications are allowed, then neither BW or the developers are under ANY obligation to provide relocated facilities or preserve any heritage, so no amount of bolting of stable doors will change anything.
Our hope is that someone will raise these points at the meeting on December 10th.
Tuesday 1 December 2009
MPs debate Canal Funding
An Adjournment Debate was held in the House of Commons on 30th November.
Lynda Waltho MP secured the debate on "Funding of British Waterways".
You can watch the debate via this link. (Move slider forward to 7 hrs 46 mins 50 secs.) [Firefox plugin] [Mac plugin]
You can read the transcript of the debate via this link.
The debate lasted 30 minutes until the House adjourned. Lynda Waltho MP spoke about the issues regarding funding for British Waterways.
Eight members made additional points. Huw Irranca-Davies, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, replied.
MPs from opposition parties were notable by their absence.
Lynda Waltho MP secured the debate on "Funding of British Waterways".
You can watch the debate via this link. (Move slider forward to 7 hrs 46 mins 50 secs.) [Firefox plugin] [Mac plugin]
You can read the transcript of the debate via this link.
The debate lasted 30 minutes until the House adjourned. Lynda Waltho MP spoke about the issues regarding funding for British Waterways.
Eight members made additional points. Huw Irranca-Davies, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, replied.
MPs from opposition parties were notable by their absence.
Saturday 28 November 2009
Waterway Funding to be debated in Parliament
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday 15 September 2009
IWA Launches S.O.S. Campaign
The Inland Waterways Association announced the launch of its Save Our System campaign at its National Festival at Ratclife-on-Soar.
The campaign was launched in repsonse to the depth of the cut in grant-in-aid for British Waterways for 2010-2011. BW's funding is being reduced from this year's £57,448,000 to just £47,848,000, representing a reduction of over 16.7%.
IWA Chairman Clive Henderson called for IWA's local branches, along with other waterway societies and organisations, to identify issues of poor maintenance and slipping standards, especially those affecting safety, and to collect evidence of problems caused by underfunding locally that will allow a national picture to be constructed the make clear the effects of these cuts so that the underfunding can be reversed.
IWA wants local waterways stakeholders to assist its S.O.S. 2010 campaign by reporting evidence of problems caused by underfunding via a link on its website: www.waterways.org.uk/SOS2010.
IWA's campaign is supported by Save Our Waterways, along with major boating organisations. We would urge you and your local society, cruising club, angling club, walking group, etc. to help the campaign by contributing evidence through the above link.
The campaign was launched in repsonse to the depth of the cut in grant-in-aid for British Waterways for 2010-2011. BW's funding is being reduced from this year's £57,448,000 to just £47,848,000, representing a reduction of over 16.7%.
IWA Chairman Clive Henderson called for IWA's local branches, along with other waterway societies and organisations, to identify issues of poor maintenance and slipping standards, especially those affecting safety, and to collect evidence of problems caused by underfunding locally that will allow a national picture to be constructed the make clear the effects of these cuts so that the underfunding can be reversed.
IWA wants local waterways stakeholders to assist its S.O.S. 2010 campaign by reporting evidence of problems caused by underfunding via a link on its website: www.waterways.org.uk/SOS2010.
IWA's campaign is supported by Save Our Waterways, along with major boating organisations. We would urge you and your local society, cruising club, angling club, walking group, etc. to help the campaign by contributing evidence through the above link.
Wednesday 29 April 2009
British Waterways announces Vision for Future
British Waterways has today launched proposals for its future, entitled "Twenty Twenty - a Vision for for the Future of our Canals and Rivers".
This is the result of a major strategic review that has taken place and follows the government's decision to allow BW to retain its successful property portfolio.
The plans include increasing efficiencies, opening up new funding and partnership opportunities, creating closer links with local communities and the start a move towards the waterways achieving a 'third sector' trust or charitable status similar to that of the National Trust.
As a first step towards greater efficiency, BW proposes a restructure of its own operations in England and Wales, by removing an entire layer of management and creating eleven new, smaller, 'hands-on' waterway units. The move would make around 100 office staff redundant, but the £10 million annual saving would be redirected towards waterway maintenance.
Under the new structure, BW would put a greater emphasis on working with volunteers and local communities.
BW Chief Executive, Robin Evans, said: "Our absolute priority must be to maintain investment in the waterways and this means reducing spending elsewhere. Our proposed new structure will both redirect important funding to essential maintenance work but also make us much more responsive to customers and partners."
In the longer term, BW calls for some fresh thinking about what the waterways mean to Britain and how their sustainable future might be secured. It proposes that, by 2020, it should become a third sector 'public interest company' or trust. BW believes that such a change could stimulate greater participation in the waterways by volunteers and other individuals, enhance openness and accountability for communities and waterway users, create opportunities for new sources of income such as grants and donations, and ensure the historic network is held in trust for the nation.
More information about BW's proposals can be found on its website, here: www.britishwaterways.co.uk/twentytwenty.
The document "Twenty Twenty - a Vision for for the Future of our Canals and Rivers" can be downloaded here.
This is the result of a major strategic review that has taken place and follows the government's decision to allow BW to retain its successful property portfolio.
The plans include increasing efficiencies, opening up new funding and partnership opportunities, creating closer links with local communities and the start a move towards the waterways achieving a 'third sector' trust or charitable status similar to that of the National Trust.
As a first step towards greater efficiency, BW proposes a restructure of its own operations in England and Wales, by removing an entire layer of management and creating eleven new, smaller, 'hands-on' waterway units. The move would make around 100 office staff redundant, but the £10 million annual saving would be redirected towards waterway maintenance.
Under the new structure, BW would put a greater emphasis on working with volunteers and local communities.
BW Chief Executive, Robin Evans, said: "Our absolute priority must be to maintain investment in the waterways and this means reducing spending elsewhere. Our proposed new structure will both redirect important funding to essential maintenance work but also make us much more responsive to customers and partners."
In the longer term, BW calls for some fresh thinking about what the waterways mean to Britain and how their sustainable future might be secured. It proposes that, by 2020, it should become a third sector 'public interest company' or trust. BW believes that such a change could stimulate greater participation in the waterways by volunteers and other individuals, enhance openness and accountability for communities and waterway users, create opportunities for new sources of income such as grants and donations, and ensure the historic network is held in trust for the nation.
More information about BW's proposals can be found on its website, here: www.britishwaterways.co.uk/twentytwenty.
The document "Twenty Twenty - a Vision for for the Future of our Canals and Rivers" can be downloaded here.
Thursday 2 April 2009
Waterways Parliamentarian of the Year Award
The Inland Waterways Association has this year awarded the title of "Waterways Parliamentarian of the Year" to David Drew, MP for Stroud.
The award was made in recognition of his notable contribution to the Cotswold Canals restoration and also for his work in chairing two select committee inquiries into British Waterways.
These select committees had done much to inform MPs and to raise the profile of the waterways in Parliament over the last year.
Read IWA News Release.
The award of this title by the IWA reflects the positive relationships that now exist between waterway organisations and parliamentarians.
MPs have instigated a number of debates and enquiries that help to keep the needs of the waterways in the minds of the ministers who make the decisions. Ministers have shown a willingness to listen and to take on board ideas from waterways organisations. This shows how far things have moved on from two years ago when ministers were seeing waterways as a soft touch and waterways organisations were mounting protest demonstrations.
The award was made in recognition of his notable contribution to the Cotswold Canals restoration and also for his work in chairing two select committee inquiries into British Waterways.
These select committees had done much to inform MPs and to raise the profile of the waterways in Parliament over the last year.
Read IWA News Release.
The award of this title by the IWA reflects the positive relationships that now exist between waterway organisations and parliamentarians.
MPs have instigated a number of debates and enquiries that help to keep the needs of the waterways in the minds of the ministers who make the decisions. Ministers have shown a willingness to listen and to take on board ideas from waterways organisations. This shows how far things have moved on from two years ago when ministers were seeing waterways as a soft touch and waterways organisations were mounting protest demonstrations.
Tuesday 31 March 2009
Where have all the protests gone?
Well, some folks love a good bun-fight and certainly there were plenty of boaters and others interested in waterways who were prepared to come and blockade canals and wave placards to make their voices heard at a time when there was much anger over the swingeing funding cuts made by Defra.
Some people have expressed disappointment that we are no longer mounting such protests. However, it was realised that it was no longer necessary or worthwhile to continue to protest. For one thing, it you keep doing something then it is no longer news and the press loses interest. For another thing, the protests actually achieved a great deal in terms of grabbing the attention of politicians.
The "flat cash" funding of waterways for this year (whereby the money available remained the same with no allowance for inflation), while being a cut in real spending power, was still better than the deeper cuts that had at one time been threatened. The money situation is not good, but you can be sure that, had waterways supporters not stood up and made a noise, things would have been much worse.
The waterways minister of the time, who had failed to connect adequately with users, was replaced by Jonathan Shaw, who took a more positive approach than his predecessor and showed that he was actually listening. He helped to set up an inter-departmental group for waterways issues, helping to ensure a co-ordinated approach when issues crossed government department boundaries. He also supported the ongoing update of the Waterways for Tomorrow charter for the future of the waterways.
When you have ministers who are moving in the right direction, you support them and work with them rather than embarrass and frustrate them with further protests. So, over the last year or so, rather than engage in further protests, Save Our Waterways has been active in less visible ways. It has involved, with other waterways organisations, in useful discussions with those who make decisions as well as those who aspire to do so.
Save Our Waterways seeks to represent the interests of the many casual users of the waterways. These are probably the majority of users, although they do not contribute financially other than through taxation. This is one reason why Will has been promoting the idea of local councils paying more towards the upkeep of waterways in their area.
Save Our Waterways may not have been in the limelight recently but it has nevertheless been busy behind the scenes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
