NABO support "Manifesto"

[Rebotco]

Some members may be interested in this:-

 

The National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) have thrown their weight behind the Boaters' Manifesto which has been presented to the Transition Trustees of the Canal & River Trust which will replace British Waterways on April 1st next year.

Simon Robbins, Vice Chair of NABO said: "We are pleased to see that an independent group of boaters shares broadly the same concerns as we identified in our formal submission to DEFRA during the Summer, about ensuring that navigation remains a central element in the proposed Canal and River Trust.

“Boaters represent one of the core funders of the navigable waterways and this will continue for the foreseeable future. Apart from the direct fees paid to BW we contribute substantially to BW’s commercial income through the services we buy from waterside businesses.

“The Transition Trustees are clearly anxious to identify new funding streams for the new Charity and this is an aspiration that boaters and representative groups have consistently lobbied for over many years.

“However, many boaters feel that our interests as a major existing stakeholder may be sidelined. We hope that the Transition Trustees will not overlook the fact that on a conservative estimate over 20% of BW’s annual income comes from boaters’ pockets. Boaters represent a committed group of long term shareholders in the waterways and many feel that we need to be embraced rather than, as it sometimes feels under British Waterways, simply being taken for granted.

Robbins said that he is encouraged by the news that there is to be a meeting with some of the Transition Trustees to discuss the manifesto and concluded: "We are conscious that NABO are regarded by some as being among the ‘usual suspects’ in these matters and think it is important that other boaters express their concerns too.”

 

Brian

[jenlyn]

Some members may be interested in this:-

 

The National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) have thrown their weight behind the Boaters' Manifesto which has been presented to the Transition Trustees of the Canal & River Trust which will replace British Waterways on April 1st next year.

Simon Robbins, Vice Chair of NABO said: "We are pleased to see that an independent group of boaters shares broadly the same concerns as we identified in our formal submission to DEFRA during the Summer, about ensuring that navigation remains a central element in the proposed Canal and River Trust.

“Boaters represent one of the core funders of the navigable waterways and this will continue for the foreseeable future. Apart from the direct fees paid to BW we contribute substantially to BW’s commercial income through the services we buy from waterside businesses.

“The Transition Trustees are clearly anxious to identify new funding streams for the new Charity and this is an aspiration that boaters and representative groups have consistently lobbied for over many years.

“However, many boaters feel that our interests as a major existing stakeholder may be sidelined. We hope that the Transition Trustees will not overlook the fact that on a conservative estimate over 20% of BW’s annual income comes from boaters’ pockets. Boaters represent a committed group of long term shareholders in the waterways and many feel that we need to be embraced rather than, as it sometimes feels under British Waterways, simply being taken for granted.

Robbins said that he is encouraged by the news that there is to be a meeting with some of the Transition Trustees to discuss the manifesto and concluded: "We are conscious that NABO are regarded by some as being among the ‘usual suspects’ in these matters and think it is important that other boaters express their concerns too.”

 

Brian

coming along nicely

[pete.i]

Some members may be interested in this:-

 

snip "We are conscious that NABO are regarded by some as being among the ‘usual suspects’ in these matters and think it is important that other boaters express their concerns too.”

 

Brian

 

Hi all.

 

Yep agree with all of that but as a boater (non live aboard) who contributes as much as anyone just how do we express our concerns. I am not being pendantic I genuinely do not know.

 

Pete

[Higgs]

Hi all.

 

Yep agree with all of that but as a boater (non live aboard) who contributes as much as anyone just how do we express our concerns. I am not being pendantic I genuinely do not know.

 

Pete

 

As no one has tried to answer your question, and one might have expected a member of NABO to have offered some input, you can see how communication is a problem. It has been a problem associated with the manifesto too.

 

In one way or another, I think the concerns would have filtered through to the transition Trustees. When, eventually, the registration of C&RT is submitted to the Charities Commission, the Commission will play its part in regulating the function of C&RT as a charity.

 

As with any negotiation, compromise will form part of the outcome.

[Rebotco]

Hi all.

 

Yep agree with all of that but as a boater (non live aboard) who contributes as much as anyone just how do we express our concerns. I am not being pendantic I genuinely do not know.

 

Pete

 

I agree, its difficult to know how an individual boater can make his views known to those that matter.

There have been a couple of opportunities in the past, with a petition etc, but thats only any good if you happen to agree with it.

I suppose the only effective method is to join one of the boating organisations that express similar views to your own, and then seek to influence their policies.

The problem is that boaters are a widely scattered group with even wider scattered views.

If you get 6 boaters together, there will be at least 7 opinions on any subject!

 

That doesn't help much, but I think over the next few months there will be opportunities to make a difference.

Need to keep an eye on forums such as this.

 

Brian

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Hi all.

 

Yep agree with all of that but as a boater (non live aboard) who contributes as much as anyone just how do we express our concerns. I am not being pendantic I genuinely do not know.

 

Pete

 

It is very easy to express you concerns. You could, for example, post them on this forum.

 

The trick is, of course, to get your concerns addressed! If you do not belong a group who express similar views then that can be quite difficult.

 

A starting point would be to hunt down some of the responses to the Defra consultation and see if your concerns have already been raised.

[Higgs]

I agree, its difficult to know how an individual boater can make his views known to those that matter.

There have been a couple of opportunities in the past, with a petition etc, but thats only any good if you happen to agree with it.

 

Brian

 

With only 149 having signed the manifesto petition, it might give people the wrong impression.

 

Seriously; I thought it had possibilities. However, I felt 'sidelined' by yet another group who seemed to pay no attention to alot or any, not completely converted; bull-headed behaviour. The manifesto could not be sold, as an unfinished piece of work; half-cooked.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Seriously; I thought it had possibilities.

It does have slight possibilities now NABO are behind it.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Higgs]

It does have slight possibilities now NABO are behind it.

 

 

Possibly rename the manifesto: The NABO Manifesto.

 

Any transitional Trustee, worth their salt, would make it their business to keep themselves informed. They lose nothing by meeting people with a manifesto; it saves accusations being leveled at them, in the future, of ignoring and not listening.

[mayalld]

It does have slight possibilities now NABO are behind it.

 

Yes, very slight indeed.

[deletedaccount]

plus they can pick and choose the things they were going to do anyway then use them to boost their "we're listening" credentials.

 

The sad things here is reading the "why should we sack evans" thread on the facebook page. The trustees posed the question and the replies are full of emotive and (justified imo) righteous anger, but no real business cases for firing him other than he's overpaid, which they already know. It's a road to nowhere.

Edited December 5, 2011 by deletedaccount

[Allan(nb Albert)]

plus they can pick and choose the things they were going to do anyway then use them to boost their "we're listening" credentials.

 

The sad things here is reading the "why should we sack evans" thread on the facebook page. The trustees posed the question and the replies are full of emotive and (justified imo) righteous anger, but no real business cases for firing him other than he's overpaid, which they already know. It's a road to nowhere.

 

My view is that the business case for firing directors is poor performance over the longer term.

 

BW measures delivery of public benefit by increased visitor numbers -

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/3854-pressure-mounting-for-clear-out

 

The other reason is financial performance.

[Higgs]

plus they can pick and choose the things they were going to do anyway then use them to boost their "we're listening" credentials

 

They ( C&RT ) are not going to be able to tick all of the boxes. Boaters already pay their' contribution and other means have to be generated. On one front, some of the gap will be filled by voluteers; that will take time. Stimulating public interest and donations, and marketing. When they do generate interest they had better have something more than a weed ridden, muddy bit of water to show. A badly cared for waterway will soon become bad publicity. To do the 'wrong' thing is not a good plan.

 

The waterway has been a relative backwater and out of sight to alot. It is going to become more publicised and with a higher profile. More eyes will be on C&RT than was the case with BW.

 

Boaters require/would like a decent level of maintenance.

[deletedaccount]

My view is that the business case for firing directors is poor performance over the longer term.

 

BW measures delivery of public benefit by increased visitor numbers -

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/3854-pressure-mounting-for-clear-out

 

The other reason is financial performance.

 

I don't believe increased visitor numbers is the correct metric to use. It might be one of the things to be considered, but it's crap for overall performance.

 

The state of the system is the metric I'm interested in.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I don't believe increased visitor numbers is the correct metric to use. It might be one of the things to be considered, but it's crap for overall performance.

 

The state of the system is the metric I'm interested in.

 

Some years ago government decided it needed to remind BW of its strategic priorities. In order of importance they were given as :-

 

1. Maintaining the waterway network in satisfactory order
   
2. Achieving the shared Government/British Waterways longer term vision of moving towards greater self-sufficiency
   
3. Delivering a range of additional public benefits
   

 

As such I was addressing the measure for the third priority.

 

You have correctly identified BW's number one priority which unfortunately is rather mixed up with number two. We should never forget that Evans/Hales intended to eliminate maintenance backlog and also make the waterways largely independent of government grant by 2012.

 

I hope to have an article out within the next day or two on this.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Higgs]

Some years ago government decided it needed to remind BW of its strategic priorities. In order of importance they were given as :-

 

Achieving the shared Government/British Waterways longer term vision of moving towards greater self-sufficiency.

 

 

By the time C&RT reaches the end of its ten year grant subsidy it will have to be generating equal to the subsidy, plus the shortfall that exists, plus inflation.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

By the time C&RT reaches the end of its ten year grant subsidy it will have to be generating equal to the subsidy, plus the shortfall that exists, plus inflation.

 

That's almost £100m without taking inflation into account.

[Higgs]

That's almost £100m without taking inflation into account.

 

 

In the APPWG's 2011 Memorandum ( The future of the Waterways ), they use the 120 million figure as a steady state estimate. Is this the figure that is needed to tread water when a decent level of maintenance is reached?

Edited December 5, 2011 by Higgs

[carlt]

That's almost £100m without taking inflation into account.

Again, assuming BW's maintenance bills are realistic.

 

I don't believe they are.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

In the APPWG's 2011 Memorandum ( The future of the Waterways ), they use the 120 million figure as a steady state estimate. Is this the figure that is needed to tread water when a decent level of maintenance is reached?

 

Sorry, I missed this.

 

The £120m figure is as you say the figure that is needed to tread water when a decent level of maintenance is reached.

 

However, it is also the amount that BW needed to spend last year (2010/11) to prevent the waterways deteriorating from the previous years condition (2009/10).

 

The figures that Robin Evans gave to APPWG related to England and Wales. In other words, the part of BW which will become CART.

 

What he said, in effect, was that BW spent £81m on maintenance but really needed to spend £120m. The £39m difference is what is referred to as the funding gap.

 

Put very simply, BW's chief executive told APPWG that they are only spending two thirds of the amount needed to stop our waterways deteriorating.

 

Earlier in this thread, I made mention of visitor numbers and you pointed out that you did not think that this was the correct metric.

 

Unfortunately, a second article I had for publication in narrowboatworld was delayed due to the editor deciding to carry out a poll

 

With the normal narrowboatworld warning, here are my two articles on BW's long term targets. Boaters will be more interested in the second -

 

The visitors scandal

 

Appalling financial performance

 

For any that are interested, the results of the narrowboatworld poll can be found at -

 

Should Evans,Hales & Co remain in office when BW becomes Canal & River Trust

Edited December 12, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Higgs]

 

The £120m figure is as you say the figure that is needed to tread water when a decent level of maintenance is reached.

 

However, it is also the amount that BW needed to spend last year (2010/11) to prevent the waterways deteriorating from the previous years condition (2009/10).

 

The figures that Robin Evans gave to APPWG related to England and Wales. In other words, the part of BW which will become CART.

 

What he said, in effect, was that BW spent £81m on maintenance but really needed to spend £120m. The £39m difference is what is referred to as the funding gap.

 

 

Thanks for the reply.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Thanks for the reply.

 

No problem, I am only sorry for the delay.

 

However, there is a prequel and a sequel to these figures.

 

Two BW directors were set targets in 2010/11 to define the funding gap. They were Philip Ridal, Finance Director and Jim Stirling, Technical Director - 'With [other director] oversee the review of the Steady State model and recalculate for 2010 prices.

 

As such, we can assume that the figures given to APPWG were the output from this study.

 

However, at the BW annual meeting, transition trustee, John Dodwell, introduced a presentation by Jim Stirling which suggested that the funding gap was not £39m, as stated by Robin Evans, but was only £20m and could be held at that level during the first 10 years of the trust.

 

Some time back I made a FOIA request for the outputs from the Ridal/Stirling study and any subsequent information to be placed in the public domain via whatdotheyknow,com.

 

To date these have not been forthcoming despite to two complaints to the information commissioner.

 

In a nutshell, it is probable that transition trustees have been conned into pitching too low regarding CART funding whilst government is not even prepared to meet even the low figure.

 

I hope I am wrong!

Edited December 13, 2011 by Allan(nb Albert)

[sebrof]

I don't believe increased visitor numbers is the correct metric to use. It might be one of the things to be considered, but it's crap for overall performance.

 

The state of the system is the metric I'm interested in.

 

Metric?

 

What's wrong with measure?

 

Why use ignorant American jargon when there is a perfectly good English word?

 

No problem, I am only sorry for the delay.

 

However, there is a prequel and a sequel to these figures.

 

Two BW directors were set targets in 2010/11 to define the funding gap. They were Philip Ridal, Finance Director and Jim Stirling, Technical Director - 'With [other director] oversee the review of the Steady State model and recalculate for 2010 prices.

 

As such, we can assume that the figures given to APPWG were the output from this study.

 

However, at the BW annual meeting, transition trustee, John Dodwell, introduced a presentation by Jim Stirling which suggested that the funding gap was not £39m, as stated by Robin Evans, but was only £20m and could be held at that level during the first 10 years of the trust.

 

Some time back I made a FOIA request for the outputs from the Ridal/Stirling study and any subsequent information to be placed in the public domain via whatdotheyknow,com.

 

To date these have not been forthcoming despite to two complaints to the information commissioner.

 

In a nutshell, it is probable that transition trustees have been conned into pitching too low regarding CART funding whilst government is not even prepared to meet even the low figure.

 

I hope I am wrong!

 

I suspect you are right.

 

Unless boaters are prepared to organise themselves into work-parties, and undertake 75% of the maintenance themselves, I can see this whole house of cards collapsing very quickly.

 

However, this is exactly how many of the derelict waterways were brought back into use. I remember being waist-high in water, clearing reeds from the Ouse around Great Barford lock back in the mid-60s.

 

So repair your waders and sharpen your scythes, people, you're going to need them. And tow a weighted bucket behind the boat if the canal needs dredging.

[Higgs]

No problem, I am only sorry for the delay.

 

However, there is a prequel and a sequel to these figures.

 

Two BW directors were set targets in 2010/11 to define the funding gap. They were Philip Ridal, Finance Director and Jim Stirling, Technical Director - 'With [other director] oversee the review of the Steady State model and recalculate for 2010 prices.

 

However, at the BW annual meeting, transition trustee, John Dodwell, introduced a presentation by Jim Stirling which suggested that the funding gap was not £39m, as stated by Robin Evans, but was only £20m and could be held at that level during the first 10 years of the trust.

 

So, either we have £81m of revenue or 100m of revenue. Do they actual talk to each other up there? Robin Evans has already been criticised by the APPWG for his optimistic expectations of the property portfolio.

 

What would be useful is an independent, impartial auditing of the books.

[deletedaccount]

Metric?

 

What's wrong with measure?

 

Why use ignorant American jargon when there is a perfectly good English word?

 

 

American? Ignorant? What are you on about?

Edited December 13, 2011 by deletedaccount