Memorandum from the Inland Waterways Association
(IWA) (FT 21)
BACKGROUND ON
IWA
The Inland Waterways Association is a registered
charity formed in 1946 by individuals who wished to turn our inland
waterways from the abandoned ditches many had become into the
widely used and much loved amenity that they are today. The Association,
through its national membership and local waterway societies,
campaigns to convince government, local authorities and the public
of the need for canals and river navigations, and through its
Waterway Recovery Group has helped restore hundreds of miles of
waterways for use by boaters, walkers and anglers.
IWA has been active and often the driving force
in waterway restoration the length and breadth of the country.
IWA has over 18,000 individual members, and
289 affiliated non-profit-making waterway organisations. More
than 25,000 volunteer hours are annually donated through our Waterway
Recovery Group.
The Inland Waterways Freight Group is part of
The Inland Waterways Association's Navigation Committee and campaigns
for greater use of inland waterways for freight transport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The government, particularly the former
Office of Deputy Prime Minister, has shown some interest in developing
movement of freight by water in recent years. Some developers
are now using the canals to move aggregates and building materials
by canal. There seems to be a general goodwill for the waterways
to be used to bring materials to the Olympics site and a new multi-million
pound recycling scheme has started on the Regent's Canal.
2. IWA welcomes this development. Non time-critical
materials, such as paper, materials for recycling, coal, etc,
can be moved by water, thus reducing carbon emissions and greenhouse
gases—and removing many lorry movements from the roads.
3. However, although freight carriage on
the waterways has great potential to address government's carbon-reduction
agenda it is still under-utilised and under-appreciated.
4. IWA seeks a unit within government devoted
to waterways freight; improved funding for waterways transport;
and continued "Water Preferred" policy guidelines for
large freight loads.
International distribution patterns involving
air freight increase carbon dioxide by up to 30 times that of
sea transport—what more can be done to promote modal shift
from road and air freight to inland waterway, shipping and rail?
How can the Government encourage and incentivise further efficiency
improvements
5. The canal network was primarily constructed
for carrying goods. Today, however, less than 1% of domestic freight
in England and Wales is transported via the waterway network;
despite the significant environmental benefits of transferring
freight from road (coastal and inland shipping emits 80% less
carbon dioxide tonnes per kilometre than road haulage).
6. IWA has for long been of the view that
the neglect of waterborne freight in Britain derives in large
measure from two distinct but related factors.
7. Firstly, the lack of a unit within Government
specifically concerned with the coordination, planning and development
of waterways for freight movement. With BW firmly embedded within
Defra there has been little encouragement of the idea that the
waterways have a transport role within any rational, integrated
transport system.
8. In British Waterways Today and Tomorrow
(1980) IWA argued for the transfer of responsibility for the transport
functions of the waterways to DfT which should establish a division
concerned with all aspects of commercial (freight) waterways.
In a policy document of 1996, IWA again urged the creation of
a water freight unit in the DfT to coordinate waterways freight
development and ensure that the UK participated fully in all EU
waterway development programmes—something which the DoE/Defra
seemingly failed to do. A "waterways desk" was in fact
created but its impact has not been significant.
9. Secondly, there are built in anomalies
in the funding arrangements of the different modes and this serves
to disadvantage the waterways. Possibly because it had its origins
in what were railway acts the award of Freight Facilities Grants
for waterways has been administered by the DfT. The funding of
the Government's water freight promotion group (Sea & Water)
likewise comes from DfT. However, it is doubtful if even now the
waterways are properly recognised in integrated strategic planning
for transport and there is a fundamental contradiction between
Government rhetoric and expectation with respect to the role of
water transport at a time of mounting concern for the environment,
local and global, and the policies and support that are necessary
to effect change.
10. The recent reduction in BW funding by
Defra and its immediate negative impact on waterway use for freight
highlighted this contradiction. The 2007 report on British Waterways
by the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
commendably gave considerable attention to freight and IWA strongly
supports the committee's view that "there is a strong case
for other government departments to a make a direct contribution
to BW's funding to reflect the contribution BW makes to the agendas
of these departments." Transport is an obvious case.
11. There are numerous examples (Weaver,
Severn, Trent and other waterways) where BW funding has been inadequate
for the routine maintenance of channels and locks which would
make the waterways fit for the purpose of moving and attracting
more freight. This is an obvious example where the transport function
is not adequately supported by the existing funding arrangements
and should be made the clear responsibility of DfT rather than
Defra.
12. It is not without interest that in the
mid-1980s, BW plans to improve the Severn Corridor for sea-going
craft to penetrate to Worcester made much of the diverse advantages
not just for transport but also for flood control, drainage and
water extraction interests with the implication that there could
be a sharing of costs.
13. IWA believes that "green taxes"
should be used to encourage companies to make the switch on to
water. There needs to be a change by Government of the economics
to put freight back on to the water.
14. A third factor that would promote a
shift from roads to inland waterways would be a continuation of
the government's previous policy of preferring the use of water
transport instead of roads for the movement of large abnormal
indivisible loads.
15. The Highways Agency, in a consultation
on the "Water Preferred" policy guidelines has proposed
that the criteria for the prohibition of road transport for such
large loads should now be loosened with a cost benefit calculation
being used based primarily on the value of the load. This could
result in road transport being the preferred option where the
cost of transport by water exceeds 20% of the cost of the value
of the load—even if the cost of the transport by road is
also over 20%.
16. Such a policy would take no account
of the environmental, congestion and disruption issues that utilising
road transport bring, especially in larger cities where congestion
and disruption issues may now even outweigh environmental issues
altogether.
17. IWA believes that all abnormal indivisible
freight loads should, where water provides a feasible option,
be moved by that mode unless there are overwhelming reasons not
to.
18. Government should reaffirm its commitment
to the more environmentally-aware method of freight movement,
and turn words into actions by investment and incentives to get
appropriate traffics on to the water.
October 2007
| 
