one solution to maintaining >the resource was to have an agreed division of ownership - this worked >effectively for lobster-fishing (in Maine, IIRC) where each fisherman >'owned' a section of sea-bed.
I think that approach has significant problems, and it is not what I was suggesting. * I agree it's not applicable to the canal situation but I gave it as a historical example of one solution to the 'commons' which has worked historically. My proposal was to create a single owner of the entire resource, who would have a vested interest in maintaining it in a way that would optimise its use, because that would optimise the income of the single owner (who would charge the users related to the amount of their use, e.g. per tonne of fish each caught). * This differs somewhat from the second traditional mechanism (which Adrian has cut out) by which the regulator has an interest in the continuation of the resource *as it exists* (in the examples I gave, the commoners' council or the Buddhist priest) will lose out if they allow the resource to be over-exploited. In Adrian's example, the single (monopoly) owner can allow over-fishing, raise the price per tonne as fish become scarcer and bank the proceeds. Similarly, BW could increase charges progressively as boat numbers decreased - as far as I know income from boaters is not earmarked for purely navigational purposes (i.e excluding bridges, interpretation boards, towpath improvements for cyclists etc). >the problem is not the rail fares. It is the >absence of the equivalent charges for car travel, i.e. road pricing. > >* This would have to be set at a level which supported rural communities Why? With market-clearing road pricing, it would become economic for businesses to relocate from cities to smaller centres, to the considerable economic benefit of smaller places. >(a point I return to below) but I agree with many of the other points > >It is not the market that would destroy the system. It is the failure >to let the market work (by retaining the common) that is destroying >the system. We are now trying to consume the waterway resource at an >unsustainable level. If everyone pays the market price for what he >consumes, then in almost all cases the resource is conserved, and >wasteful behaviour is discouraged. If no-one does, or does so at a >below-market price (as in a common, and as on the waterways) the >resource tends to be destroyed. > >I would feel it is more appropriate to compare the >waterways to National Parks such as the Lake District. Here potential >'users' could be crudely classified into four groups:- >1) Incomers who buy property (houses, or in the canal case, new >narrowboats) at market rates; >2) Short-term visitors who use hotels, restaurants, shops etc., thus >supporting the local market economy; >3) Short-term visitors who do not purchase in the local market (e.g. >walkers who bring what they need with them); >4) 'Residents' who maintain the area (e.g. agriculture-related in a >National Park, maintaining historic boats or canal-related businesses in >the canal case). I'm afraid that appears to be arbitrary, unmeasurable, and thus an unacceptably discriminatory basis for setting charges. You could just as easily added: 5) People with red hair, who always look so delightfully rustic * I thought you had resolved to engage in serious argument? I have attempted a logically argued classification and do not expect a flippant response. >(1) and (2); IIRC National Parks now control housing sales so that, for >example, the sheep farming which gives the landscape its traditional >look can remain. An excellent example of why such an approach should not be used. The continued presence of the sheep is AIUI the reason the trees cut long ago to allow sheep raising do not regenerate on the uplands, and sheep farming is an uneconomic activity that requires large (and to me offensive) subsidies. I'd rather look at hills covered in forests (especially in these carbon-conscious days) than bizarrely-shaved grasslands. * I would agree that restoration of the wildwood is preferable, but it may not be the image that visitors to National Parks such as the Lake District expect. If the 'Beatrix Potter' image attracts visitors to the Lake District, or 'roses and castles' attract them to the canals, replacing these by forest or linear nature reserves respectively may reduce visitor numbers and income. >Ergo, whales are in trouble. > >* On a purely market view I agree - but there are two non-market aspects >to this:- > >* The first (which has canal parallels) is that whales are in themselves >awe-inspiring creatures (the largest known animals to have ever lived, >the longest-lived etc.) and should therefore, like Ayer's Rock or >Pontwhatsit, be preserved because people enjoy knowing they are there; All you are saying is that these are factors that contribute to their value, and thus might be taken into account in setting the price to a whaler for killing one. * Certainly not - I'm saying that economic utility is not an appropriate measure of emotional utility in cases like this. It's the equivalent of arguing that since the sea is going to erode the white cliffs of Dover anyway, we should make a profit by turning them into cement before they fall down. >My assessment is that much of >this depends on a fairly limited group of people who, if prices go up >too much, will take their effort for industrial archeology elsewhere. In other words, there is a point of diminishing returns. Of course. However, to the dismay of many boaters, the record number of boats and the continuing increase in that number suggests that the current charges are well below that point at present. * This may be the case for modern boats, but not necessarily for historic boats, which tend to have lower values because they are more expensive to maintain - especially the rarer types. >Speaking personally, I'm aware that the best market for narrowboat-sized >machinery is France, where Adamant's boiler and Monarch's engine now >are, and that it is cheaper per day to enjoy historic boats in Europe >than to run one here: the more BW bang on to me about market forces, the >more likely I am to take this option! Most mainland Europe waterways are unsuitable for narrow boats. You can't avoid economics by moving to another country. * I wasn't suggesting moving the *boats* - merely their machinery, which is in high demand for launches etc. in Europe. There are a lot of historic steamers in countries like Finland, Sweden, and Germany which are more deserving of money than BW! > >Secondly, in a period of transition where a government organisation is > >greatly increasing its prices from what might or might not be argued o > >be too low a base, it is reasonable to help those who find themselves > >in difficulties by tweaking the pricing policy where possible - not by > >means testing or anything difficult like that, but if charging per metre > >or metre^2 rather than per boat gives a help to those to whom the > >increases are giving most difficulty it seems reasonable to act in >> that manner. You're just trying again to fudge the system. If you want to help the less well-off, give them money, then they can pay the same as everyone else. Much simpler, much fairer, and much cheaper. *The point wasn't mine. >* This could be avoided by targeting the subsidy at specific activities >which were perceived to be of general emotional utility - in the >previous posting I suggested sheep farming or maintaining historic boats >as examples. And, as I've pointed out, this will always be arbitrary and unfair. IMHO, is you are going to subsidise anyone, it should be the less well-off individual. Never an activity, an industry, a locality, or a pretty object. * This assumes that the less well-off don't enjoy heritage - but activities such as walking in National Parks and along the canals are highly valued by many of them. These are effectively 'free' activities (costing only any transport to get to the location). Particularly the canals, because they go into cities, are accessible to all at minimal cost. Your argument assumes people cannot enjoy the canals unless they own boats - but they may enjoy looking at boats or travelling on trip-boats. >* Given that historically, boaters have tended to start with cheap, >small or old boats, licensing systems which relate to size favour such >boats (a system related to cabin length, as I posted some years ago, by >making long swims 'free', favours well-shaped hulls which cause less >wash damage, as well as historic boats in carrying condition). Hey, why not charge boats less if they are painted green? Nice colour, green. Or that make a nice noise? Maybe someone could then market CD's of a Bolinder exhaust for those who have Leyland? Of if their crews wear those cute spotted neckerchiefs? Again, this approach is just arbitrary and unfair. * Again, this argument is frivolous. My argument was that changing the licensing system to cabin length (on a revenue-neutral basis, so a 45' cabin is charged the same rate as a 55' boat) encourages new owners and owners of boats which minimise dredging costs. >tax is related to house value and a similar scheme could be applied to >the sale value of boats. Any flat-rate scheme would penalise small and >low-value boats . Any size-related rate penalises, just as unfairly, larger boats. * This was Mrs. Thatcher's argument for the poll-tax, I think - why should the owners of large houses be charged more?. > and probably incur costs to BW in removing abandoned >boats of this type Maybe we need a scrapping deposit on boats? * Maybe, but it's too late to deal with the 'Springer problem' - existing low-value boats which would cost more to scrap than they are worth. I suspect that as BW ratchet up the charges, owners may decide to remove all identifying marks and sink or torch them. Adriain Sean
