FA's sweet report on the sour state of waterways funding

I've often wondered at where the money comes from to pay for the canals and navigable waterways.

The Inland Waterways Advisory Council has just answered that question with a new report, called Insights into the Funding of the Inland Waterways

[PDF download, 0.5mb, 41 pages)

If you're the sort of person who reads homework in bed then the report's summary (read it here) makes interesting reading.

Key points include:

Total income for UK navigation authorities was about £300million per year.

British Waterways accounted for 71% of the total, the Port of London Authority and the Cardiff Harbour Authority for 16%, the Environment Agency for 9% and the Broads and smaller authorities the remaining 4%.

'Grant in Aid' from DEFRA and the Scottish Government made up one-third of BW's income and just over half of the Environment Agency's.

BW’s property activities represented 18% of its total income.

Local authorities contributed less than 1% of  total income.

8% came from licences, registrations, permits and tolls.

It doesn't attempt to ask what the total waterways 'industry' income is - for example, the money spent on boating or angling by ordinary punters - but it's a start.

The IWAC didn't actually do the research itself, but commissioned a specialist marine industry consultancy appropriately titled Fisher Associates.  

FA announced their task a year ago (here's their news announcement from Nov 2008), saying that they got the gig from doing similar work overseas: 

Aimed at identifying how the waterways sector is funded, the commission builds on our experience in this sector overseas. Chris Fisher said: “We are pleased that IWAC has engaged us for this interesting work, and we look forward to contributing to the sustainability of the UK’s waterways”.

The IWAC say another report from FA is due shortly, showing how the waterways are funded in in the rest of Europe as well as North America.  I'm surprised that didn't come out first, but perhaps they want to put it in context.

I think the idea is so that the IWAC has a stick to beat the government with, or at least the local authorities.   After all, 1% is not an impressive figure, considering how the waterways are often local amenities as much as national ones.

Yet, I'm not sure how well this analogy with funding in other countries can be stretched. England's canals are so individual, so very 'ethnic'.  People usually say that to mean non-Anglo in character, but it really means to have a distinct national character.

That reminds me.  If there's one waterside city more than any other that now has an 'ethnic' (in the popular sense) character, it's perhaps Leicester. 

Tomorrow (Tues 24th Nov) Leicester County Council heads the launch of the new River Soar & Grand Union Canal Strategy, outlining the future plans for the 23 miles of canal and river around the city. 

The plans don't say how much of the money is coming from the local authorities.  Nor how 'ethnic (my sense or yours)' they consider the Leicester waterways.  But seems to me that nowadays everyone uses the waterways in Leicester, including surely a lot of council-tax payers.

Comments

[Andrew Denny]

Sure, go ahead.  As is always the case, when I see my posts the next day, I wish I could rewrite them :-) 

[Will Chapman]

Great article - would you mind if we put it up on the Save Our Waterways website?