Keith Gibson continues his round-up of news from the waterways.
(Spring 2008)
In the last issue I reported on the threat of even more cuts in British Waterways' budget. Probably you will have seen in the national waterways press that a storm of protest, led by the Inland Waterways Association, resulted and that it was eventually announced that there would be no cut to BW's budget for 2008/9. Instead, exactly the same amount would be made available to spend on BW's waterways this year as in 2007/8.
I am sorry, did I miss something there? Allowing for inflation (which has been higher in the construction trades than in the retail trades), if the government pays exactly the same this year as it paid last year, that is actually quite a significant cut isn't it? Yet, we have become so used to cuts in waterways budgets, that the news seems to have generally been received in waterway circles, if not with delight, at least almost as though an increase had been awarded. The lobbying of politicians had certainly been a success in that the threatened larger cut was fought off but until we get back to a situation where BW's income is sufficient to properly maintain the waterways we are far from out of the woods.
The seriousness of the current situation is shown by decisions British Waterways has made regarding the inevitably unplanned spending required to repair last year's flood damage (costs I believe approaching £10m) and to spend as much as £15m over three years on repairs to the Monmouthshire & Brecon Canal following the embankment collapse at Gilwern on that canal. With no sign of any extra government money to pay for these responsibilities (which are huge additional expenses for a relatively low spending body), BW decided to back out of its commitment to the Cotswold Canals, a decision that to me has every sign of panic and, whilst it will save some of the financial costs has other, possibly much more significant, consequences.
In July 2001, Dave Fletcher, then the Chief Executive of British Waterways, announced that BW had a firm intention to fully restore the Cotswold Canals (the Thames & Severn Canal and the Stroudwater Navigation) and BW then took on the lead role in the partnership with local authorities and the Cotswold Canals Trust seeking to achieve that aim. Large-scale grants were awarded, including £11.3m from the Heritage Lottery Fund to restore the 6 miles of canal between Stonehouse, through Stroud to Brimscombe Port and work eventually began on that scheme towards the end of last year. BW has appointed staff to carry out this work and has already spent or committed about £1.5m of its own money. The freehold of the canal has been passed from its previous owner Gloucestershire County Council to BW.
Apparently without any advance warning to the other partners in the scheme except a telephone call from Robin Evans, the current Chief Executive, BW announced on 4th February that as from April it would withdraw from the restoration partnership and that the additional £4.5m that it had committed to the scheme would not now be available. At the time of writing, I do not know how the other partners will resolve the funding shortfall or the project management gap this leaves in the scheme.
Frankly, I am appalled not just at BW's decision but at the way it was announced apparently with no attempt to find alternative finance or to realign the management of the project and, from what we are told, with no prior discussion with BW's partners in the scheme. In my rather more years than I will admit to as either a player in or an observer of the waterway regeneration scene, I think this must be one of the most unprofessional acts that I can recall. BW had committed itself to play a leading role and to put financial and staff resources into the project to restore these canals and had acted on that commitment in partnership with others over a seven year period. It had a moral, if not a legal, duty to continue to act on that commitment, especially after all the hard graft and financial commitments made by the other partners to reach the stage where large-scale grant-aided restoration was beginning. In my view, it certainly was not a commitment that should have been quickly abandoned apparently as a panic measure as a result of the inadequate resources to deal with the problems of last year and apparently without sufficient care as to the effect of the decision not just on the Cotswold scheme but on waterway restoration generally.
It is hard to see where this leaves waterway restoration in the eyes of potential grant giving bodies. There is clear evidence, from our own canal for instance, that waterway restoration has been a successful means of achieving the government's regeneration objectives (not our reason for spending so much time on restoring the canal – but the reason why we got most of the money!). Yet the government has apparently turned its back on that success to such an extent that its executive agency, British Waterways, has walked away from a commitment to a project that had millions of public money offered in the form of grants. Those grants may not themselves be at risk if the remaining partners can put together an alternative financial package with new money or cost savings or both but I am pretty sure that, at the very least, anyone making decisions about the allocation of grant funding will be seeking rather more in the way of cast-iron commitments if a waterways project is involved after this debacle. Indeed those other canal societies and trusts who have seen the Kennet & Avon/Huddersfield/Rochdale pattern of BW eventually taking the lead role as being the one to follow must be wondering if there might be other models that could be followed.
Just as DEFRA robbed Peter to pay Paul when it cut the funding to BW and the Environment Agency because of deficiencies in its farming budget, so BW is robbing the proven successful Peter of waterway restoration to pay the Paul of an inadequate budget. The House of Commons Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Committee, which has already expressed its concern at the effects of cuts in waterway spending, has again met to consider British Waterways and its remit to deal with regeneration and restoration issues as a result of this decision. To coincide with that meeting new guidance to BW has been announced by DEFRA which recognises that BW has to balance a wide range of interests and competing priorities. Three priorities are set in England and Wales which are to maintain the network in satisfactory order, to achieve a longer-term vision of moving towards greater self-reliance (i.e. away from grant aided funding) and to deliver a range of public benefits. To me this sounds suspiciously like waffle! It actually says very little other than what was and remains obvious. It did not help the government's case that Jonathan Shaw MP, the Waterways Minister, told the committee that BW was still promoting waterway restoration and that he had been to see examples at Loughborough Wharf and in Birmingham. He should have been better briefed - Loughborough Wharf is on the River Soar and the Birmingham site on the Icknield Port Loop, a remainder but open and fully navigable section of the BCN. These sites might be examples of regeneration alongside waterways but neither of them has anything at all to do with Waterway Restoration.
I can't help but compare Dave Fletcher's proactive BW back in 2001, when it was decided to make the commitment to the Cotswold Canals, with Robin Evans's reactive BW of today. I am not competent to make any judgement as to whether one or other of these two Chief Executives is the more successful, I am simply comparing the external appearance of BW as it is in today's political climate compared to a time when waterway restoration was seen in the glow of success from the Millennium funded restoration schemes. It seems to me that BW is in danger of having its staff withdraw into the bunker. When I chaired Northern Canals Association meetings, BW staff regularly attended, not just at junior levels but at the top level with Derek Cochrane and Ian White and even the Chief Executive himself attending our meetings. The equivalent people are conspicuous by their absence today.
Keith Gibson, Chairman, Northern Canals Association