Firstly, regular readers of this blog will be aware that I don’t make a thing of having a go at Waterways Ireland (WI). In fact, far from it, I am more inclined to praise than criticism. Sadly, this posting is an exception to the rule.

I may have mentioned it once or twice on here already, but I am currently putting together a book (ironically it’s already in danger of reading as a eulogy to WI) about our first year on the Irish waterways. Courtesy of wintering over on it, the section on the Grand Canal has at least been reasonably easy to write with memories refreshed and new ideas coming together.  One length I particularly enjoyed writing about was between lock 32 at Glynn and Belmont’s double lock, and we were looking forward to boating through it again on our way to Shannon Harbour last weekend.

I will always remember the joy of our first trip through here as, after a couple of weeks out on the open bogs, its intimacy, the over hanging trees along its length, and the abundance of birdlife meant our slow pace was a blessing. For much of that first run I sat on the bow happily watching the coots, moorhens and grebes in its shaded reedy margins, the fish in its depths, and the kingfishers flashing ahead of us. The Grand’s meanderings through the low hills here, and this sylvan avenue with so many trees overhanging the water, made it feel more like a river than a canal. My only regret was not taking any photogpraphs.

Well, as we found to our dismay last week, ‘so many trees overhanging the water’ are a thing of the past: every one of them has been felled. Ugly enough in itself, but made worse by how the dropped timber has been left: in places trees are simply pressed against the towpath fence; in others whole trees had been forced into the hedges beyond it. What had once been so beautiful not only looked dreadful, it seemed devoid of wildlife. We found boating through it distressing.

That we were not the only ones moved in this way was soon made clear when, at Belmont’s double lock, we spoke at length to a local dog walker. This gentleman had spent 25 years volunteering with a charity that encouraged the planting of broadleaf trees and he had personally kept an eye on, and even gently nurtured, some of the trees now removed. Another man at the lock joined him in his condemnation. Going on to lock 34, we were again engaged in conversation, though this time it was predominantly about the removal of all the undergrowth and trees, again once the habitat of kingfishers, in the length from there to Belmont. We were later to hear more dismay about this winter's work from boaters at Shannon Harbour. Some of these people had expressed their concerns to WI workers on the ground here, but none were happy with what they had been told: that WI operatives were entitled to the wood as a ‘perk of the job’, or that it had been done ‘in order to make it possible to draw a boat with a horse’.

Knowing the eastern end of the canal has been carefully and sympathetically cleared over the last couple of years with a much lighter touch, and that Jim Butler down on the Barrow is actively encouraging wildlife (especially kingfishers), I thought I’d have a look for a relevant policy document on WI’s website. Not finding one, I then drew on contacts rather more skilled than myself at digging such things up; they also struggled, but one did send me a link to The Heritage Council’s inland waterways section. While not revealing anything specific, its banner headline rather hit the nail on the head:

Ireland’s inland waterways are important parts of our transport and industrial heritage. They hold aesthetic, recreational and spiritual values, as well as important habitats for many forms of wildlife.

 The canal above Digby after being cleared - note the volume of bankside trees both large and small.

By now I was close to just writing this piece without speaking to WI, but I then recalled meeting WI’s Environment Officer, Paula Treacy, at a seminar at Carrick on Suir a fortnight or so ago. Biting the bullet I rang her office. Paula wasn’t available but the member of her team who answered the phone asked if he could be of assistance. I explained why I was ringing and offered to email the photos I had taken for him to comment. Having done so I fully expected days to pass before anyone made contact but no, lo and behold, just 30 minutes later (and out of office hours) my phone rang. And I got some surprise.

WI’s Environment department and a Wildlife and Parks Ranger had approved the work!  It was explained to me that the trees had to be removed as they were growing on embankments and there was a chance of the canal breaching if they were to topple in a high wind. OK, that seems fair enough, good point, but by no means is this whole section embanked. And what about how the site had been left? Again his reply surprised me: it was to create wildlife habitats. It was at this point I told him I had been involved in environmental projects while working as a tree surgeon. I went on to say my boss at the time (a proper tie-dyed, pony tail wearing yoghurt weaver – though one with a degree in Environment Management I hasten to add) would have thought me joking if I’d suggested leaving complete trees was ‘good practice’: for even on the most loathed of jobs, cutting boxes round power cables deep in marshy thickets in the middle of nowhere, we had to tidy and stack all cut timber, and to create brush piles with the lighter branches and trimmings - and this was checked by the Electricity Board's environmental office. I’ve never heard of leaving entire trees suspended in hedgerows or resting against fences as habitat creation. It was at about this point that it was suggested to me a meeting on site might be appropriate.  While considering if there is any point, I asked for a synopsis of our conversation to be emailed to me, for I did not want to misrepresent, or misunderstand, anyone when writing this.

True to their word, and they've been nothing but polite and professional with me through out, the Environment Office have emailed a long and detailed explanation. I comment on some of its content below:

'One of the main concerns which underlies the requirement to control the growth of trees at the waters edge on the towpath, is that the tree root systems act as a conduit for water under and through the embanked canal towpaths. This results in the washing away of soil around the root system and the subsequent slumping of the towpath. In addition to the towpath slumping, the consequent passage of water from the canal along the root system poses a serious risk of leakage from the canal which can lead to ultimate embankment failure.'

Most of the trees on this length were alders. And cutting them close to the ground is actually coppicing. Alders coppice well and, unless the stools have been poisoned to kill them (and there is no sign of this) they will not die. In fact new shoots will soon appear and thrive with such a large root system to drive them. This is good news for bankside greenery (unless of course they are to be flailed every winter) but the problems described above all remain. Should they die there will be cavities where the rotten roots have collapsed. In time, water would run through them and you'd  have towpaths slumping...

'There is also the threat of  trees toppling over as the root system only grow into towpath with little or no root/grounding on the canal/waters edge.' The email goes on to say that 'the toppling of trees towards the water...(may) seriously undermine the integrity of the embanked sections.'

This Alder was neither on an embankment or, given the mature trees beside it, vulnerable to wind.

Alders are a particularly stable tree and alder roots grow deeply into wet ground, in fact they are so stable they're often used for windbreaks.  Many of the removed trees were not in embanked sections. The photos in this piece clearly show the depth of soil over some of the root systems. Any wind able to blow these over would have left far larger problems than knocked down trees.

'Another issue associated with embanked sections is that of eroding banks around tree roots at the waters edges. This erosion is exacerbated by the water flow (albeit slow flow) of the canal and further exacerbated with the passing of boats and boat wash. It is preferable not to have roots at the waters edge of embanked sections of canal for this reason. While it would be preferable to remove the root stumps at the waters edge, where they are present, to reduce the erosion of the banks, in most cases this would further erode the banks from the impact of pulling out the large root systems.'

Eh? This passage comes right back on itself... And the roots and stools remain present - unless they die, which is worse. This length is not just embankments. Addressed above... Enough said.

 '...it was decided to leave as much of the tress (sic) in situ as possible in the adjacent hedge row.'

Again, I have addressed this above but have to say that reducing the felled timber to stock lengths and brush is the work of a few minutes - particularly when you have a digger to put them above the towpath: ' it was agreed that cutting the trees with a chainsaw and lifting out the trees with a machine was the best available method.' The synopsis goes on to say that 'removal would require many movements up and down the towpath which would damage the towpath further.'  A recent WI press release mentions that they have a fleet of over 60 boats, one of which is only just down the canal. How hard would it have been to have tidied the site properly using this and then stack the wood in a habitat friendly way? I can think of numerous suitable locations in the vicinity. 

On the 8^th of December Waterways Operations and Environmental staff met with the Local National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) ranger and carried out a walk over survey to discuss  the proposed works. At this meeting the (NPWS) were happy that the proposed works would have no significant impact on the environment and it was agreed that the works were necessary to protect the integrity of the canal and embanked towpaths.

As I write above, there is no doubt that WI and NPWS have met their obligations in meeting and planning the works but what, given the change in the canal's environment and potential as a wildlife habitat, does leave me stunned  is:

the (NPWS) were happy that the proposed works would have no significant impact on the environment

It's the significant impact on the environment that has so many people hopping, and that has me wishing my tie-dyed pony tail wearing yoghurt weaving wildlife loving ex-boss could have been a consultant, or even present, at that meeting. 

There is of course, as there always is, the possibility that the motivation for the new look canal is economics. After all, at a time when budgets are themselves being heavily cut back, there will be no need for gangs of General Operatives with chainsaws, tea huts and toilets along here again. All that will be needed to keep the canal looking like this is one man and a tractor mounted flail driving up and down in the permitted period between 31st August and 1st March. Given the heavy handed nature of so much of what has been done along the canal's western end, I would suggest this is by far the most likely reason.

Nothing in WI's synopsis is specific to this length of canal and, in the absence of any clear policy regarding towpath vegetation, there is nothing to prevent the same logic being applied to any Irish canal. Without a policy I see little point in having a meeting - after all, as I have said here, WI are not in breach of anything and they can do what they like.

I accept it's possible that I myself am just a sandal wearing tree hugging yoghurt weaving middle class environmentalist getting a bit het up about a few trees, but I, and numerous others I have spoken to, much preferred the sylvan look and initimacy of the canal as it was a couple of years ago, and I/we feel much has been lost. Perhaps others are delighted by what they see as improvements?   I welcome comments.

Above lock 34 - once the haunt of kingfishers