Have a look at this interesting report on where the green money went.
Figure A, page 6, is very interesting.
Environmental funding by trusts etc has fallen since 2006/07 (see page 9).
Wildlife gets a big chunk of total environmental funding (page 12).
The RSPB gets a big chunk of cash – from a large number of sources (see page 28).
What leaps out of the page at you from this report?
[registration_form]
What leaps off the page? I haven’t read the whole thing, but the Table on p.6 is indeed scary. “% of UK population rating environmental or pollution issues amongst the most important facing us ” – back down below 5% (from claimed high of 35% in 88/89 !!) is really depressing. Probably not surprising, given the media focus on our financial woes, but depressing just the same, since climate change ought to be dwarfing all other concerns.
AndrewT – welcome to this blog and thank you for your comment.
I was slightly surprised by the membership details. Until about 10 years ago all running very level. Then a dramatic and ongoing increase for the National Trust. The Wildlife Trusts an appreciable increase. But the RSPB and others levelling out. Does this reflect the change of attitude referred to Andrew or a change in what we want from our money.
Bob – some would say that the NT has moved away from being a cause-led to a benefit-led membership offer. But they might disagree. I believe that the WTs slightly changed the way that they count members a while back but I may be wrong there.
The large NT raised less money from these grants than several Wildlife Trusts on their own, and Butterfly Conservation etc.. Well done to all those who did get money. It is a highly competitive business. The RSPB are clearly the masters at getting grant income year on year. Impressive.
But perhaps, the NT rely on such grants less as they raise much more income from their members? And I see that grants to repair houses or archaeology does not fall into this analysis, although transport does?!
Afraid a bit complicated Mark but made me wonder if all the criticism of George Osborne completely overdone and in actual fact just reacting to public opinion of the low percentage now considering environment and pollution as the most important thing.
Think the high numbers of N T members simply reflect the high amount of time people have for leisure and the fact that N T membership gives them good value to spend lots of time in historical buildings,gardens and coast.
Dennis – I agree.
But isn’t that part of the problem, that our leaders are not leading but responding to focus groups and other assessments of public opinion and trying to tack towards that in order to stay popular and in power? What happened to the concept of a platform in politics?
It was gratifying to see Chris Cooper-Hohn, Co-founder and Trustee of the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, writing the forward to this report and noting, “… for a foundation focused on the well-being of children, including their nutrition, acting on the environment and particularly climate change is now a no-brainer” and commenting that the level of charitable support for the environment was worryingly low.
One of the difficulties in delivering conservation, in developing countries especially, is the continuing failure of many community development organisations to take on board the impacts their projects can have on the environment and visa versa, and of continuing to regard conservation as being in opposition to the welfare of communities. I think that most of the larger conservation organisations have responded to the reality of negative impacts of conservation initiatives on local communities, and work hard to mitigate them. Many strive to ensure conservation initiatives deliver a positive outcome for communities and have adopted ‘no harm’ policies. The development organisations need to take on board the clear message from Mr Cooper-Hohn and also strive to ensure their development initiatives do not harm the environment.
Mark – good points!