RSPB.....what is its future role? (1 Viewer)

I've thought long and hard following my reading of the interview article in the most recent Birds magazine and I'both confused and intrigued by what the RSPB intends doing in the future.
I've drawn together a longer Blog entry at
http://www.birdingodyssey.blogspot.com/

Please have a read and let me know your views and, if possible , read the original article in Birds magazine too. Have I got it wrong?

John S. Armitage said:

I've thought long and hard following my reading of the interview article in the most recent Birds magazine and I'both confused and intrigued by what the RSPB intends doing in the future.
I've drawn together a longer Blog entry at
http://www.birdingodyssey.blogspot.com/

Please have a read and let me know your views and, if possible , read the original article in Birds magazine too. Have I got it wrong?

Click to expand...

John, my own impression is that the RSPB are not really sure about their own future at this stage and this is no reflection on Mike Clarke or any of the current execs. The recession undoubtedly has hit the organisation hard and although they fared better than their own predictions, they are almost certainly struggling with the length of time this recession has lasted. The RSPB issues a five-year plan called Future Directions and my guess is that the one implemented just before I left, was largely not realised in all its detail. I am sure the next (which will probably just have been launched) is suffering from similar difficulties insomuch as it may be extremely hard to hit self-imposed targets.

To give an example - the old Aren't Birds Brilliant programme that has morphed through a number of names (Making Space For Nature) is still running but a comparison in interesting. The withdrawal from Glaslyn was almost certainly made because the cost of running the involvement exceeded what was being made in memberships. Glaslyn* was rather specialised and (I don't have any figures) probably attracted mostly people who were already members rather than say, the Manchester Peregrines that attracts thousands of passers-by. OK, a lot of Manchester memberships probably only last a year but the revenue gained certainly exceeds the outlay of putting the project on. The sad and unfortunate conclusion of this is that the RSPB ends up withdrawing from the more acutely conservation orientated project. This is not to say that urban wildlife is not important but the urban peregrine is a natural success story that owes less to conservation than ospreys do.

Similarly, Future Directions usually has some ideas on how many more reserves will be created but not having seen the current version, I would not mind betting this has had to be limited to some extent. One of the startling facts about the RSPB is that if all funding and membership income were to cease abruptly the society would fold in three months (this can come down to much shorter periods during recession). A lot of people think this index is the point to which, the RSPB could keep running before it had to start selling off land. Unfortunately, this is a misconception because the RSPB runs (as most charities do) by hand-to-mouth and the index of existence would be to total extinction. OK, it is a scenario that is unlikely to happen but there are many things that could prohibit growth and possibly, even contribute to contraction. The sad fact about this situation is that the RSPB could be a victim of its own success in the current economic climate whereas the individual Wildlife Trusts and the WWT are smaller and generally less ambitious so are less vulnerable. The Wildlife Trusts often derive much of their income from community and corporate sponsorship and have a smaller membership base.

* I am aware that this is not the official reason for withdrawal and I do not doubt that other factors may be just as important but I have introduced this as a comparison to the Manchester Peregrines project and we could just as easily ask ' why this project has been retained?'

Thanks Nightranger. Very thoughtful and considered. I suspect that we may not ever realise the driving factors behind certain decisions and, in that sense, I suppose second guessing such circumstances is a bit unfair on the organization. However, I think in obvious times of uncertainty, as you point to, it's important to either be very precise or to say nothing at all until the final stage of change. If, as you suggest, RSPB is uncertain about the future, why does the article suggest it might move, even extend, its focus and hint of change if such is not the case. I'm intrigued on the one hand and also concerned bird conservation may be the poorer in some aspects. I'm also concerned that the current recession appears likely to go on for some time yet. If some commercial organizations are reticent about investment in change, it seems hardly an appropriate time for a voluntary organization to consider a major move forward. time will tell. Keep in touch.
John.

John S. Armitage said:

If, as you suggest, RSPB is uncertain about the future, why does the article suggest it might move, even extend, its focus and hint of change if such is not the case. I'm intrigued on the one hand and also concerned bird conservation may be the poorer in some aspects.

Click to expand...

Very well put John, and you are not alone in these concerns. One major thing that is often overlooked (and I suspect by employees of the RSPB too) is that the RSPB attained its position by sheer luck. The society managed to talk in the language that people wanted to hear at a time when people were taking an interest in the wider world around them. We had not long been out of the rationing era after WWII (only lifted in 1955) when the society's fortunes started to rise during the 1960s alongside similar (and bigger) successes with the National Trust. Every since then, the membership has continued to grow albeit, sometimes at a slow rate and that has been a good indicator that the society is still saying the right things. However, in the few years before the recession, I had a deep feeling of concern that it could reverse with the wrong decision in policy.* For instance, marketing is a fragile area in itself and some people are already irritated by the RSPB approach to the point that they support the society in principle but will not join because of the continuous and varied sales pitches. This is just one example, BTW.

The upshot is that the RSPB has done well to explore new areas for bird and wildlife conservation and remain in touch with its membership. My greatest fear is that they will lose sight of the membership in a bid to generate new areas of funding. This is just an extreme example and I am sure it will never happen but if the RSPB ever withdrew support for feeding garden birds, we would have to question whether it was talking to its membership anymore. Similarly, extending too far into new areas of conservation (whatever that would be) could be seen as getting too far from core values. I should state that I always expect the RSPB to be good at what they do in conservation terms but the question mark will be in how that is presented to members and potential members.

* I was not thinking of controversial policy in this case - conservation will always throw up hard choices that are not palatable to everyone. All conservation organisations seem well equipped to deal with these problems and the RSPB particularly so.