The government and opposition argue about how to manage the economy. They agree that cuts are needed (although the size of the cuts is at issue) but the route to growth is in dispute. If you cut and cut will the economy stagnate?
Many small businesses, including small NGOs, are worrying about how public spending cuts will affect their ability to continue their core work.
Wildlife NGOs generally receive financial support from four main sources: government, industry, grant-giving bodies and direct public support from individuals. All such sources of funding are likely to be squeezed and so the likelihood is that NGO work will be too.
Some of the cuts made in Defra’s budget this time last year are now finding their way through to cuts in grant and contract income of wildlife NGOs. One example has recently come to my attention (rather indirectly) but I am sure that there are plenty of others. Butterfly Conservation – of which I am a keen member – recently received cuts to their grant income from Natural England of around 85% (from c£300k to c£40k).
Other wildlife NGOs are facing similar financial challenges to their core work of saving threatened species.
Makes you wonder doesn’t it? It makes me wonder:
- what is the Big Society solution to losing expert posts in nature conservation?
- will private sector money flood in to replace the funds lost through public spending cuts?
- when the economy picks up again will we have lost wildlife that cannot recover?
And while you are wondering, then please show your support for the excellent work done by Butterfly Conservation by supporting their work.
[registration_form]
I have only one comment “the greenest government ever!” b*llocks
Unless of course they were refering to the naivety.
We might like more money to be spent on biodiversity, but at present that looks unlikely. But what about the effectiveness of what is being spent? No one in government could argue in favour of ineffective use of taxpayers money, so we need to shine the spotlight on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of DEFRA’s spend on biodiversity? My gut says much of it is being spent very ineffectively, but can we prove that?
What about an NGO budget demonstrating how the existing money could buy more biodiversity and have ministers tell us why it is better to spend inefficiently?
Alistair – very good point.
The old DEFRA joined the Stewarship staff over to Natural England. Courses were made to encourage self employed/land agents/NGOs to apply for work aiding the farmers to gain high/lower stewardship. Farmers were given names of folk carrying out the work in their areas. Out of six names the farmer could choose one. The scheme seems to have collapsed as more and more work is being carried out by Natural England/DEFRA staff as their money and jobs disappear leaving the self employed with nothing. Like Butterfly Conservation many are going to feel the pinch.
It is bizarre that some NGOs (supposedly Non Governmental Organisations) have become dangerously reliant on government funding, although the wildlife charities are nowhere nearly as bad as many in the social field where some ‘charities’ are fully funded by local authorities.
However, the outlook for income might not be quite as bad as Mark suggests, as spending on the national lottery has increased during the recession and the lottery-based grant bodies (HLF, Big Lottery Fund) have much more money to give away to good causes. This should increase even more when the London Olympics stop draining our ‘charitable’ funding. This article is now 18 months old but gives more detail: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/29/national-lottery-heritage-boost
David – I’m glad your comments are getting through now. Thank you. I don’t think it is bizarre exactly. Many small NGOs have expertise and can market that expertise to a statutory sector with less expertise but shared aims. If the aims become less shared or the money becomes less available then they get into trouble. If you look at many of the NGOs that you and I know and love their memberships can’t possibly wholly support their lifestyles! I spelled out the sums in an earlier post – if you have say, 20000 members each paying £20/year that gets you £400k/year. You can’t run much of a business for that can you?
I’ll pick up your second question “Will private sector money flood in to replace the funds lost through public spending cuts?”
Answer: No, unless conservation organisations make it relevant for them. In my view, with the occasional exception, conservation organisations have been rubbish at taking to businesses a proposition they might take up. They will only succeed if they can think from the business’s perspective and answer the question of ‘what is in it for us?’
The prize is worth chasing though. The total turnover of the private sector is £3,000 billion – 5 times public sector spending and 50 times the third sector! That’s why the £70m that M&S reckons it made last year through Plan A is so important. (http://redkiteenterpriseandenvironment.co.uk/most-important-sum) And that’s why Tom and I set up RKEE to bridge the gap between business and the environment to the benefit of both.
Nobody has picked up the hand grenade of your question about the big society solution to losing expert posts in nature conservation, so I will. I presume part of the answer could be to recruit expert volunteers from the large non full time working population. They might not be quite as effective ,but some enthusiasts might be more so, and it might be more of them will be needed to cover one post. If organisations and individuals want a job done they will have to find a way. Lets not forget that many NGOs are charities and their charitable purposes do not include paying out wads of cash to experts if they can get the job done for nothing.
There is, however, the danger that this will further lower the perceived value of well-trained, experienced conservation professionals. In my opinion ecologists are already undervalued, being paid much lower wages than many other professionals expected to have a comparable level of educational qualifications and experience. Where else would you find jobs advertised for just £18,000 a year demanding relevant post-graduate qualifications plus several years’ experience and specialist skills (e.g. identification of plant or insect species, bat licence etc.)? I’d hardly describe that as “paying out wads of cash” to experts! I accept that we probably don’t help ourselves, as we are generally ideologically committed to our chosen profession, tend not to be materialistic and worry that if we don’t do it, no-one will, but it doubt that earns us repect in the business or political world! Suggesting we should all be donating our services free is just the next step!
Claudia – welcome and thank you.