The funding gap
I FIND myself in complete agreement with Orph Mabel regarding the decline in maintenance on Canal & River Trust (CaRT) waterways (Halting the maintenance decline), writes Allan Richards.
It is very easy to pen (or is that tap) an article on the latest twists and turns of the continuing debate on towpath cyclists and continuous cruisers. However, due to the silence of CaRT regarding its £50m a year maintenance gap the opportunity to comment on the future of our waterways does not arise very often.
Terminology
Before getting down the the ‘nitty gritty', it is perhaps best to explain some terminology. Firstly lets explain ‘steady state'. British Waterways (BW) used to model the amount that needed spending each year on its waterways. The steady state model calculates how much needs to be spent during the year such that the state of the waterways neither improves nor deteriorates.
Then we have ‘funding gap'. That is the difference between what is actually spent and the ‘steady state' figure. Finally we have ‘maintenance backlog' which needs little further explanation. It is the cost of outstanding maintenance work.
BW history
As pointed out by Orph, there was a time with David Fletcher at the helm when it appeared that the waterways were improving. However, CaRT's trustees acknowledge that a funding gap has existed since 2004.
A ‘Status Options Review' carried out by KPMG in 2008 (at a cost of £800,000!) modelled a number of scenarios for future steady state figures. It estimated that in 2016/17 BW would have to spend between £155 millions (scenario 1) and £185 millions (scenario 4) to maintain steady state (including Scotland).
In commissioning that review, BW informed KPMG that they had a £200m maintenance backlog (mainly England and Wales).
£120m in 2010/11
A report by the All Party Parliamentary Waterways Group's, 'The Future of the Waterways' (July 2011) states:
'We were informed by Robin Evans of British Waterways that the company had incurred a £10 millions loss in 2010/2011. The total 'steady state' requirement for British Waterways (the amount of money needed to keep the assets in their current condition, neither improving nor declining further) was estimated to be £120 millions per annum. [England & Wales]'.
Nigel Johnson
We now come to Nigel Johnson, CaRT's retired ‘Legal Director'. He made a sworn statement suggesting that in 2013/14 ‘The cost to the Trust of maintaining the inland waterways is approximately £130m per annum'.
Based on the Trustees assumption that steady state cost rises at about 3% a year (this appears to be inline with KPMG's ‘least cost' scenario 1), CaRT needs to spend about £140m next year (2015/2016).
Spending only two thirds
Unfortunately, CaRT are only spending about two thirds of the amount needed to prevent year on year deterioration of the its waterways. The extra £10 millions of government funding which will kick in next year will have little effect.
Indeed, the Trust admit that the funding gap will not be eradicated by the time government funding runs out.
... and what happens then? Will government want to continue funding the run-down waterways?
Not allow independent audit
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, CaRT maintain that the steady state figure is much lower than above and will not allow an independent audit to discover the truth of that matter.
Emergency stoppages are now portrayed as ‘fish rescues', patching up of lock gates rather than replacement are now ‘lock open days' and bodged repair jobs blamed on soil conditions.
Largest single problem
... and if that fails to deflect from the largest single problem facing our waterways—the funding gap—the Trust can always get a grant to turn more towpaths into cycleways or start another initiative to either force continuous cruisers into marinas or otherwise get rid of them.
It's worked in the past. It will work in the future!