In Chapter 15 of Fighting for Birds I ponder the future of the RSPB and that leads me on to wonder whether it is time to change the name of the organisation.
The RSPB is searching for a Fundraising and Communications Director, a new post combining two existing roles, and whoever is successful in that getting that role will have to think about such things as ‘Is the ‘Royal’ in the RSPB an asset or a liability?‘, ‘Is the RSPB about birds or biodiversity?‘, ‘Would RSPB be the name that we would choose for today’s RSPB?‘.
I doubt that the RSPB is even thinking about such matters seriously yet – but that day will come, it is inevitable. And any name-change will take lots of agonising and heart-searching.
Without the benefit of focus-groups, committees and well-paid consultants – what do you think?
Today I launch a poll where you can vote to keep things just as they are or I offer you three choices of new name (click here). And I suspect that you will have your own great ideas too – add comments to the poll to suggest alternative names for the RSPB (polite ones please).
To vote – click here.
[registration_form]
My answer would not be a polite one.
I don’t know who Val Gall is, but I have names for people like that, who leave spiteful and pointless comments on blogs – and those names aren’t very polite either. I think the RSPB should keep its name.
RSPB has a long distinguished history. Changing the name risks diminishing that history. The society has many many much more important issues to consider. Birds should remain the focus of activities, focusing on too many things soon becomes no focus at all.
Alex – many thanks
A copy of ‘Fighting for Birds’ came into my possession yesterday after it was confiscated from one of the Under Keepers. The boy arouse suspicions earlier in the week after muttering a derogatory remark about Song Bird Survival and yesterday morning he had the cheek to ask one of the visiting guns (who hails from Cambridgeshire) if he had ever visited Hope Farm! A thorough search of the boys bothy by the Head Keeper uncovered a copy of ‘Fighting for Birds’ and an application form for membership of the RSPB! At first light this morning, the boy was sent to the Hampshire Seat to serve his penance for six months.
As a responsible employer I thought it my duty to see for myself the exact nature of the greeny, lefty, bunny hugging diatribe, that had corrupted the boys mind and almost immediately my very worst suspicions were confirmed. This is unquestionably the most outrageous and unsettling publication that this old bugger has ever had the misfortune to cast his eyes upon.
Quite what has come over one, one cannot say, however one feels compelled to comment that ‘Fighting for Birds’ really is rather good isn’t it ?
Gideon – thank you!
Your right, they shouldn’t be. No doubt there is endless navel gazing but what is important right now is what sort of country we want to live in and whatever RSPB sees itself as it has a massive task in checking the slip towards the sort of Daily Mail Britain the Government seems to be heading towards.
Sorry,just know I am going to annoy everyone.
Cut out the R for sure they certainly are not protectors of birds or wildlife.
Concentrate on U K birds as although obviously other things have connections there is no end to these things.
For goodness sake why cannot the RSPB cut out the crap about farmers causing problems in estuary’s with nitrogen and saying water company’s will spend something like £35 million a year to get rid of nitrogen.Now I am no scientist but even land that has no fertiliser on it releases nitrogen into water courses and does the RSPB seriously think that with the price of nitrogen fertiliser farmers will misuse it(they should know the high price,ref Hope Farm).U K farms need nitrogen fertiliser to produce the food that 60 million people rely on for quite a reasonable part of their weekly shop.
Conveniently I have never ever seen anything or heard anything from the RSPB that the biggest problem for estuary’s just has to be the run off from the roads of approximately 30 million vehicles.
Of course not because the weak people there realise they would upset a lot of members if they even mention anything like that.
They manage to put out rubbish about nitrogen when they should be saying things about Hen Harriers.
“They manage to put out rubbish about nitrogen when they should be saying things about Hen Harriers.”
Nutrient enrichment of water and its consequences is a widespread issue, and because of the effects on fauna and flora many organisations including RSPB legitimately will take a view on the means to control it – from whatever source.
Farmers are an easy target but they shouldn’t have to take so much of the blame. Both the draining of soils, and their re-wetting, often for reasons other than farming, sometimes pose a serious threat to biological water quality – for example as reported by Niedermeier and Robinson in 2009 for Catcott Lows. Then there is the cumulative effect of the cheat-pipes into the rhynes all the way to the Parret …
I’ve been a regular volunteer for the RSPB for around 16 months, and there is certainly a feeling that “it’s not just about birds.” Well, it can’t be can it? You can’t have birds without providing them with somewhere to live and a food source. It is about “All Nature”. RSPB reserves are nature reserves, not bird reserves.
However, as part of my work with the RSPB involves manning a visitor centre, which includes some membership recruitment, I cannot help but think that the re-branding/renaming would be a waste of time and hard-earned membership money and time.
Leave there branding alone, it is an unnecessary distraction, in my opinion.
Ian – thank you very much
I agree strongly with Ian’s first paragraph. I am also a volunteer on a RSPB Nature Reserve (see Fighting for Birds p160) with 14 years experience as a warden and on a very active (exhausting) work party. Although our main objective is to improve habitat for breeding Bitterns, Marsh Harriers and Bearded tits and improve nesting prospects for Lapwings, Redshanks, Snipe and Curlew etc., our overall mangement thrust is generally to improve the natural environment. To this end we manage lengths of blackthorn hedge for Brown and Black Fritillaries, develop habitat and refuges for grass snakes and lizards, maintain ponds for breeding amphibians and dragonflies and we collect local indigenous seed from flower rich meadows to improve the flower density in selected areas. The numbers of butterflies, dragonflies, bats and brown hares have increased significantly. My main point is that the RSPB is already managing it’s reserves for the overall improvement of the natural environment. Although the reserve mainly attracts birders, increasing numbers of naturalists interested in other taxa now visit as well as visitors enjoying the peace, tranquility and remoteness of the reserve.
I take Ian’s point about the cost of re-branding but wonder whether it should be considered at some point to take in the expanding role of the society. I also strongly supprt the international work of the RSPB, especially such projects as saving the albatross and the new initiative for rainforest conservation (coming to a Tescos near you soon!). I particularly like the word Trust, as in WWT, BTO, BBOWT (our local wildlife trust) and even NT. I subscribe to them all and there isn’t an “R” in any of their acronyms! Trust implies trusteeship with responsibilitiy for holding, with care and stewardship, the environment for future generations. It also requires trustees to develop and improve that which is held in trust.
A few thoughts although I can’t come up with new name or a suitable acronym but for reasons stated elsewhere I would think it time to lose the “R”.
As an anti royalist Mark you are being rather deceitful here by requesting a name change for the RSPB. What about all of the good things that the royal family have done for Nature conservation? Prince Philip has done an enormous amount to help the cause of the WWF. I am sure that you will have Peter Scott turning in his grave just now.
DavidH – who says I am an anti-royalist? Where is the deceit? And did I request a name change for the RSPB? Apart from that you make some good points…
This poll asks you what you would choose as a new name for the RSPB – I am interested in what people have to say on the question.
Don’t you think the Royal Family might really like a lower profile with the RSPB – do you think Prince Philip is a great lover of buzzards and would have signed up to the RSPB position in buzzardgate?
I am not sure that the royal connection benefits the RSPB because the Royal family is a typical hunting, shooting, fishing family. Maybe it should be the Royal Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust?
Bu there are other issues here – is the RSPB about birds or all wildlife – and should the answer to that question be reflected in a new name (or not?).
Should the name reflect the more international outlook of today’s RSPB rather than that of a century ago?
If the RSPB sprang into life today – would it be an obvious and helpful choice to call it the RSPB? I think not.
Mark,
I find it puzzling, to say the least, as to why the Sax-Coburg-Gothas (gawd bless em!) are such a sacred cow to some. Next up someone will have a bash at you for your disrespect during jubilee year!
I’m sure you won’t be surprised that I’m totally in favour of ditching the “R”, as this would allow the society to show its teeth, rather than meeting “certain issues” with a dead bat. (how the hell can a woman who supports SS still wish to be associated with the RSPB?)
And as for Phil the Greek: He showed what a conservationist he is in the film of him bravely blowing a Tiger away from the back of an Elephant.
Keep the name…..change the Royals. If they can be reformed there is hope for the rest…..
I tend to agree that the ‘Royal’ association is not much of an asset but how much of this is due to the current incumbent? Isn’t the organic farmer from Gloucestershire a bit more in tune with the RSPB’s values than his parents and hasn’t he done a lot for the RSPB’s work on albatrosses, vultures and rainforest conservation?
Mark, I know you worked for the RSPB for a long time but you did resign and you should really try to put all that behind you. My advice to people is always to move on. I’m sure you did a good job but you should always consider the people who are now doing your job. They need a bit of space.
When I retired, like Garibaldi, I simply walked away and have not interfered since. The last thing the people who now carry the burden need is a boring old so and so like me, telling them what to do. You should be brave and move on.
Ian – thanks.
“It does more than it says on the tin…”
So many comments, so many thoughts. Where to start?
I do think a lot of the comments are more about the RSPB than about what birds, wildlife, nature really needs. Followers of your blog, Mark, are close to this issue. They understand the threats to biodiversity and see the RSPB for what it is and its place in the nature conservation sector.
The challenge for the nature conservation sector and, therefore, for the RSPB is how to reach people who don’t think about this stuff very much. People who do appreciate the outcomes of the work of organisations like the RSPB but never give it moments thought.
How does the RSPB play a leading role in driving nature conservation to the top of peoples’ mind and the political agenda? Birds, wildlife, nature, the environment – they’re all peripheral issues in peoples lives. So many comments here suggest that everyone knows what the RSPB is all about or that people are as informed and active as the people who are making the comments are. That is simply not true. To millions, the RSPB is irrelevant or invisible at best and boring and for ‘slightly odd’ people at worst. This is a brand issue and the name is a central part of brand.
So here’s the challenge. Don’t think about the name in terms of what would suit the RSPB or whether the R or the B is important. Think broader. Think about how the RSPB can make itself, its cause and its work relevant to the millions of people that birds, wildlife, nature and humans, need for future survival. The RSPB needs to be bold and brave to address the massive challenges faced by the natural world. What does nature need the RSPB to be called?
Hint: If you think the Royal Society for the Protection of Biodiversity is close to the mark and will inspire millions of people into action for nature, think again. ‘Biodiversity’ is not a term that’s well understood or used in common language to express the amazing and vital variety of life on our planet.
Jonny – thanks. Good points, of course.
So as a long-standing member of the RSPB, these are my thoughts and wishes:-
Firstly, I would like the current organisation, particularly their Chief Exec to comeout and show himself more, maybe grow a pair (sorry Mike)and stand up for nature like you are doing Mark. I wish you could have been as vocal as you are now about such issues when you worked for the RSPB. And why was this?
I’m not anti-Royal especially but having association with Royalty as your patron is in my opinion anti-conservationary and contradictary to say the least. A bit like having the current Syrian head of state as a Human Rights ambassador! (maybe stretching it a bit here but you know what I mean)
In term of Brand change, I get the feeling that there is likely no smoke without fire and maybe plans are already afoot to change the RSPB into a company for the masses and to grow membership to try and dispell the perception of many that RSPB is just a geek club for birders which might be seen as an inhibitor to growing current membership? I also wonder what risks are associated with such a change of brand and direction and whether these risks might affect the birds like the Hen Harrier because the organisation decides to focus on the Doves in the gardens of the masses instead?
Maybe in the future we see the formation of the “Real-(R)SPB” for those that understand birds and nature and want to stand up and be counted?
Controvertial ? I just get the feeling there is more to this than we’re seeing?