Reflections on 2024/2 - funding the UK maritime heritage sector. What happens next?
Reflections on 2024 / Part 2
Remembering some of the highlights of last year…. and one to watch this …..
————————————-
Way back in September 2023 Raybel Charters was part of a team commissioned by the Heritage Fund and National Historic Ships UK, to do an in-depth study of the UK maritime heritage sector. The launch of the report was delayed due to the election, eventually taking place in early autumn, around the time of our busy sail cargo schedule, so we didn’t get the chance to publicise it.
But it’s worth bringing more attention to it. The report makes a number of recommendations, broadly accepted by the Heritage Fund, which could really help the sector …. If they get implemented. So far we’re not aware of the Fund taking these forward (any of you in contact with them this year might want to ask….).
So, belatedly, here is summary of the report (you can read the full version here). Any feedback on the research or requests for more info – do get in touch.
1 What did we find?
As we all know, it’s tough out there! File under research finding “blindingly obvious”. But it was good to pull together data and feedback which clearly demonstrate the scale of the issues facing historic ships. The research included a survey of ship owners on the National Historic Ships register: 72% of respondents said they are struggling to find funds for conservation, and 70% with funds for ongoing maintenance. Both the Heritage Fund and the National Heritage Memorial Fund are getting more demand for grants from historic vessels, raising concerns that a greater number of ships are falling into disrepair. Indeed, the level of demand over the next few years will easily exceed available funding. We estimated there could be over 300 vessels on the National Historic Ships register that are ‘at risk’ and needing grant support to bring them back into decent condition.
Then, even when funds are secured, facilities to carry out conservation work are becoming increasingly difficult to find, with a surge in drydocking demand following the pandemic. Ship owners repeatedly raised the challenge of finding permanent berths.
And, as we all know, the skills required to conserve and restore historic ships are disappearing, compounded by challenges around recruiting younger people. Apprenticeships and accredited training don’t fit into standardised training modules, whilst small, localised training offers can’t address the sector-wide need.
Other big challenges relate to the availability and cost of materials (steel price fluctuations, lack of sustainable traditional boatbuilding timbers, high energy costs), whilst climate change presents a major threats to historic vessels e.g. weather changes and plastic pollution. Vessels also contribute to climate change – efforts to move away from fossil fuels will increase costs in the short term.
2 What does the sector want?
People in the sector were very clear and consistent in saying what would help. And this was not simply about holding out the bowl for more money to carry out costly restorations or rebuilds. Everyone understands some prioritisation is inevitable and not every ship is going to get funding, sadly.
But the sector wants support beyond big capital projects, seeing a need for long-term relationships with the Heritage Fund in particular. A one-off grant to save or restore a boat should not the end of the story - ship owners want timely and regular investment, including the availability of repeat funding. There shouldn’t be a sense that once a conservation grant has been secured, a vessel is ‘done’ and had its turn. In fact, the opportunity to come back in for new projects – without having to go back over the whole history of previous ones – is essential if historic ships are going to carry on being used for community benefit. Good funders will understand and invest in us as organisations, not just ship owners …. understanding how a vessel fits within an overall purpose and vision.
The other big issue is addressing the scarcity of industrial workplaces and moorings. That’s a challenge out to vessel owners as well as the funder – we need to connect projects to places and not see ships in isolation from communities around where we are based.
The need for investment in training and workforce at a national level is clear-cut. Increased co-operation and knowledge sharing was also seen as helpful.
And interestingly, there was a widespread recognition of the need to accept loss, including considering funding digital recording where vessels cannot be saved.
3 So what should the Heritage Fund do?
The research showed the priority for NHMF’s (very limited) funding should continue to be ‘at risk’ vessels on the National Historic Fleet. But that depends on having good up-to-date information, and the review of the NHF register being carried out by National Historic Ships is very behind schedule, and beyond its capacity to complete. It needs doing urgently, and resources should be made available for NHS to finish the job. Whilst the review is underway, we thought there was a temporary, ‘meanwhile’ case for greater flexibility of NHMF funding for vessels on the wider NHS register, not just the National Historic Fleet. If owners can make the case for national importance and outstanding heritage significance, they should be able to.
In the case of the Heritage Fund (i.e. Lottery funding) we said the Fund should send a clear signal to vessel owners that they should apply for a grant well before a vessel deteriorates to such an extent that expensive ‘at risk’ funding is the only option. But the Heritage Fund should continue to focus on a wider sense of community value when funding maritime projects, not just a ship’s heritage significance and condition. As a sector we must maintain a steely focus on achieving community benefit, and not expect funding for conservation plus a bit of ‘add on’ community outreach, which is dropped the moment the project is over. In return, we said the Heritage Fund should make regular operational and maintenance support available, supporting periodic repair work that is beyond the capacity of volunteer-led organisations. One potential mechanism may be a partnership arrangement with grants allocated through the existing NHS-UK Small Grants Scheme. And the Fund should be open to organisations coming back in with new ideas for community projects, and not take the view that a vessel has been ‘done’ once it’s had a big capital grant.
We didn’t recommend any changes in NHMF and Heritage Fund policies on only funding vessels in community ownership, but said advice on routes into community ownership should be provided.
Lastly, we put forward ideas for a dedicated Maritime Heritage strategic initiative, to be led by the Heritage Fund, based on a potential investment of around £25m. We suggested this should pick up on the various issues identified through the research – particularly the need for a comprehensive, programme to address the lack of skills and training; and a broader ‘ships in place’ scheme, which would incorporate investment in local maritime heritage facilities such as heritage docks, harbours, boatyards and/or wharves, as well as visitor facilities, interpretation and community engagement, alongside vessels associated with the place.
Will the Fund pick up on this idea in 2025…..?
The researching Raybellians