But after 5 years of cold war competition between an American property magnate and a Russian oligarch, the tides have turned. The only thing standing in the way of Stan Kroenke and full ownership is the agreement of his rival for full control, Alisher Usmanov.

Five of the Premier Leagues top six clubs are now owned by foreign investors. My objection is not to foreign owners themselves, but to the underlying perception that has given rise to current ownership trends. The point of this post is to highlight the potential dangers of the current situation.

It is widely accepted that football clubs must be run as businesses if they are to ensure their long-term stability. But what kind of business should a football club be? They do not merely supply a product or service to satisfy a market demand, they provide wide ranging social goods.

They play a defining role in the maintenance of social cohesion and the formation of national identity. But the markets don’t deal with social goods as well as they could, and traditional business principles are ignorant of the role clubs play in the stability and longevity of football as a national past time, which is based above all on the strength of it’s foundations.

Football is socially, economically and politically accessible to kids from all backgrounds. The extensive network of local clubs and leagues allows those who develop a passion for the game to take it one step further.

Footballers progress up the ranks of the amateur game, hoping to reach the top of an exceptionally large pyramid. Few footballers ever make it all the way, but the strength of the pyramid allows them to forge livings in the lower leagues, or continue to participate at different levels of the amateur game.

The kind of passion that fills stadiums week in week out is based on our ability to provide kids of all ages and abilities with the opportunity to develop their interest in the game at an early age. Today’s Under 11 is tomorrow’s paying punter, and football clubs have historically been very aware of this fact.

They have also been very aware of their broader role in society and their role in ensuring the stability of the pyramid. The danger for English football is not that Premier League clubs increase their commercial revenues in Asia and America, but that they do so at the expense of their role in the domestic context.

The pursuit of profit encourages clubs to raise prices, and exploit their fan base through the commercialisation of the brand. There is nothing wrong with developing a global supporter network, building a brand and increasing revenue, but if doing so results in the exploitation of grass-roots support and the undermining of the game as a whole then it needs to be reconsidered fast.

The Premier League and its member clubs need to regain a sense of their responsibility to local communities and to society, whilst recognising that their own long-term sustainability is dependent on the stability of the domestic footballing pyramid.

Foreign ownership in itself is not a bad thing, but the idea that football clubs represent lucrative monetary investments is potentially fatal to the game’s overall health. Football clubs need to be run as social enterprises, as revenue generating companies whose profits are redirected into developing their overall role in society.

Interestingly one of the few foreign owners to have identified this fact is Sheikh Mansour, the oil rich owner of Manchester City. His investment in Manchester City’s community projects has been significant and whilst recognising that the clubs finances need to be sustainable, he has attempted to avoid the financial exploitation of the common fan.

This is by no means an ideal situation. A genuinely forward thinking football club that recognises the need to preserve the importance of its role in society would look at new models of ownership that genuinely empower fans to make decisions, cementing the link between the club and its foundations.

But if clubs are inclined to encourage big money takeovers, then they should look to owners who are aware of the need to balance commercial gain against social benefit. By preserving the footballing pyramid, and encouraging community involvement clubs are not merely providing a significant public good, but they are ensuring their own long term futures.

In Defra’s 2000 investigation into the future of Britain’s waterways (Waterways for Tomorrow), residential use of floating vessels or structures was identified as ‘a relatively minor use of our inland navigations’.[2] But since 2000 demand for on water living has increased, particularly in urban locations,[3] partially due to the relative cost of living and a growing perception that houseboats are a sustainable and socially acceptable form of accommodation.

In 2008 British Waterways conducted a survey showing that 18% of the 30,000 privately licensed boats on their network were used as primary residences, meaning that around 5,400 boats are used for residential purposes.[4]

Defra’s assessment of residential boating as a ‘relatively minor use of our inland navigations’ is no longer relevant. People from all walks of life see living on their rivers and canals as a legitimate, affordable and environmentally friendly alternative to the urban property market.

But neither the government’s attitude or the legislative environment has kept pace with this changing reality. The complexity of gaining planning permission for the residential use of moorings, as identified in the AINA report makes it extremely difficult for BW to enforce or formulate policy.

This reflects a lack of legislative recognition for the residential use of houseboats, at local and national levels. Local Authorities, handicapped by out of date legislation, are unable and often unwilling to facilitate the growth of on-water residency.

A cultural bias within BW also makes changes in organisational approach difficult to enforce. They see their core responsibility as the maintenance and preservation of the canal, primarily for leisure use, whilst housing is viewed as the responsibility of Local Authorities and Housing Associations.

But times are changing. BW cannot afford to view itself as an organisation with a single purpose, nor can it afford not to view the waterways as a piece of heritage in need of protection and maintenance. The current and future reductions in grant funding mean that the new organisation will struggle to maintain the waterways at existing levels unless they find radical new sources of revenue and reduce their costs.

Ensuring the financial security of the organisation will require diversification and repurposing aimed at fostering a sense of common ownership and local participation.

Housing can play an integral role in this process, not only in the encouragement of a vibrant and engaged network of waterways communities, but also in the creation of new and significant revenue streams for the new waterways charity.

Partnering with progressive housing associations, experienced in all areas of housing development, could minimise the risk faced when working with communities and planning authorities, whilst limiting the legal, practical and financial responsibility placed on BW through opening up significant routes to finance on a partnership basis.

It will also emphasise the new organisations willingness to innovate in the face of change, embracing the principles of localism on which funding decisions are increasingly being made.

By engaging communities, housing associations and Local Authorities in the identification of sections of canal for residential purposes, the new waterways charity will generate income, provide a social good in line with its charitable status, and contribute to the sustainable development of housing stock.

The new waterways charity should not sacrifice the structural integrity of the waterways network by over stretching its natural capacity. But if it is to maintain its relevance, the new waterways charity must be willing and able to diversify. Where it doesn’t jeopardise the stability of the canal, increasing the numbers living on the water should be seen as a realistic and desirable possibility.

The opportunity to take such a stance is now. The changes to local planning laws mean that projects encouraging sustainable development and community engagement will get an easier ride, whilst the new community rights will potentially give housing providers and residents the chance to take on more responsibility. Conversely increased powers for communities to develop local plans mean that a failure to promote the value of on water living to existing local residents now will mean that such provision is unlikely to make it into local plans reducing future opportunities.

The difficulties identified in the AINA report need not paralyse the development of housing on the waterways network any longer, and the protection of the network need not be compromised.

[2]http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/countryside/waterways/waterways-for-tomorrow.pdf

[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/its-not-a-houseboat-its-a-floating-apartment-579876.html

[4] http://www.aina.org.uk/docs/ResidentialUseWaterwaysSept2010.pdf

But one must not ignore the financial realities of BWs position, having agreed a funding settlement with government that will see it’s yearly funding fall by 19% to around £39 million per year until 2022/23.[2] The imposition of such cuts brings into sharp focus the need for BW to rethink how it monetises its operations.

Today BW has an income of £255 million and an asset base of £379 million. This will make the new organisation the 13^th largest charity in the UK.[3] In its long-term strategy paper, Setting a new course: Britain’s Waterways in the Third Sector, BW recognises the need to access new sources of funding. They argue that the new charities size and status will provide access to funds previously off-limits.

But this fundamentally undermines the scale of the opportunity. The Waterways Project aims to demonstrate that by adopting new and innovative managerial structures, BW will create new opportunities for revenue generation and cost savings, whilst opening the door to myriad new funding mechanisms.

A Community Right to Manage:

This would allow BW to devolve management responsibility for sections of waterway to the local community. The community group or social enterprise would need to be able to demonstrate that it had the skills and capacity to meet all relevant legal requirements as well as standards for management set out by the asset holder.

Furthermore it would have to show that it was able to effectively manage and enhance the asset whilst delivering social, economic and environmental benefits to the local community. These negotiations would form the basis for a ‘licence to manage’ with a formal agreement leasing the assets over a number of years.

Such an arrangement would provide significant cost savings to the new charity as the community group takes over the day-to-day management and general maintenance of that part of the asset, whilst the new charity retains control of the overall maintenance and structural stability.

There would also be an expectation that where significant financial benefits would arise from the lease e.g. from trading activity, energy generation etc., the new charity would benefit through the negotiation of a revenue sharing arrangement with the community.

When considered in isolation neither approach will significantly alter the organisations financial prospects, but if considered on a network wide basis the figures become significant.

Taking such an approach will ensure the organisations long-term financial sustainability, by fostering a sense of common ownership and responsibility, broadening the revenue base and minimising the new organisations liabilities.

The Funding Environment:

But how are such projects to be financed in the short term, when government is reducing its contribution and the funding environment is so restricted?

BW should not look at themselves as donors in a traditional top-down relationship. Agreements reached under A Community Right to Manage take the form of partnerships in which the responsibility for fundraising is shared if not taken on by the community organisation.

This would necessitate the new charity maintaining an organisational capacity to negotiate such arrangements, requiring a certain amount of capital input, but BW’s prime responsibility would be to provide the framework in which community groups can gain access to the asset.

BW’s commitment to third sector transition is built on two assumptions: That voluntary activity will generate significant additional income, and that charitable status will provide access to significant new funding mechanisms.

It is generally assumed that voluntary contributions will generate in the region of £10m in additional income within 10 years.[4] Although significant, this does not come close to tackling the deficit that existed prior to cuts in central government funding.

Traditional routes to donor finance are also increasingly competitive. It would be wrong to suggest that there is less money available. Public Spending has in fact risen over the last three years (although not in real terms). The point is that funding stasis, combined with rising inflation and greater demand for charitable services, is forcing organisations to make do with a much smaller piece of the pie.

Charitable status alone will not solve BW’s funding dilemma. Increased competition means that organisations have to find new and innovative ways to differentiate themselves and the services they provide. Although money is tight, it is not completely inaccessible.

Current trends in policy and finance suggest a shift towards organisations that facilitate and encourage localism and sustainable development. By adopting A Community Right to Manage and opening the asset up to community usage BW position themselves at the forefront of both agendas.

Adopting such approaches will also open them up to new funding mechanisms including the Big Society Bank and the Green Investment Bank.

In practice BW will position themselves at the head of a rapidly inclining curve, providing organisational learning for others in the environmental infrastructure sector as well as public service organisations in general.

Community is not a moral imperative; it is a financial necessity in both the long and the short terms. The Waterways Project is not asking for a monetary commitment, it is asking for a shift in attitudes and a willingness to try something new. The opportunity is now.

[2]http://www.waterways.org.uk/campaigns/news/campaign_news/defra_funding_settlement_for_bw_

[3] http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/BW-Setting-a-new-course-Compass-Brochure.pdf

[4] http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=115788

The inclusion of A Community Right to Manage within the governance documents of the new waterways charity would go some way to releasing the potential of the waterways for the provision of public benefit to communities.

But realising our vision for a dynamic and inclusive network that sits at the heart of local community activity and enterprise will require more than legislative change; it will require a fundamental shift in attitudes by all relevant stakeholders.

Our canals are of significant heritage value. They need to be preserved, maintained and protected. But finding the balance between maintenance and exclusionary conservation is often difficult. The risk is that our environmental infrastructure becomes akin to the Mona Lisa, hidden behind a red rope and a plastic box.

Conservation of our environmental infrastructure should be inclusive and participatory. Community groups should play a central role in encouraging sustainable development of environmental assets. Adopting such an approach will encourage British Waterways to see community groups and civil society in general as partners in the maintenance of the network.

If communities are allowed a stake in the their local assets, preservation becomes a financial and social imperative. A Community Right to Manage provides the basic framework in which this can happen. But without the subsequent shift in attitudes and culture we will be left stuck behind the red rope looking through the plastic box.

BW and other environmental infrastructure organisations must be willing to embrace the idea that the participation of local communities will give our environmental assets a newfound relevance as well as potential access to new and greater sources of funding.

This is not to downplay the current activities of all the organisations referenced above. Many commit significant resource to getting communities more involved with their local assets. But to really engage people in the maintenance of their environmental infrastructure, these organisations must foster a sense of shared ownership and a genuine sense of responsibility.

The Waterways Project hopes to achieve both structural and cultural change in the management of our environmental infrastructure. A Community Right to Manage without a subsequent change in attitudes will not result in a more sustainable and inclusive waterways network.

For this reason we see A Community Right to Manage as the first and most important step on a long journey.

If the Public Bodies Bill is passed ministers will have the power to sell off a whole raft of public assets, including the forests. But the flip side is that these new rights make community ownership a legal possibility. Public assets are up for grabs, and there is nothing to stop communities standing up and demanding they be given the chance to manage them.

This sense of optimism underpins the work of The Waterways Project. Our goal is to demonstrate the potential for social enterprise and community asset development on the waterways network.

The Arms Length Body (British Waterways) that currently manages 2,200 miles of the canals and rivers in the UK is about to become a charitable organisation. The new organisation will become the 13^th largest charity in the UK with an annual income of £223 million and an asset base of £379 million.

We see this process of transition as providing an opportunity for communities and social enterprises to play a significant role in the management of their natural infrastructure, whilst gaining access to an asset base on which they could greatly expand the scale and breadth of their activities.

Enabling community management of specific stretches of waterway would allow the new organisation to make considerable cost savings whilst repositioning canals and rivers in the national consciousness. Like the forests of Scandinavia, local waterways could become magnates for small-scale enterprise and community activity. This is not a utopian vision but a reality made possible by the Public Bodies Bill.

The debate surrounding the transfer of assets out of the public sector is dominated by fear and scepticism. The public is sceptical of the government’s intentions and civil society is fearful of the implications for their own organisations. Although community action is needed, the debate needs to be framed in a different way.

Politicians, civil society and the wider public should focus on the once in a lifetime opportunity we are currently faced with to fundamentally reorganise the way our natural infrastructure is managed. Communities should drive policy by demonstrating their capacity and overwhelming enthusiasm for a new way of working, one which sees civil society as partners in the provision of public services.

The Waterways Project is determined to drive this policy agenda throughout government and civil society. We hope that by influencing the shape of the new waterways organisation we will demonstrate the plausibility of such an approach to natural infrastructure management as well as the sheer scale of the broader opportunity.

In order to convince a sceptical public, the government needs to demonstrate that policy measures such as the Public Bodies Bill are not driven solely by a desire to cut costs, but are underpinned by a commitment to empower local communities to take responsibility for their natural assets whilst delivering sustainable development. The Waterways Project is working to ensure that the reality satisfies this vision.

To read Andy Wightman’s original article go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/16/andy-wightman-woodlands-public-ownership.

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/16/andy-wightman-woodlands-public-ownership

The threat is real and the demonstrations necessary. The Waterways Project would encourage as many people as possible to join protests whilst responding to the consultation. But we would also encourage potential stakeholders to take a moment, and think about the opportunity on offer.

The Waterways Project has spent the last six months exploring the potential for Social Enterprise and Community Asset Development on the UK’s waterways network, in an attempt to influence the structure of the new waterways charity to be launched in April 2012.

We believe that, if given the opportunity, community groups could take on the management of their local waterways asset, providing numerous social, environmental and economic benefits to the community and the governing body.

We see it as crucial to the long-term success of the new waterways charity that a presumption in favour of community management is included in its management structure. This would give organisations the right to bid for management of their local asset, as well as the right to be taken seriously.

On the 26^th of Jan the Guardian reported that the government was planning to put up to 80,000 of the 200,000 hectares of potential forest sell-off into the hands of newly created charitable trusts.[1] This presents a huge opportunity for community groups across the country.

Much like the waterways, forests have the potential to play a significant role in the development of social enterprise. Community groups typically have major problems developing their asset base. Opening up the waterways and the forest to community usage would provide such organisations with a base on which to develop and expand their activities.

The same can be said for the management of all the UK’s natural assets. If the government wants to empower local communities they should be willing to provide them with the tools with which to build.

Our natural infrastructure is of immense social, environmental and economic value. None understand this value better than the local community, and if they are willing and able to protect and develop this value, why not give them the opportunity to do so.

Let us demonstrate against the government’s plans. Let us make clear our determination to protect our natural assets against commercial exploitation. But let us also reinforce our belief that, given the chance, we could do it better.

If the government is serious about localism it needs to recognise the opportunity presented by the transfer of assets out of the public sector. When responding to the consultation think about this opportunity, think about what The Waterways Project is proposing, make your voice heard!

To provide useful suggestions we must ask not only ‘what will it say on the tin?’ but what exactly will the new organization look like. What kind of tin are we talking about? Is it corrugated with a pull away lid…the comfortable, familiar kind of baked bean style tin we all know and love?

Or is something entirely new? The kind of tin that makes all the other tins sit up and take notice; the kind of tin that could change the way tins are made forever.

If we are talking about the former then its name should reflect the well-established role that the tin has played within society. But If we are talking about the latter then surely this will not suffice. This kind of tin doesn’t just provide a safe place to store some familiar, well-loved comfort food…it changes how we see the contents and how we engage with them. It can draw new audiences and open up new possibilities and new markets.

Substitute tins for organizational structures and you arrive at the heart of the problem. The name of an organisation should reflect its operational objectives and more broadly its underlying purpose.

So what is the fundamental purpose of the new organisation? Historically BW has been driven by the need to preserve the asset. But in recent years their remit and vision has expanded;

‘By 2020 we aim to have a thriving, sustainable waterways network cherished by the public that shares a deep responsibility for its wellbeing. And in 200 years’ time, we want the waterways to still play a vital role in the health, wealth and well-being of the nations they serve’. BW 2020 Vision Document [2]

This implies a role for the organisational body that stretches well beyond preservation and maintenance. It envisions a network that plays a key role in the fabric of society and has strong connections to the communities it serves.

Carving out such a position for the waterways will require a fundamental shift in organisational culture. Although the transition to the charitable sector represents a significant step along this path, it is not, in itself, sufficient.

To achieve its long term vision the new organisation must be willing to fully engage communities in the management of their waterways, encouraging them to take a real stake in their preservation and their sustainable development. It must not see community groups as objects of charity, peripheral and ‘nice to have’, but as partners in the realization of its vision.

Names can be game changing. The name of the new organisation should reflect a change in attitude and culture. It should not reflect the kind of tin we have at the moment, but rather the kind of tin we would like to see in the future.

The Waterways Project believes that achieving the new vision for Britain’s waterways requires not just a new name, but a new kind of tin; an organisational structure and culture that supports community asset development, social enterprise and engages our communities as partners in the creation of a thriving and sustainable waterways network.

[2]http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/BW_2020_A_Vision_for_the_Future.pdf

The following provides a brief introduction to the state of cultural and creative industries in the UK.

In the Economy

Creative employment provides around two million jobs, in the creative sector itself and in creative roles in other sectors. Employment in the sector has grown at double the rate of the economy as a whole.[1]

Creative industries contributed 6.2% of the UK’s Gross Value Added in 2007.

Exports of services by the creative industries totaled £16.6 billion in 2007, equaling 4.5% of all goods and services exported. There were an estimated 157,400 businesses in the creative industries on the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) in 2008; this represents 7.3% of all companies on the IDBR.[2]

As a nation we have the largest creative sector in the EU, and relative to GDP probably the largest in the world. It is one of the few sectors that continued to grow throughout the recession.[3]

The UK also has the largest cultural economy in the world relative to Gross Domestic Product. Every £1 invested in culture produces £2. Two thirds of the adult population in the UK enjoy the arts, visit historic sites and go to museums and galleries. Of the top 10 UK visitor attractions, 8 are national museums.[4]

Government

The following provides a brief introduction to the policy and legislative environment within the cultural and creative industries.

Policy – The previous government created the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 1997. Their commitment to creative industries was cemented through measures to allow creative companies access to research and development tax credits and enterprise finance guarantee schemes.[5]

In 2002 the Arts Council and its regional siblings were merged to create the Arts Council England. Most of the next decade was characterised by high levels of public spending on cultural projects and the arts. But the recession has meant that budgets are to be cut dramatically.

In the recent spending review the Arts Council had its budget cut by almost 30%, meaning that funding for museums and the British Film Institute will fall by 15%. The result is an increasingly competitive funding environment for arts and cultural organisations.  The restrictions on government spending have forced the coalition to switch the emphasis to creative industries as a driver of economic growth.

A speech by the Prime Minister highlighted the creative industries as an important growth area in rebalancing the economy. The Department for Cultural and Media Services (DCMS) will continue to work closely with other Government departments and agencies to make sure that there is an appropriate level of support available for the creative industries.[6]

DCMS has outlined a number of structural reform priorities that place the creative industries at the heart of future strategy, whilst at the same time preserving our cultural heritage. These not only highlight the importance of the Olympics in terms of both delivery and legacy, but also a shift of emphasis towards private sector investment and philanthropic giving, as well as a strengthening of the UK’s core cultural organizations.

The coalition sees the creative industries as an integral part of our economic recovery and will thus continue to encourage investment. Arts and culture on the other hand will likely have to rely on increased philanthropic giving as central government funding dries up.

Legislation – Despite the government’s rhetoric it remains to be seen how much they will be willing to incentivise the creative industries given the need to balance the budget. Tax breaks for the computer games industry, proposed by the former government, have been scrapped by the coalition, providing an indication of their reluctance to sacrifice revenue streams.[7]

On the other hand the coalition has opted to preserve tax breaks for the film industry that generate around £13 of GDP for every £1 invested. But despite this the reality seems to be that the government can’t afford the tax breaks the creative industries require to maintain their edge in the global economy.[8]

Balancing their desire to develop the creative and cultural economy as a driving force for future growth, with their immediate need to reign in the budget deficit will prove a major challenge to the coalition. As a result the government has looked for other ways to encourage the development of the sector.

The Economy Bill was passed in April of this year. The Bill seeks to curb online piracy, among other things, with the aim of stimulating the UK’s digital economy. If it is eventually given the all clear by the European Commission it seems likely that the Act will boost the creative industries in the UK by providing companies with greater protection under the law.

The coalition has also looked toward the development of new creative and cultural hubs. This is primarily focused on the regeneration of East London for the 2012 Olympics.[9]

Finally they have made a commitment to the delivery of universal broadband. Their ambition is to have universal access across the country and the best network in Europe by 2015.[10]

British Waterways and the Cultural and Creative Industries

The following provides a brief introduction to current arrangements and business models on the British Waterways Network.

Current Arrangements

British Waterways has made a long-standing commitment to maximising the cultural impacts of its network. There are a number of museums on its network including the Canal museum in Kings Cross, operated by the canal museum trust, and the National Waterways museum at Gloucester Docks, operated by the Waterways Trust. The latter re-opened in 2008 with four new galleries.

They also facilitate numerous festivals and events across the network including the Rochdale Canal Festival, Liverpool Waterfront festival and Dragon Boat racing at Clarence Dock in Leeds. These activities are designed to promote the waterways and engage a broader stakeholder base.

BW also contributes to the promotion of the creative industries by playing a significant part in broader regeneration schemes. For example BW’s role in the regeneration of the Tottenham Hale region of North London has involved providing barge space for SME’s involved in creative enterprises (including a designer, and an art gallery).

The Hackney Wick/Fish Island region of East London is also viewed by the government as an ideal location for a new creative industries hub, particularly given its proximity to the Olympic park. BW is playing a significant role in this process by redeveloping the waterways themselves, providing the transport infrastructure and aesthetic environment that will attract creative enterprises to the area.[11]

A similar hub for the creative industries and the performing arts is being planned on the site of a former brewing plant in the Edinburgh Fountainbridge area.[12]

A great deal of BW’s land and property portfolio sits in former industrial areas, so situated due to the transport convenience of the waterways. These areas are very attractive for SMEs and social enterprise in the cultural and creative industries due to the low levels of rent. As a result the developments mentioned above build on an already established base of creative enterprise attracted to the area due to low rents and property prices.

Business Models

The challenge for BW and the government is to develop these areas, attracting greater investment, whilst avoiding the pricing out of small cultural and creative organisations and enterprises. By opening up the rest of their asset base to organisations such as these, encouraging them to look at alternate locations on the network, they will allow smaller organisations to develop whilst facilitating large scale regeneration in the more established enterprise districts (such as Hackney Wick).

Such an approach would not necessarily require whole-scale redevelopment of an area. Rather BW’s existing asset base would be made available to those who might use it.

In many derelict areas a certain amount of infrastructure investment might be necessary before a business would be able to operate effectively. But for those areas that do not require such investment, and have not been developed due to their isolation or a lack of local investment, more should be done to attract small-scale cultural and creative enterprises that could take advantage of the low rents.

If small-scale investment is required, one way of raising the necessary finance is to form partnerships with private companies as BW Scotland has done with ISIS Waterside regeneration. ISIS looks to optimise the commercial value of its developments whilst looking to establish or renew sustainable waterside communities.

50% of all their returns are re-invested into the canal network due to an initial £100 million equity investment by the British Waterways, Amec and Aviva Investor’s Igloo Fund.[13] This partnership was formed at the turn of the century in a very different economic environment, but it does demonstrate the potential of partnership development with the private sector in order to generate revenue.

BW can also look to encourage small-scale enterprises to take advantage of barge space or less desirable property. For example the design company, art’s studio and events management company that have opened on a small barge development in Tottenham Hale.

Another example is provided by an organisation called Walk the Plank, which was started in 1991 as a creative partnership aimed at producing theatrical performances in alternative locations. By 1992 the group had bought and adapted a Norwegian cargo ferry that has proceeded to tour the UK’s waterways putting on performances and shows ever since.

The group has expanded into visual art and pyrotechnics and now employs 8 people in Salford. Much of its work involves mutually beneficial creative partnerships and has expanded well beyond its water-based roots, although its Norwegian ferry is still touring.[14]

[2] http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/creative_industries/default.aspx

[3] http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/news/alan-davey-local-authority-arts-funding/

[4] http://press.artscouncil.org.uk/Press-Releases/You-can-bank-on-culture-say-leaders-of-Britain-s-cultural-organisations-3e7.aspx

[5]http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/creative_industries/default.aspx

[6] http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2010/05/transforming-the-british-economy-coalition-strategy-for-economic-growth-51132

[7] http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/33884/budget-games-indusrty-tax-droppedhttps://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/global-markets/articles/-/blogs/2107660;jsessionid=9D7D87C739DEF2383E701A1EDBF2BE1A.MekushUdbew4

[9]http://www.ltgdc.org.uk/news/news_releases/hackney_wick_london’s_creative.aspx

[10] http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7547.aspx

[11]http://www.ltgdc.org.uk/news/news_releases/hackney_wick_london’s_creative.aspx

[12] http://heritage.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Creative-plan-brewing-for-old.6306664.jp

[13] http://www.glasgowcanal.co.uk/whoweare.html

[14] http://www.walktheplank.co.uk/

The following provides a brief introduction to the state of the education sector in the UK.

Coalition Policy

The coalition’s education policy is driven by the need to reduce inequalities in the UK’s school system. In 2009 only 53% of 7-11 year olds known to be eligible for free school meals (FSM) achieved the expected level in both English and Maths compared with 75% for non-FSM pupils.[1]

At the same time only 27% of pupils eligible for FSM achieved five A*-C GCSEs or equivalent, including English and Maths, compared with 54% for pupils not eligible for FSM.[2] The coalition has outlined a number of policy measures designed to reduce the gap.

The pupil premium will ring fence a pot of money distributed through local authorities for those schools with the lowest performing pupils. The academy system is to be expanded giving schools greater access to funds which would previously have been pooled at local authority level for area-wide services such as special needs provision.[3] Schools are also to be given greater autonomy in how to spend these funds.

The coalition also plans to increase the level of funding available to internship programs in order to provide alternative paths for those that don’t wish to pursue higher education. This signifies a shift away from New Labours target of a 50% rate of university attendance. When combined with an increase in tuition fees it seems likely that demand for apprenticeship places will rise significantly.

Spending Review

Education did comparatively well out of the October Spending Review. Not only did Michael Gove, Education Secretary, secure £2.5bn for the ‘pupil premium’, but he also oversaw an increase in the general schools budget from £35bn to £39bn.[4]

But this disguises the fact that a number of schools could find themselves worse off. There are currently separate funds for specialist schools, academies, extended schools, ethnic minority pupils, and one-to-one tuition, which will now all be wrapped in the core school funding.

Schools that currently receive a number of these funding streams could find themselves loosing out. The Financial Times recently reported that most schools will in fact “see real cuts in funding per pupil over the next four years”.[5]

For example a primary school would need to have more than one-fifth of its pupils eligible to receive free school meals to avoid losing money. At the average primary school 17% are eligible. The FT’s research suggests that 62% of primary school children are in schools that will not meet the bar, and whose budgets will be cut in real terms.[6]

General Trends

Financial pressure on the education system is likely to remain strong. The government’s emphasis on localism and decentralisation will see some schools improving their funding situation whilst others are forced into cuts. The result is a great deal of uncertainty but also a greater amount of budgetary autonomy at school level.

British Waterways and Education

The following will assess what impact the new environment will have on British Waterways’ educational activities and what new opportunities it might provide.

Current arrangements

Wild Over Waterways (WOW), developed in conjunction with the Inland Waterways Association (IWA) and the Waterways Trust (WT), provides formal education resources linked to the national curriculum for seven to 11 year olds. WOW also includes games for children to play, information for school projects and waterway events.

Many regions also provide opportunities to get on the water in canoes, kayaks or sailing dinghies as well as practical workshops and history visits along the length of the network. It remains to be seen how the new funding environment will affect the WOW programme. Neither IWA nor the WT face a certain future. There is a risk that both could find themselves lost in the transition to the new waterways body, taking WOW with them.

But whether or not WOW manages to secure it’s long-term future there seems to be potential for BW to expand these activities on their network.

New Opportunities

Despite the theoretical increase in the schools budget, Educational opportunities for BW are unlikely to come from an increase in funding (given the overall loss of funding for many schools). They are more likely to come from the newfound budgetary autonomy of schools and their management.

Schools will have greater freedom to choose how they spend their money. If projects such as WOW can demonstrate their value to schools and local authorities they are more likely to develop stronger partnerships, particularly for those schools in areas that are closely connected to the waterways.

Social Enterprise – Maintaining or expanding upon the WOW model would allow BW to take advantage of these opportunities. But given the current environment, funding for such a project could prove extremely difficult to attract.

Social enterprise models on the other hand would allow organisations to offer a wide range of income generating activities, increasing the potential funding pool. For example the Tamar River Project brings together a number of local organisations with the aim of reengaging enterprise on the Tamar River in Devon with a focus on education.

The project comprises 4 interrelated social enterprises including a floating classroom, studio space for artists of all kinds, and two projects aimed at the restoration and celebration of the rivers heritage.

The project is currently in the development phase having received full funding. The management structure will be divided into three parts; The Tamar Valley Trust (to raise funds), the Tamar River Project Community Interest Company (to manage the 4 integrated social enterprises), and Tamar Sustainable Boats Inc (will licence the right to exploit the market opportunity created by the vessels and their technologies, in return for which it will covenant a percentage of its profits to the Trust).

Facilities such as these and the learning opportunities they provide could prove extremely attractive to local schools, encouraging them to engage more frequently.

Apprenticeships – Engaging social enterprise models on the waterways would also allow British Waterways to provide apprenticeships. This would fit in with the governments approach to skills development, as well as helping to keep the costs of the projects down. Such opportunities can be found across the breadth of social enterprise models being explored by the CIVA-Waterways project.

Local energy projects (such as those identified in the energy overview) could provide valuable skills development in engineering. Local food production projects could provide training in urban farming. Both would provide excellent schooling in business management.

Programs such as these would provide greater opportunities for young people in the UK (assisting in the reduction on the skills gap), in sectors that generate social goods and encourage sustainable development.

[2]http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/pressnotices/a0063284/government-announces-pupil-premium-to-raise-achievement

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11769785

[4] http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/michael-gove-school-pupil-real

[5] http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/michael-gove-school-pupil-real

[6] http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/michael-gove-school-pupil-real

The renewable energy sector in the UK is growing rapidly. The government’s commitment to carbon reduction targets has created a space for new approaches to energy production to develop.

Heat Exchange – Heat is responsible for a big part of the UK´s energy consumption. Energy generated by heat pumps should increase to 14 per cent of the total energy used for heating by 2020. [1]

Hydro – Hydropower currently produces 1.2% of electricity consumed in the UK. The potential for large-scale increase is limited, but there could be some significant growth in small-scale hydropower schemes.[2]

Almost 26,000 sites have been identified for small-scale hydro production within rivers in England and Wales. If all of these were used for hydropower the theoretical total power potential would be 1,178 Mega Watts (MW) – enough electricity for about 84,500 homes. In reality the practical potential will be a fraction of this due to practical and environmental constraints, but the opportunities are still significant.[3]

Photovoltaic – With solar PV feed-in tariffs as high as £0.413/kWh paid over 25 years and Government incentives set to yield immediate installed solar PV system Internal Rates of Return between 8% and 11% over the next 12 months, It is predicted that the foundations are in place for solar PV market growth in 2011.

Biomass – Biomass is predicted to become more important in the future. The amount of energy (in the form of heat and electricity) generated from biomass is expected to increase to one third of the whole share of renewables.[4]

It is expected that the role of anaerobic digestion in producing biogas for local use and injection to the grid will increase in the coming years. Anaerobic digestion is expected to contribute 15% to the EU’s renewable energy consumption by 2020 (EU targets).[5]

Wind – On shore wind resources also have a great deal of theoretical capacity. Again this ´theoretical potential” is limited by environmental and social acceptability.

Challenges

There are a number of constraints to renewable energy production and usage in the UK. These include access to the grid and the permission process, complicated by issues such as hydrology, terrestrial, aquatic ecology and flood risk.

For example the Severn Barrage project (a large scale hydro project on the River Severn) has come to a halt because of spiralling costs.[6]

Current renewable energy policy of BW

With the commitment of the Carbon Trust´s carbon management service for 2010, BW aims to reduce carbon emissions, improve data recording and target setting for all energy usage[BM1] .[7]

BWs ‘Action Plan For Sustainable Development’ concentrates mainly on small-scale hydro and wind projects as well as heating and cooling systems,[8] a decision taken due to the cost and complexity of the permission process for large scale hydro and wind projects.

Potential

There is a great deal of potential in heat exchange systems for cooling and heating as they are easy to install and use existing technologies, making them of practical use for homeowners, community buildings and social housing schemes.

Hydro schemes face greater difficulties. Drops in water level, intermittent flow and high levels of debris make lock bypass flow based hydro schemes uneconomical.

Although little progress has actually been made, there are also good development opportunities for photovoltaic technology in the east and south, each of which would require 16 sq metres of cells to be economically viable.

The potential of biomass has already been explored. Opportunities exist at barrages that attract large amounts of biomass debris and for willow coppicing on unused land although this hasn’t been fully exploited due to the refusal of the Environment Agency to plant willows on flood plains.

Wind also provides excellent development opportunities.

In development

BW offers business’ access to canal water for the application of heat exchanges technologies for heating and cooling. [9]They are also working together with Partnership for Renewables [BM2] to install an estimated 50 turbines of 2-4 MW capacity alongside the canals and rivers.

In March 2009 British Waterways announced an agreement with the Small Hydro Company Ltd to generate 210,000 MW of renewable energy per annum using the its 2,200 mile network. It is hoped that the initiative will develop approximately 26 small-scale hydro electricity schemes generating enough power for c.40,000 homes, saving an annual 110,000 tonnes of CO2, creating significant income for BW and further contributing to the governments regional emissions targets.[10]

It is estimated that energy generated by the hydro and wind projects alone will supply approximately 85,000 homes.

Examples

In October 2008 BW agreed a collaborative arrangement with Partnership for Renewables. The arrangement was based on a target of 50 wind turbines built across the UK before 2013, with the capacity to generate 100 MW of renewable electricity. The energy generated by these is supplied to BW at a reduced rate, or fed into the National Grid.

Hydro-power has been in use for decades and most of the more promising sites have already been developed. The focus of the collaboration will thus be set on small-scale projects. [11]

Projects in conjunction with Partnerships for Renewables:

• Boddington Reservoir

BW owns land around the Boddington Reservoir in Northampton. Currently investigations are being made into whether the site is suitable for the construction of a single wind power plant with 1.5 MW of capacity. Further environmental investigation needs to be completed before a submission for a planning application can be made.[12]

• Doncaster and Goole

There are three different sites between Doncaster and Goole. Initial studies suggested that these could be used for the production of wind energy. But investigations are on going.[13]

• Killington Reservoir

The land owned by BW around Killington Reservoir is currently being investigated for potential wind turbine and small-scale hydro projects. So far investigations have concluded that the site could be potentially suitable for two wind-turbines with a capacity of between two and three MWs. Again further investigation is needed before a planning application can be made.[14]

• Sharpness Docks

Investigations are being made into the suitability of BW land around the docks of sharpness in Gloucestershire for the installation of a wind-turbine with a capacity of between two and three MWs[BM3] .

Business Models:

The following provides examples of how community asset development and social enterprise has helped create income generating renewable energy projects on the UK’s waterways.

Torrs Hydro Scheme (New Mills) – The Torrs Hydro project in New Mills uses a reverse Archimedes screw turbine to generate electricity from the water flowing in from the Rivers Sett and Goyt that meet in the town. With a 3m head and a 3m/s flow, the force due to gravity 9.81ms² and the density of water 1000 kg/m³ gives a maximum output of 63kWh after friction and generation losses.[15]

In total, the scheme cost around £330,000. A community share issue raised over £125,000, with grant funding providing another £165,000. The shareholders are mostly local people and businesses plus people from further afield who wish to support renewable energy schemes.[16]

Torrs Hydro New Mills Limited was founded in 2007 and is licensed as an Industrial and Provident Society (IPS). An IPS is defined by the FSA as:

“An organisation conducting an industry, business or trade, either as a co-operative or for the benefit of the community, and is registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965. Societies run for the benefit of the community provide services for people other than their members.”[17]

Torrs Hydro was registered in this way so the community could own the hydroelectric scheme. Equally all profits or assets are used to the benefit of the community and cannot be paid or distributed to members.

Their target is an average annual output of 240,000 kWh. The majority of the electricity they produce is sold to the local Cooperative Food Superstore and any surplus is sold through the national grid.[18] A conservative estimate for the cost of electricity of 10p per kWh, suggests that the scheme could generate £24,000 of income.

Settle Hydro Scheme – a similar scheme was conducted at Settle Weir in Yorkshire where a 50kw Archimedean screw was used to generate approximately 165,000 kWh of electricity per year – enough for around 50 average houses.[19] If this electricity were sold to the grid using the same conservative estimate it would generate £16,500 worth of income per year.

The scheme was established along the same lines as the Torrs Hydro project with a community share issue at £1 a share providing £135,000 of funding, and an IPS set up to manage the hydro power and undertake the ongoing management of the plant.

Other funding was raised through a mixture of bank loans with low rates of interest, and grants.

Water Power Enterprises – Both of the above schemes were installed by h2oPE (Water Power Enterprises), a Community Interest Company (CIC). They develop ‘low head’ hydro sites using the Archimedean screw in partnership with local community groups.

Their objective is to remove the two biggest barriers to the involvement of the local community in renewable energy by providing both the finance and capacity to develop and install small-scale hydroelectric schemes.

CIC’s are subject to community interest tests as well as an asset lock. These ensure that the company is established for community purposes and the assets and profits are dedicated to these purposes. As a result h2oPE provides blended financial returns to its stakeholders, which means that bigger social returns are achieved by accepting more modest financial returns; they have both a business and a community focus.

These examples demonstrate the capacity of community based schemes to generate both funding and revenue for communities and for the new waterways body. The revenues generated by these projects are reinvested back into the community. Were the new body to form similar partnerships with user organisations on its network, some of these revenues would go back into maintaining the waterways.

[2]http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/(20)_Hydropower_mitigation_final.pdf

[3] http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/shell/hydropowerswf.html

[4] http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/(22)_Biomass_mitigation_final.pdf

[5] http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/ad/documents/ad-sharedgoals-090217.pdf,

[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-11560551

[7]http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2009-10.pdf

[8] http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2009-10.pdf,

[9]http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/Annual_Report_and_Accounts_2009-10.pdf,

[10] http://www.smallhydro.co.uk/7.html

[11] http://www.pfr.co.uk/britishwaterways/347/About-our-Work/353/Benefits/

[12] http://www.pfr.co.uk/boddington/298/About-the-Project/

[13] http://www.pfr.co.uk/doncasterandgoole/462/About-our-Work/

[14] http://www.pfr.co.uk/killington/

[15] http://www.torrshydro.org/TheProject/Technology.html

[16] http://www.torrshydro.org/TheProject/Community-Ownership.html

[17] http://www.torrshydro.org/TorrsHydro/About-Us.html

[18] http://www.torrshydro.org/TheProject/Technology.html

[19] http://www.yorkshire-forward.com/improving-places/where-we-live/rural-market-towns/settle/case-study