Last week I wrote a blog, mildly questioning the NT’s own claim to be one of Europe’s leading nature conservation organisations. That blog ruffled a few feathers but also seemed to strike a chord with quite a few readers of this blog. I was very grateful to David Bullock for his reply which was posted on this blog on Friday last week.
There is no doubt that the NT owns a lot of nature and does some good work for it too. And there is no doubt that the NT has many excellent staff, some of whom are excellent nature conservationists too.
But I still can’t bring myself to regard the NT as one of ‘Europe’s leading nature conservation organisations’, and I’ve never heard anyone outside the NT describe them in that way.
Go to the NT website and put ‘wildlife’ into their search engine and you will find ways that you can enjoy wildlife but little about what the NT is doing for wildlife.
If you have just received the NT’s 2012 Handbook, and the NT magazine for ‘Spring’, then do have a look at them. You will struggle to find images of wildlife, and struggle all the more to find much mention of wildlife other than the somewhat irritating and all-encompassing ‘fauna and flora’.
Over the years, NT’s focus seems to have moved away from nature – it was never, and we could never expect it to be, a nature-only organisation – but to my mind it is less nature-focussed now than it once was. And as I read through the NT’s own literature I find little to enthuse me in the way that the NT talks about nature. It seems to me to be a ‘posh family day out’ organisation and that is what its marketing portrays.
None of that means that the NT is a failing organisation – it’s membership is burgeoning and has now reached four million, far in excess of any other countryside organisation. The NT is doing a great job in the entertainment business and in protecting stately homes and some areas of landscape beauty. But we know that unless one thinks very hard about conserving wildlife it is easily lost over the years. It’s not clear to me that nature conservation is NT’s lifeblood.
NT’s growth seems to me to have been based on playing up days out for the family, gardening, stately homes, nice teas and a pretty view. None of these is inimicable to nature conservation, far from it, but none of them is essential for nature conservation either. The NT is not trying to recruit nature-lovers like me as a member, and it isn’t doing too much to keep them either, as it doesn’t ‘talk nature’ very much, nor that well in its public pronouncements.
What that shows, as is sometimes pointed out to us all here by Dennis Ames, is that nature conservation is very much a minority interest. When Wildlife and Countryside Link says that its 36 member organisations have the support of 8 million people we need to remember that half of that number is the NT membership and there may be a fair amount of double-counting in the other four million too.
[registration_form]
Hello Mark,
A huge benefit of the National Trust is that it straddles both our natural and built / historical heritage. It’s not entirely unique in doing so but it is by far the largest body with these twin perspectives and reach.
And surely, it is that wider public reach that is so important in showing that lax treatment whether of our nature or our art / architectural / archaeological heritage – are linked and at equal risk from cavalier acts such as the so-called planning ‘reforms’.
regards,
paul
And as such it illustrates a pervasive problem in our society: buildings and the works of man like paintings always come ahead of the natural environment – illustrated by the current Government’s enthusiam for selling off national monuments like the New Forest.
The only encouragement is that there does seem to be a split, as usual along class lines, in society: the restoration of our urban parks was one of the most popular of all HLF programmes – and the enthusiasm amongst the general public was much greater than the Trustees enthusiasm for (generally London based) spending on things like pictures.
Wildlife and Countryside link has the support of 8 million people but only 5000 have signed the e petition to protect Birds of Prey!!!!!!!! Is it time for the BBC to scrap all documentaries on wildlife and just do one on the fate of Birds of Prey on Red Grouse Moors in Britain?
This is a very good point John. If the NT really stand up for protecting the natural landscapes and environment it owns and manages, why is there little obvious encouragement made to it’s vast membership to support vicarious liability legislation? Conflict of interests perhaps?
I haven’t seen most of the reports/literature you refer to, so can’t make an informed comment about those. But there is one area where I do think the National Trust is leading the way – and you don’t hear much about it. Its Peat Free Policy at all its gardens demonstrates to its millions of gardening visitors that it is possible to have fantastic gardens without resorting to stripping one of the world’s most endangered habitats – lowland raised bogs. It should have a big impact on gardeners’ buying habits and practices. Perhaps it needs to blow its trumpet about this more loudly?!
Sue – welcome to this blog. And yes, i agree with you totally – the NT has done an excellent job on peat-free.
Think your blog is absolutely correct Mark,however I think we are wrong in even expecting the NT to be a serious player in conservation as they probably aim for maximum income to further their land and buildings but think you are wrong in suggesting they are a posh family day out business(what a funny remark that is).
There membership encompasses a wide range of people and interests with different requirements and if you are near Studland there must be lots of beach visitors who join just for free parking when visiting for swimming etc.
Personally think they do a great job and have now weeded out some obnoxious staff ,well done on that score NT.
The National Trust IS the largest conservation charity in the UK, in my view. But it does try to cover almost all aspects of conservation and it does not focus entirely on nature on every one of its sites (much as we people who read this blog might like it to). It does prioritise nature conservation on many, many sites – eg see those lists on the previous blog.
I absolutely agree that the NT website says just about nothing about wildlife or nature conservation and provides no facts/data. Its annual reports also say little, nor the magazines, nor the Members Handbook (the latter is mostly about opening hours/facilities, and misses out alot of countryside sites).
I think the NT really should say much more about what its achievements are, and what is does for habitats and species, to its members, visitors and for all interested people. The RSPB is far better at telling people what it is up to. I dont advocate that all NGOs have to follow the RSPB data-full approach, but that way can be effective.
In my view the NT does lead the UK in the conservation of wood-pasture and parkland habitats, and especially for veteran trees. Most of these important sites are not SSSIs, so dont turn up in the usual figures.
Just because the National Trust isn’t run like the RSPB and has a much broader remit than the RSPB’s original single issue of birds – and now a self proclaimed wider remit of ‘wildlife’ in general – doesn’t mean that some of the best local conservation work in the country is being done by or on land owned by the National Trust – yes, improvements in communications and governance could be made but are you telling me that all RSPB staff and volunteers are in an ambrosia like world of peace and harmony?
Because the Trust has devolved much of it’s operational governance to their sites then it is more difficult to get a corporate handle on everything that is going on – their head office is less dictatorial than many and is working hard to improve the flow of information and co-ordination – it isn’t right yet but it is working on it following a programme of change that will move it into a far more sustainable organisation that looks after the built AND natural heritage, conserves land, wildlife and landscapes for the future – it has to be commercial to survive and Mrak, your issue seems to be confused – on the one hand you say you know of fabulous work going on out there but because more work needs to be done on pulling it together and getting it up on websites or in the media, you question them referring to themselves as a conservation organisation.
Surely, you should just say that you find it harder to write your blogs – which are great by the way – but I am worried about people calling them journalism elsewhere on this site – it isn’t – it is your informed opinion – which is strong and credible – but it isn’t journalism – if it were you would be duty bound to be impartial, objective, imply less overt criticism and balance your articles.
So more power to your elbow but please don’t always take the RSPB moral high ground on single issue discussions – I thought you stood for birds, wildlife and people – for ever!
PRvillain? – I don’t work for the RSPB. It’s not the NT’s remit that I worry about – it’s its claims to be a leading nature conservation organisation on the European continent when it doesn’t live up to that claim. When you refer to the NT as ‘they’ yet your email address is an NT address it’s a bit dishonest isn’t it? I haven’t told you anything about RSPB staff and volunteers so don’t put words in my mouth please. I haven’t called anything I do journalism – in fact I’m not sure I’ve called it anything. I do know of some good NT conservation work – just not nearly enough to justify what your own organisation claims for itself. Thanks for your comment.
Thanks for your reply Mark. I don’t think it’s dishonest to make my personal opinion known in my own time, from whatever email account I possess. I’m not making a policy statement on behalf of my employer but the work I see all across the country makes me feel that we ARE a leading conservation charity – and the number of European LIFE funding rounds to support that work tends to demonstrate that many others feel that way too.
My previous comment about journalism wasn’t aimed at you, rather to redress some of the other subscribers comments.
We in the Trust will be raising the volume on the diverse conservation work we do so please bear with us while resources are tight – surprisingly to some, most money made is ploughed back into the work of the properties – many of which include a mansion/house, parkland, tenants, countryside, village and areas of countryside. So small teams work hard outside that framework to publicise and co-ordinate information.
In the meantime, if it’s a matter of knowledge, please feel free to get out and about to see the vast range of conservation work that is carried out – if not always talked about!
PRvillain? – uhuhh
Thanks for the useful response Mark. Although it is an interesting way to attempt to undermine my point I wonder how other subscribers may feel about you naming the organisations they work for or email from – and how confident we can all be now about freedom of speech and anonymity – after all, on that basis I could ask how many other of your subscribers email from the NT, RSPB, wildlife trusts, NE, etc etc…? Apologies if I have ruffled your feathers, I thought objective and informed debate was a good thing…
PRvillain? – yours was the subterfuge. I have not revealed your identity and I wouldn’t but if you wish to appear to be an objective and neutral commenter then get a neutral email address. And, you may find that if you use your employer’s email then you are speaking for them. You can be confident of anonymity and freedom of speech – just don’t pretend to be what you are not and assume I will collude with you against the rest of my readers.
Ah, one rule for some but not others eh? Oh dear Mark… all people are equal but some are more equal than others…. I’m not sure how long your blog has been going but there are some accepted guiding principles for the blogosphere – so you ‘may’ find that breaking the anonymity like you did does leave you open to legitimate questions about your objectivity and who else comments…
PRvillain? – same rules for all. Your anonymity is intact. You really are a moaner aren’t you? You are welcome to comment on this blog.
uhuhh