One of the many good things about writing a blog is that one learns things from the wise comments of one’s readers.
This quote was posted by reader, Northern Diver (and I am very grateful to him or her) on my blog Too little, too late about NGO feebleness:
‘You have two babies very hungry and wanting to be fed. One baby is a patient baby, and waits indefinitely until its mother is ready to feed it. The other baby is an impatient baby and cries lustily, screams and kicks and makes everybody unpleasant until it is fed. Well, we know perfectly well which baby is attended to first. That is the whole history of politics. You have to make more noise than anybody else, you have to make yourself more obtrusive than anybody else, you have to fill all the papers more than anybody else, in fact you have to be there all the time and see that they do not snow you under.‘
I was so struck by it that I read it out at the New Networks for Nature event last week when I was on a panel discussion. It comes from Emmeline Pankhurst’s ‘Freedom or death’ speech.
It’s a good quote and it’s still very true. My experience of advocacy is that it is only sometimes that the best arguments win – sometimes the worst arguments win because the proponents of those arguments are better organised and use better tactics. There is never any harm in banging on about things – everyone else will be.
Nature does not have a voice – it is a silent weeping baby. It is the job of our wildlife NGOs to speak up for nature – one of them used to call itself Nature’s Voice. They are all too silent at the moment, and the trouble is that other views are running rings around them in the media, on social media and, for all I know, in the ears of decision-makers. It’s a worrying state of affairs. It’s not good enough. It’s a losing approach.
The wildlife NGOs have all the email addresses and contact details of millions of wildlife enthusiasts,a and yet they aren’t using them to be a force for nature. It’s at times like this, just like this, that people start talking about setting up new NGOs.
ID 39342970 © Jamiemoore | Dreamstime.com
[registration_form]
Is there still a feeling that ‘it’s not quite nice’ to be too political? Perhaps the RSPB would do well to reflect on how it came to be?
The RSPB is very sensitive to the fact that a significant number of its members don’t want it to be ‘too political’. Be interesting to know whether the proportion of members who feel this way is changing. If so, are members becoming more or less supportive of political action?
Well I DO want to get political. I DO want the RSPB and WWT et al to start screaming and shouting on my behalf, and I’m getting sick and tired of these charities taking my money and my support just to find they are all becoming a bunch of wimps!
And who are all these members that don’t want to get political, what proof for that statement have you got? The members I know are just as frustrated as I am at the lack of backbone.
And yes Mark, your right, we do need a new ACTION group……when do you propose to start it?
I know anecdote does not equal evidence but one loyal local RSPB member didn’t attend Mark’s talk because she disagreed with his campaigning activities.
I agree, Paul – I and many friends and contacts do want to (continue to) be political – and with lots more partners.
If we don’t keep these issues in the minds of the politicians they think we’re not bothered – and they are glad not to have to listen to a crowd of crying babies.
& the next thing under attack is the Freedom of Information, soon only to be available to the wealthy?
See https://www.mysociety.org/2015/11/10/your-access-to-freedom-of-information-is-under-threat-heres-what-to-do/
Better still sign here https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns/protect-freedom-of-information?medium=website&source=cfoi&campaign=from_2015-08-18
Approaching 175,000 but doubt the Government will listen?
Write to your MP or respond to the consultation?
Slowly but surely, death by a thousand cuts is removing what remains of democracy and the taxpayers ability to hold to account Public Bodies?
Deadline for responses : today!
Sadly the environment NGOs have lost their way – they’ve become marketing machines lead by uninspiring bureaucrats who have lost any sense of the values they were created to uphold. The UK seems to be sleepwalking into irrelevance on the environment, and so many other issues. The old NGO model is broken and something new is needed.
Oliver, that is just so true. See above.
I think your remark re marketing is spot on, environmentalism reduced to precious little else than brand Climate Change. If you could point to a grouse moor and in anyway justify saying ‘this is the result of climate change’ it would go from something barely on the radar for environmental and conservation organisations to never being off it. Such an utterly massive conservation and environmental issue affecting millions of acre and it rarely registers as a concern for the groups many of us pay membership fees to.
It is interesting that the National Trust went as far as saying that as most of its members were only there for a day out it wouldn’t get involved in advocacy – effectively admitting it was no more than an attraction manager. It seems to have pulled back from that position – though it is always very hard to tell what it is up to – and headed off down the route of upping the prominence of its countryside holding & in particular its recreational value. Surely the real distinction is not whether a body is ‘political’ but whether it is party political – if a body the size and influence of the NT withdraws from the role it surely cannot avoid in our cultural life, that is surely a disaster. Equally, it would be a disaster if the RSPB became attached solely to one party political grouping.
Paul is right, but I’d like to see it put to the test. It would be very easy for the RSPB, of which I am a huge supporter and active member, poll their members to find out exactly what they think. In my estimation the members would not be nearly so reluctant as the RSPB might imagine so long as they ensured that the emphasis is on political, not PARTY political, action. I’m pretty certain that hanging out a campaign and actively chasing MPs to support it would reveal support from all sides of the house which is probably more valuable in terms of getting things done than having consistent support from one party – assuming that party isn’t the one that forms the government.
Many NGO’s are registered as charities which is good for certain aspects of fundraising but bad when it comes to engaging in politics. Charities cannot allow political campaigning to become their sole activity. Some NGO’s e.g. Greenpeace get around this by not registering as a charity.
So we need a campaigning NGO, which is not a charity, to become our voice. Or do we? Perhaps we just need one voice to rally around. One voice which is not beholden to external funding by governments and is not tied to landowner interests. I wonder if we can find that one voice? Any ideas Mark? Or Chris?
I really liked the Greenpeace campaign this year around drilling in the Arctic.
It was labelled #arcticroar on Twitter and was a great campaign that really got in the face of Shell. Remember the giant polar bear outside Shell HQ in London? Remember activists dangling by rope of a bridge etc. Greenpeace engaged a large following via Twitter and other social media and created a genuine roar.
They were definitely the impatient baby, kicking and screaming. And I guess you could say they won.
I really liked the Greenpeace campaign this year around drilling in the Arctic.
It was labelled #arcticroar on Twitter and was a great campaign that really got in the face of Shell. Remember the giant polar bear outside Shell HQ in London? Remember activists dangling by rope of a bridge etc. Greenpeace engaged a large following via Twitter and other social media and created a genuine roar.
They were definitely the impatient baby, kicking and screaming. And I guess you could say they won.
I am unconvinced by the crying baby motif being transferable to conservation of the environment. The problem and the remedy with babies is elemental: they are completely dependent upon others for survival and they have only one means of attracting attention.
Environmental NGOs take upon themselves serious responsibility for aspects of environmental conservation. They are self-appointed, un-elected and their whole credibility (and thus the future of the things they support) depend upon them and their conduct. Environmental NGOs are more like GOD PARENTS or GUARDIANS than babies. If they act unprofessionally, mislead their audiences actively or by omission, they will do great damage to the things they say they care for.
Visibility and attention are vital, but it is just not good enough to ‘scream’ more loudly. Skill, judgement, hard work and diligence are essential.
Tom – of course. But remaining silent is never an effective route to success in advocacy.
Think it probably revolves around the fact that all these organisations I believe receive substantial amounts of money from the government and so are not going to bite the hand that feeds them(I may of course stand to be corrected).
If it is the case then it would be better to have a higher subscription each year and be free to lobby harder.
Utopia would be to have a new wildlife lobbying NGO with outspoken views,there are people out there quite capable of that but it is a massive undertaking,anyone considering doing so has to take into account that even the Badger Trust who get massive numbers for petition can only get just over five thousand members and that number has no clout with politicians and not enough money to fund hardly anything.
The idea that nature conservation NGOs get loads of government funding is somewhere between a myth and a smear. It just ain’t true. We get the same land management grants as other landowners, usually on stiffer terms, and we sometimes get paid for services provided on contract. NGOs never got much “free money” financial grant for core costs and have got virtually or literally none for quite some time.
Whatever the reasons are why the NGO sector has been so tame, it’s not because they fear loss of income from government. They don’t get enough discretionary income to be worth worrying about.
A clear example is the badger cull: every Wildlife Trust in the country should have stated unequivocally how it would be unnecessary in their county. They should not be scared of losing government funding – they have already lost it and are dependent on members and the lottery to keep running and volunteers to deliver work.
One of my friends has just posted a breakdown of public spending: 1.7% goes in the environment in total. 5.4% on defence – wrong priorities.
I belong to 2 Trusts and they both made their opposition to the badger cull very clear.
I think it’s also a bit of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. I know from experience that when NGOs get “too aggressive” on an issue, Defra gets annoyed and stops engaging with them or listening. There was a time this wasn’t the case, and I’m not sure what has changed – perhaps the feeling that the NGO members arent interested enough to penalise them at the ballot box?
I think the point made above about NGO’s being charities and therefore not getting political is important. Perhaps some clear thinking is needed on this. Members expect the charities to do their utmost to speak out for wildlife. Is campaigning for wildlife protection non political and campaigning against plans of a government political?
A good, powerful analogy. Let’s ‘cry’ much more.
Re. the political-or-not argument: it’s impossible not to be political. By keeping quiet you are saying (or are understood to be saying, which is the practical equivalent) that you are happy with the status quo and hence you are supporting it in practice. It’s not possible to abstain – for the entire duration of our lives it can’t be done.
When – or if – that hideous infant grows up it might benefit from reading a great little book: How to assert yourself.
This is also better than hand-waving:
http://www.farminguk.com/news/Defra-in-court-over-agricultural-pollution_37806.html