Moving British Waterways out of the public sector and into the voluntary sector would create the 13th-largest charity by income and the fifth-largest fundraising charity, according to a new report outlining the pros and cons of the idea.
Setting a new course, prepared by Bates Wells and Braithwaite, Compass Partnership and Think Consulting, was commissioned by British Waterways (BW) to flesh out the prospect of it becoming a charity.
It sets out the case for BW to move into the sector, outlines some of the concerns that have been raised, explores how it would need to reposition the way it presents itself to the public, and analyses its fundraising potential.
Fundraising potential
BW currently has income of £255m - £149m earned income and £74m government funding. But it needs £30m a year more if the waterways are to become truly sustainable long-term. Were BW to become a charity, it would need a long-term funding contract with the government and would be responsible for finding others sources to fill the gap leftover.
“Knowing the size of the gap would provide the focus and the incentive to find ways of filling it,” the report authors wrote. However, experience from other similar-sized bodies suggests that BW might raise up to £4m a year from voluntary sources after ten years, which would not be sufficient to plug the long-term funding hole.
Benefits of joining the sector
The consultants identified several benefits to joining the sector. These included improving its perception among its partners; enabling it to establish closer relationships with other conservation and heritage groups; liberating staff to exercise their passion for the waterways; allowing the board and management to work to much longer timescales, and removing the insecurity of short-term funding.
It would also allow increased borrowing, the freedom to enter into more joint ventures and be more enterprising, and the potential to share back-office functions with other sector bodies.
Concerns to be overcome
But concerns had been raised too, which need to be addressed: it might be difficult to agree a funding contract that both the government and BW board is happy with; such a contract might be subject to EU procurement regulations; and commitment from central government would dwindle.
Trade unions have also voiced concerns that the move could lead to pay cuts or job losses.
The authors also advised that BW would have to relaunch itself as a compelling cause and not just a worthy organisation.
“The cause will need to be convincing enough to engage the heart as well as the head, and be able to stand comparison with starving children, life-threatening diseases and abused animals,” they wrote. “All of its supporters will have to become waterways champions.”
BW could also attract more volunteers but would have to clarify what they would do and provide high-quality training and management.
The report did not consider the implications for BW’s financial strategy; the tax and insurance consequences; employment issues and its future relationship with government. These are being looked at in other pieces of work by BW.
Decisions about BW’s future are a matter for the government, but the BW board is welcoming views on the thinking to date. The report can be found here and comments should be sent to [email protected]
