Back in 2006, DEFRA (the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), announced massive cuts to its grant-in-aid to British Waterways (BW) and the Environment Agency (EA). These cuts had serious implications for the operation and maintenance of the waterways of England and Wales. The Scottish waterways are suffering much less, since the Scottish Executive's £10.9 million grant to BW remained unchanged.
In the case of the Environment Agency, the cuts to its budget had to be spread between all parts of its organisation rather than just the relatively small department that looks after its navigable rivers, so any increased threat here is longer-term rather than immediate. But before this all happened, the EA Navigation budget had already been subject to severe cuts which they proposed to cover by a large increase in thier boat licence fees.
So, in the short term, the greatest effects are being felt on the canals and rivers operated by British Waterways.
BW was told in March 2006 that its budget for the financial year 2006-7 was to be cut by 5% (or about £3.1 million). Later a further 7.5% (£4.5 million) of cuts were added with the possibility of a further cut of 2.5% (£1.5 million) this Autumn. These cuts total 15% of BW's grant, or about £9 million out of the £62.5 million originally due to them from DEFRA. The Department has advised BW that their grant is likely to be cut further in the years 2008-2011 with a possible total of a loss of £60 million over five years.
The DEFRA and Scottish Executive grants are not the whole of BW's income. It also generates earnings of its own from boat licences, moorings, angling rights and its property portfolio and receives special-purpose grants from some local authorities and funding agencies including the lottery.
One reason why so many of the waterways community are angry about the cuts is that their cause is nothing whatsoever to do with the waterways. Owing to what the Inland Waterways Association has called "apparent calamitous mismanagement" within DEFRA, that Department has failed to meet its obligations to make payments to farmers under the European Union's agricultural policy. For that they have incurred a large "fine" from the EU. (Not strictly a fine, but a withdrawal of some of the grant due if the payments to farmers are late. See our Facts from Hansard page for the rather complicated details.)
DEFRA has also over-spent substantially on the collections side of that policy and on other projects, and has incurred large unexpected costs over the precautions against Avian Flu. The Treasury is refusing (or possibly hasn't even been asked - see the postscript below) to come up with any more money to rescue DEFRA, which is therefore finding the necessary money by cutting the budgets for all its other areas of responsibility, including BW and the EA.
It's far too early to tell in detail, as BW is still working out what it can do within its reduced resources. It has indicated that it may need to delay or cancel some of its promised support to canal restoration schemes, close some waterways, cut its staffing and increase boat licence fees, possibly by 30%.
So not only will boat-owners and hirers end up footing part of the bill for DEFRA's mishandling of the farm payments, but anglers, towpath walker and cyclists are likely to suffer reductions in their amenity areas and owners of homes and businesses who were attracted to their present location by a view of a well-maintained canal with moving boats will find the scene replaced by a waterway degerating back towards a muddy, stagnant ditch.
Those of us who have been around the waterways for a long time are aware of how much progress has been made jointly by BW, local authorities and the voluntary sector to restore and revive Britain's canals and rivers. We remember the days when, even on well-used canals like the Grand Union, huge lengths of towpath were unusable or simply missing, having fallen into the "cut". We thought those days had passed. Now it seems they are all too likely to return.
Recently-restored canals always seem to need several years further work after their formal re-opening before their restoration can be said to be safe and sustainable. The Rochdale Canal is very much a case in point. If canals like this now fail and have to be closed because there isn't the money to do the necessary work then there will be some extremely unhappy faces among the volunteers who did much of the early work and the funding agencies to paid for the last big effort leading to the re-opening.
When the canal were nationalised in 1948, many of them were suffering from major arrears in maintenance. It is only in recent years that BW, with Government funding for the purpose, has caught up with at least the safety-related aspects of these arrears. This substantial gain is also now at risk.
On EA waterways, the immediate effect is a huge hike in boat licence fees to cover the gap between a reduced grant and the work that needs doing, particularly during this year's winter stoppages.
In November 2007, reports suggest that £130 million is to be cut from DEFRA's total budget, which will be spread across all the bodies funded by DEFRA, including BW and EA, but BW is alleged to be "at the top of the list" for cuts.
We must continue with our efforts to publicise the effects that such cuts will have. We must put forward ideas for more realistic ways of achieving adequate funding for the waterways we love.
Find out how you can help.