Tag Archives: Ulster Canal

FF -v- SF on C18 economic development

Posted on Friday 31 May 2013 | 4 comments

More from the splendid KildareStreet.com, this time an actual Dáil debate, with real people speaking, on 30 May 2013. The debate was initiated by Micheál Martin [head honcho in FF, Cork South Central], who asked the minister …

… his plans for capital investment in Waterways Ireland in the coming year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

There are three odd aspects to that question.

The first is that Micheál Martin should already know that the capital expenditure allocation for WI within RoI for 2013 is €4 071 000: I can understand that he wouldn’t have wanted to plough through the vast wodges of budgetary bumpf, but I’m sure he would have read the highlights on this site.

The second oddity is that Micheál Martin must have known that the minister would not himself have any plans for capital expenditure: they would be WI’s plans.

The third oddity is that FF didn’t seem to have any particular reason for asking this question: the rest of the debate (see below) seems rather desultory. Could it be that it’s trying to reclaim the waterways limelight from the Shinners, who’ve been keeping an eye on WI dredging as well as on thon sheugh?

To be honest, it all seems a bit pointless: waterways may be interesting to me, and presumably to readers of this site, but they’re hardly of great national importance. A serious debate, by informed participants, might be useful, but (with all due respect to the contributors) there was little sign of that here.

Jimmy Deenihan did actually give some interesting, albeit minor, details about WI’s plans for this year. I omit the first two paras and the last, which are boring boilerplate bumpf that will be familiar to regular readers.

Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick]: While the Waterways Ireland 2013 business plan and budget is the subject of ongoing discussions with the co-sponsoring Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland and will require formal approval by the North-South Ministerial Council, I have provided an indicative funding allocation of €4.071 million to Waterways Ireland for capital projects in this jurisdiction in the coming year. This will facilitate capital works by Waterways Ireland in developing, restoring and improving infrastructure for water based and activity recreation and tourism, consolidating facilitates and improving access to the waterways across the navigations.

I am advised that the Waterways Ireland draft 2013 business plan has a development schedule providing for 1354 m of additional moorings across the navigations. Works planned within this jurisdiction include a range of major projects such as upgrading Bagenalstown Lock on the Barrow; provision of a slipway and stabilisation of the dock walls at Grand Canal Dock, dredging the Grand Canal; development of houseboat facilities at Lowtown and Sallins; lifting the bridge at Tullamore depot; bridge upgrades, works on weirs and locks on the Shannon; and commencement of work on the Belturbet Service Block on the Shannon Erne and purchase of plant and machinery.

I said that I would welcome information about what “lifting the bridge at Tullamore depot” means. The answer was provided in the Comments below; here is a photo of the bridge in question.

The (currently non-lifting) lifting bridge at Tullamore

The (currently non-lifting) lifting bridge at Tullamore

 

Most of the rest is unsurprising.

The FF follow-up came from Seán Ó Fearghaíl [FF, Kildare South], who said:

I welcome the many positive developments to which the Minister referred but one of our concerns is that since 2011 the funding available for Waterways Ireland has been cut from €35 million to approximately €32 million.

Studies over the years have shown that waterways tourism is one of the activities that is most likely to generate return visits. As a regular user of places like the Shannon Navigation, one never ceases to be amazed at the number of non-nationals one meets on that waterway who have been coming back to Ireland year in, year out. I wonder to what extent the funding the Minister has available to him should be augmented by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. These waterways are of immense value to the local populations privileged to live in the catchment area of each amenity, along with their huge tourism importance. What sort of interaction does the Minister have with tourism bodies north of the Border and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport? Is anything planned for the waterways under the auspices of The Gathering?

What has happened in Kildare this week? We had Bernard Durkan [FG, Kildare North] the other day and Clare Daly [Socialist Party, Dublin North, but originally from Newbridge, Co Kildare] a moment ago; now we have a new chap from Kildare South.

Anyway, it can’t have come as any surprise to Mr Ó Fearghaíl that WI’s budget has been cut: so has everybody else’s, and the budgets were announced last December. I note that he didn’t ask how the Clones Sheugh was to be funded, never mind the Cavan Sheugh to Lough Oughter. But his question is the sort that a journalist might ask: vague, unfocused, couched in generalities, lacking in evidence of research into the subject. I would like to know more about his “Studies over the years”, with particular reference to the balance between and the allocation of the costs and benefits of investment in waterways; generating return visits is not in itself terribly useful (I really do not want Great Aunt Maud here again).

Not that the minister offered many hard facts in his reply:

I have seen for myself the provision of moorings at Killaloe and Ballina. Those have made a major difference to both towns in different counties on either side of the Shannon. The result of that investment is obvious and local people would accept that.

As regards involvement from Fáilte Ireland, Waterways Ireland is augmenting Fáilte Ireland’s promotion of the waterways. Waterways Ireland is providing funding on an annual basis for the promotion of tourism on its waterways. It is a North-South body, which is also very important, because Tourism Ireland promotes the entire island and the waterways network of more than 1,000 navigable kilometres can really be pushed on an all-island basis and we are doing that. I have tried to minimise the reduction in funding for Waterways Ireland because of its North-South significance and its potential and considerable work has been done. We have improved facilities for tourists so we are now ready to proactively promote this great facility.

Any, like, figures? Statistics? References to analyses? How much of WI’s budget is being diverted to the tourism bods and what is the benefit?

Next (and last) up was Peadar Tóibín [SF, Meath West], with “now for something completely different“:

A number of groups are actively trying to create a green way along the Boyne from the estuary to its source. The Boyne is littered with internationally recognised heritage monuments and would be a fantastic tourist attraction that would bring people into the region. People who holiday in the region visit Trim Castle and Newgrange on coach trips and as ar result Meath does not get the full value of their tourism. The Boyne Canal runs from Navan to Drogheda. It is not covered by the Waterways Ireland network. Would the Minister agree that such a canal should be brought within the ambit of Waterways Ireland, along with other canals, and would he consider the funds that might be available to help with the development of such a green way along the River Boyne?

The minister’s reply is interesting:

We have no plans to extend the present 1,000 kilometres of navigable waterways. The focus of our investment in capital development will be from Clones to Lough Erne to the value of €35 million.

What? No Cavan Sheugh? No Kilbeggan, Longford or Mountmellick Branch?

Oh, and note that the figure of €35 million is being quoted for the Clones Sheugh, although the last estimate I had form WI was higher than that.

The minister continued:

As regards the green way, I do not have direct responsibility but any way I can help through Waterways Ireland, I will do so. As a keen cyclist and walker, I am all for encouraging green ways wherever possible. If the Deputy has a proposal I can forward to Waterways Ireland for discussion, I will gladly take it.

Well, well. A Monaghan greenway is being developed; why not a Clones greenway too, instead of an expensive canal?

4 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish waterways general, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Shannon, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Uncategorized, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sinn Féin promotes a certain Sheugh

Posted on Friday 17 May 2013 | Leave a comment

The Dáil discussed the Good Friday Agreement on Tuesday 14 and Wednesday 15 May 2013. On the Tuesday the minister, Jimmy Deenihan (FG, Kerry North/West Limerick), gave the standard line on the Clones Sheugh:

One of the projects it is currently progressing is the restoration and reopening of the Ulster Canal between Clones and Upper Lough Erne. Planning permission has been granted by Cavan County Council, Monaghan County Council, Clones Town Council and, more recently, the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment planning service. I have established an interagency group to explore funding options for advancing the Ulster Canal project, including existing funding streams and leveraging funding from other sources. The group comprises county managers from Monaghan and Cavan county councils, the director of leisure development and arts from Fermanagh District Council, representatives from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Fáilte Ireland, the Strategic Investment Board, Waterways Ireland and senior officials from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The next meeting of the interagency group will take place later this week. This interagency approach has been effective elsewhere and I suggest it could be used for similar projects in future.

Nobody else mentioned the Sheugh that day, but on the following day local man Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (SF, Cavan-Monaghan) gave a rose-tinted account of the benefits of canal restoration:

The second outstanding issue I wish to raise is the Ulster Canal. Far-seeing individuals, not least in the local communities, saw the potential long ago of re-opening the Ulster Canal from Lough Erne in County Fermanagh, through Clones in County Monaghan and on to Lough Neagh. This was a flagship project identified in the Good Friday Agreement and confirmed in subsequent negotiations and agreements. Those far-seeing people saw the potential economic return for entire communities throughout this beautiful part of rural Ireland with the opening up of the Erne-Shannon waterway, linking Lough Erne with the River Shannon. They rightly concluded that similar benefits could be gained from re-opening the Ulster Canal, with the 13 km Erne to Clones section marked out as the first phase of the overall project.

In July 2007, nearly six years ago, the North-South Ministerial Council agreed to proceed with the Ulster Canal project. That was widely welcomed at the time, especially in the Border counties, where the peace dividend had been very slow to materialise. It was widely seen as vindication of the campaign of the local communities and the calls from elected representatives of all parties North and South, including my Sinn Féin colleagues and me, for this very positive project to be advanced. In the intervening period we have seen the economic collapse in this State and a parallel contraction in the North. Despite that, the Ulster Canal project was kept live. Nonetheless, it took until October 2011 for Waterways Ireland to lodge planning applications. Permission was granted last month for the northern section by Minister for the Environment, Alex Attwood, and earlier this month by Clones Town Council and Monaghan County Council for the section in this jurisdiction. The Minister, Deputy Deenihan, has advised that the earliest the contract could be awarded would be late 2014 with a completion date in spring 2017. I urge the Government to do all in its power to expedite this process. I also urge the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, and other colleagues to maximise the possible EU funding for the project from the PEACE IV programme. The Ulster Canal project is hugely important, not only symbolically, but will prove to be powerful in terms of economic development across this island. It is time to get the work on the ground under way.

Nobody else mentioned it.

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sinn Féin’s sheughs

Posted on Tuesday 7 May 2013 | 5 comments

I have remarked before that Sinn Féin seems to be devoted to the leading-edge communications technology of the eighteenth century, the canal. I have no idea why it takes such an interest in the subject, but further evidence of its devotion has emerged in the last week.

The Fermanagh Herald reported, on 5 May 2013, that Michelle Gildernew MP [whose Sinn Féin page seems to have disappeared] listed the Clones Sheugh amongst the jobs on which European taxpayers should spend money. She did so at a meeting with Colette Fitzgerald, head of the European Commission’s Belfast office; Ms Fitzgerald made polite noises but did not promise any money.

But Sinn Féin does not confine itself to Clones. Carál Ní Chuilín MLA, whose Sinn Féin web page is live but well out of date, is (as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure) the NI minister responsible for Waterways Ireland. We learn from the Londonderry Sentinel that she wanted Waterways Ireland to be landed with responsibility for the Strabane Sheugh.

Happily, the North South Ministerial Council shot that down, but the minister wants to see whether the unfortunate Strategic Investment Board can find any loot for the canal. It might be better if they were asked to find a use for it first: even if it were restored, it would be unlikely ever to see more than a few small boats in a year. It might provide a walking route, for which (pace the Clones dudes) neither locks nor water would be needed, but the Londonderry Sentinel leaves me unclear whether the towpath is usable. It says:

A year ago the Sentinel reported the ‘tow path’ section of the Strabane Canal was to open for the first time in 50 years in June 2012.

It doesn’t say that the towpath did reopen, which seems odd; a Belfast Telegraph article of June 2012 says that it was reopened temporarily but WalkNI says that it is being restored. So is it open or not? I’d like to know, because I favour walking routes along unrestored canals, as does the learned IndustrialHeritageIreland, which also notes encouraging interest from Monaghan County Council.

5 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The drums, Carruthers

Posted on Tuesday 7 May 2013 | 2 comments

I pointed out recently that some newspapers seemed to have reproduced, unquestioningly, what may have been press releases about the Clones Sheugh. On 25 April the Irish Independent, and other media, had a story, attributed to the Press Association, beginning:

Part of the cross-border Ulster Canal which has not been used for 80 years is to reopen, it has been revealed.

That followed the granting of planning permission, in Northern Ireland, for those portions of the proposed canal to Clones that lie with HM Realm. A couple of weeks earlier, Sinn Féin had been calling for taxpayers’ money to be spent on the project. And Brian Cassells was quoted in the Belfast Telegraph on 27 April 2013 in praise of walking in the country. I wondered whether there was a coordinated campaign to put pressure on the Irish government to come up with the loot for the Clones Sheugh: whether the jungle drums were being orchestrated.

Paying the piper

But none of those stories made it clear that the Irish taxpayers, who had been volunteered to pay for those sheugh, could not afford it. Then, last week, we had several stories making that very point — but without any reference to the stories of the previous week:

The Indo gives the cost of the Clones Sheugh as €35m and the BelTel as £29.6m; it is not clear whether they are repeating an outdated estimate or whether Waterways Ireland’s engineers have provided a new estimate.

Please put a penny

Both stories repeated the current Irish government’s current rather confusing story about where the money was to come from:

  • sale of Waterways Ireland assets (which Irish ministers are not empowered to sell)
  • annual budgetary allocations to Waterways Ireland
  • income from commercialisation of Waterways Ireland assets, which (as I interpret it) is not the same as revenue from the sale of assets.

But it is the journalism that concerns me again here. Newspapers have printed a story saying that there is no money for the Clones Sheugh but they have ignored their own stories, of only a week earlier, saying that the project was going ahead.

Given that, I find it difficult to believe that the newspapers (and the Press Association) have anyone taking an active interest in the Clones Sheugh: researching, investigating and reporting. I suspect — and I accept, of course, that I may be entirely wrong — that on both occasions the journos were simply presented with press releases, probably pre-digested.

Calling the tune

I think it would be interesting to know who has been issuing these various press releases and why they have been doing do. So I’d like journos to tell us the context and the background: that would be more interesting to read, and more worthy of the journos’ efforts, than the reproduction of the releases’ contents.

I don’t know who sent out the first set of releases, saying that the Ulster Canal was to go ahead, but I suspect that the second set was a damage-control effort by the current Irish minister. I suspect that he wanted to dampen down unrealistic expectations without actually the Clones enthusiasts to get stuffed (whether for the short or for the long term). What happened in between the two sets of releases was that a member of the minister’s own party, Heather Humphreys [FG Cavan-Monaghan], asked a Useful Question in the Dáil. That was no doubt entirely coincidental, and not in any way prompted by the minister or by the FG managers, but it allowed the minister to get his story out.

South of the border

The occasion was a Topical Issue Debate on Cross-Border Projects on 1 May 2013. Ms Humphreys was able to associate herself with the views of the local supporters of the project (who are not paying for it), to say how important it was and to claim that getting planning permission was a significant step forward. Which it might be, but it doesn’t help the project to get past the financing obstacle, although she did say that the government was hoping to nick some Euroloot (from PEACE IV; here’s some stuff about PEACE III) for the project.

The minister responded with a history of the proposed rebuilding; then he said [I’ve added extra paragraph breaks]:

The planning applications for this project are now likely to be determined in May 2013. The compulsory purchase order, CPO, land maps are well progressed. It is estimated that the CPO process will take approximately 12 months and, depending on the funding in place, the CPO process may proceed incrementally.

A decision on the construction of the project and on whether to have a single large contract or a number of smaller contracts will also have to be made.

As the project is above the EU procurement threshold the tender process will be required to comply with the EU procurement process and will take approximately six months to complete. Taking that into consideration the earliest the contract could be awarded would be late 2014 with a contract period of 24 months giving a completion date of spring 2017. If the project is to proceed in a more piecemeal fashion the completion date could be some years later, depending on the number and timing of individual contracts. Funding for the project very much depends on the availability of funding from the Exchequer. Deputy Humphreys referred to the possibility of funding from a European source. The Taoiseach referred to a similar possibility.

I established an inter-agency group comprising county managers from Monaghan and Cavan, the director of leisure, development and arts from Fermanagh, representatives from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Fáilte Ireland, the Strategic Investment Board, Waterways Ireland and senior officials from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Northern Ireland and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The inaugural meeting was held on 20 September 2012 and the next meeting will take place shortly. Its challenge is to find alternative sources of funding. I again thank the Deputy for raising the matter. With the planning permission process completed, the next stage is to acquire the land and we will proceed with that immediately.

I feel sorry for the poor folk from the NI Strategic Investment Board, who barely mention the Ulster Canal in their Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland 2011–2021: building a better future [PDF], and who take care to mention the Unionist Lagan Navigation along with the Republican Ulster Canal. They must be wondering how their involvement is expected to help the southern government to meet its commitment to pay for the Clones Sheugh.

Along the banks

Anyway, back to the Dáil. Heather Humphreys, who may not have seen many canals, responded, saying (inter alia):

The canal is an iconic, achievable project that is worthy of support.

Naturally, I disagree about the “worthy of support” bit, but even “iconic” is nonsense. The Ulster Canal was a relatively minor, small, uninteresting waterway carrying insignificant cargoes, and there is little to attract the tourist. The Royal Canal is much more “iconic”, and even that pales by comparison with some canals elsewhere.

The minister finished by saying:

Potential funding from the €150 million PEACE IV programme is very important. If we could source funding from it that would give a greater possibility of the project progressing in the near future. I hope that having completed the CPOs we can make a start on the project in 2015 or 2016. As Deputy Humphreys indicated, it is an iconic project and it would give a major boost to that part of the country which has suffered considerably from rural depopulation. The farming community is under a lot of pressure as well.

Certainly, this project would be seen to be a major asset to the local community and local economy.

It seems that the rural seclusion of the area between Lough Erne and Clones will not be broken by the sounds of JCBs just yet.

2 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Clones Sheugh and other northern waters

Posted on Wednesday 1 May 2013 | 6 comments

Industrial Heritage Ireland has been visiting Ulster waterways including the Blackwater, which linked the Ulster Canal to Lough Neagh.

Brian Cassells was quoted again in the Belfast Telegraph on 27 April 2013. He believes that walking in the country is a Good Thing, although it’s not clear why that requires a canal. I trust that Sammy Wilson will stand firm and refuse to spend public money on a project that has an even stronger political smell than the proposed Narrow Water Bridge.

6 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What is the point of newspapers?

Posted on Friday 26 April 2013 | 3 comments

The Irish Independent says today:

Canal ‘to reopen’ after 80 years

Part of the cross-border Ulster Canal which has not been used for 80 years is to reopen, it has been revealed. […]

It says that the NI environment minister, Alex Attwood, announced that planning permission had been granted in Northern Ireland for the restoration of the Clones Sheugh and that Brian Cassells of the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland expected restoration to be extended all the way to Lough Neagh, which he thought would be a good thing.

Waterways Ireland has a press release here [PDF], the Impartial Reporter covers it here, the Indo’s sister-paper the Belfast Telegraph report is here and 4ni has a brief account here.

I realise that it would be folly to expect newspapers to know anything about the subjects they write about, but shouldn’t they do something to check the press releases they’re given? A moment’s googling would have shown that “is to reopen” is, to put it mildly, an overstatement, because there can be no reopening until funding is provided. The last Irish government undertook to pay the cost but soon found that it couldn’t afford it; it and its successor have, since then, been trying to disguise the fact (and to find a crock of gold).

Of course, even if the Irish government does find the funding, spending it on a dead-end stump of a canal to Clones would be a waste of money, and there is not the slightest possibility that the canal will ever get any further. Some Clones folk, and inland boat-owners, are all in favour of it, but they’re not offering to pay for it.

But back to the newspapers. Shouldn’t they check the context, as well as the content, of press releases to ensure that the published accounts tell the full story?

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Comments

Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More say he rose again

Posted on Tuesday 23 April 2013 | Leave a comment

Last September, I noted that the excellent KildareStreet.com website had been crippled by a change to the software used on the Oireachtas debates website. Life is too short to be spent ploughing through the witterings of politicians (unless you’re being paid to do so, of course), so KildareStreet.com’s search facility was invaluable, as was its emailing of alerts when my chosen keywords were mentioned. That flow of information ended in September.

Happily, though, the KildareStreet.com folk did not give up, readers donated funds, the rebuilt parts of the site are being tested and, yesterday, I got my first alert in over six months. Here, then, is the news about the Clones Sheugh, as seen from Kildare Street.

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Built heritage, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish waterways general, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Scenery, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Uncategorized, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

WI down wid da kidz

Posted on Wednesday 17 April 2013 | 16 comments

I have recently written, for publication elsewhere, an article comparing Waterways Ireland’s online presence unfavourably with that of the Canal & River Trust, which manages many waterways in England and Wales. WI clearly listened, because it has completely revamped its website.

Actually, that’s my little joke, because WI has clearly had folk working hard on this for some time. Its home page address remains as it was with (as I write) a clock ticking down to the official launch on 18 April 2013, but you can bypass that. Clearly not all the pages have yet been populated, but the overall design can be seen and it is several leagues ahead of the previous version.

It promotes a wider range of activities: walking, cycling, angling, boating, rowing, canoeing, sailing and power sports (but not, alas, campervanning). It has an events section, with events listed in chronological order by starting date; you can shorten the list by selecting a waterway, an activity or a date. This online listing is far more user-friendly than WI’s print equivalent. Sensibly, information on planning events is in the same section as the events listing.

The Clones Sheugh is listed amongst the waterways under Events, but no activities are planned there. However, the sheugh is not amongst the seven waterways listed under Our Waterways.

There’s a useful Do it Online section, with subsections called Register it, Pay for it, Apply for it and Report it. The last of those is rather disappointing, suggesting off-line communication; it would be more useful to have this sort of discussion between WI and its customers conducted in public. The promised form for online compliments and complaints isn’t there, but presumably will be added soon. Apply for it includes a procedure for applying for permission to film on WI property; this is something that BW (C&RT’s predecessor) had years ago.

The Learning section includes online games, the teachers’ resource pack and, encouragingly, information on arranging group tours of WI facilities and on accessing the archives; we are promised that some archive material will appear online.

The Corporate section includes About Us, FAQs, Public Consultation, Research, Careers, Partner Information, Policies and Plans & Reports. There is little that was not on the previous version of the site. There are sections for the Media and on Commercial Activity; Visitors Centre leads to the existing pages on the Box in the Docks; there is a much better Contact Us page, with a classified list so that you can find the office you need.

The down-wid-da-kidz bit is that there are links to WI Facebook, Twitter and YouTube pages. There is nothing on the YouTube page yet; perhaps the first video will show Jimmy Deenihan cutting the ribbon on the new website tomorrow. The Twitter page — joy! — includes the marine notices, which makes this the first good reason I’ve come across for taking an interest in Twitter. The Facebook page seems to be no better or worse than other FB pages I’ve seen.

The new website does not seem to have anything about Nuttall’s Pondweed, which was the only thing on the old site that might attract nature-lovers. I see nothing on the new site to interest such folk; apart from the archives bit, WI’s wealth of industrial heritage is not represented. So, despite the much improved appearance and organisation, there are constituencies, or potential constituencies, that are not being addressed.

However, on the whole the new site does seem to fit in with and promote WI’s Marketing Strategy 2012–2017:

4.1 Marketing Mission

Essentially the marketing mission of Waterways Ireland is unchanged and is defined as increase awareness and promote greater use of Ireland’s 
Inland Waterways.

4.2 Strategic Marketing Objectives

Within the period 2012–2017, Waterways Ireland wishes to build on the success and achievements of the previous Strategy taking a more proactive approach in achieving the following strategic marketing objectives:

– promoting increased use of the Waterways including promoting the range of uses;

– creating awareness of the waterways including the commercial potential of thewaterways; and

– creating working relationships with other state and semi state, tourism, trade, recreational organisations and users.

What is not entirely clear to me, though, is whether this new and much-improved website is to continue the one-way communication process or whether WI will use the new media to their full potential, encouraging two-way communication (even if it includes criticism) and building a real waterways community. It will be interesting to see.

For far too long, the IWAI website was streets ahead of WI’s. The shoe is now on the other foot. Congratulations and best wishes to all involved in this major improvement to WI’s online presence.

 

 

 

 

 

16 Comments

Posted in Economic activities, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Natural heritage, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Shannon, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sinn Féin wants taxpayers’ money for Clones sheugh

Posted on Wednesday 10 April 2013 | 4 comments

The Impartial Reporter reports (impartially) that “Councillors press for Ulster Canal funding to be released”. The two councillors quoted are Thomas O’Reilly of Fermanagh District Council and Pat Treanor of Monaghan County Council. Both are members of Sinn Féin.

Cllr Treanor is quoted as saying “Once the Government release the funding ….” Cllr Treanor seems to have missed the point that “the funding” does not exist: the [RoI] government has not got the money and, as I have pointed out here many times, no money was set aside for the Ulster Canal. He says that …

… we would in the interim call upon all living in the local community, from Derrykerrib to Clones to begin to think about taking advantage of the obvious business opportunities that this reopening will bring.

If the members of the local community have any money, they might be better advised to invest it in Swiss bank accounts. Or even Bitcoins.

4 Comments

Posted in Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

DCAL

Posted on Thursday 21 March 2013 | Leave a comment

I have been searching the website of Northern Ireland’s Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure [DCAL to its friends] for the minutes of the meetings of its departmental board. Unfortunately I have not been able to find any link to them on the site. The site search engine will find them, but in an unpredictable order. It may be best, therefore, to use these terms in your favourite web search engine:

dcalni “departmental board meeting”

The most recent minutes I found were those for January 2013.

I can’t find anything similar for the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, alas.

Leave a comment

Posted in Economic activities, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Operations, People, Politics, Waterways management

Tagged , , , , , , ,