You might remember that I left a whole bunch of organisations at the turn of the year and said I’d invest my money according to how I was feeling about them instead of paying a fixed membership. Well, here’s the first instalment of news on that front:
Greenpeace noticed that I’d cancelled my DD and phoned me up – I was so impressed that I gave them £3 just for noticing.
Butterfly Conservation are so good, even in the middle of winter, that I gave them £3 too – because they are always worth it.
I gave the RSPB £60 because they asked me in the right way to support their work on Roseate Terns and I’m a sucker for Roseate Terns and have an emotional attachment to them (see Fighting for Birds Chapter 2). But the RSPB sent me a questionnaire about what I thought about them that seemed to be very heavy on whether I felt I was getting all the stuff I was expecting and very light on did I think they were doing a good job for nature. I also had a close look at the December and February e-newsletters from RSPB. The December one was almost completely consumerist trash, as befits Christmas of course, and February was only a bit better. If I sign up for a newsletter then how about sending me some conservation news instead of all the marketing guff. I know, better than most perhaps, that NGOs need to raise money, but the danger is that supporter-charity communications are these days completely dominated by asking for money. But the RSPB got its £60 anyway.
I’m hoping that other wildlife NGOs will catch my attention through the year – they haven’t, as a bunch, done very well in month one.
[registration_form]
£3 (per year) is a bit more than the per head of population share of Natural England’s budget. Perhaps it’s tied to one of indicators of birds, butterflies, bats et al that Defra keeps producing to remind us how much less wildlife per person there is to go round. £3 seems to be spread a lot thinner these days too, what with all that marine stuff to look after as well. Perhaps that’s why NE has announced that it is now completely cutting off the funding it has been providing to local records centres. Meanwhile NE has produced a report extolling the virtues of the natural environment in keeping us all mentally healthy. Perhaps NE’s budget can be linked to a UK Mental Health Index instead, in order to ensure more wildlife and happier lives for all. Certainly the skills required for finding, identifying and recording wildlife seem to keep active recorders sane and active for many decades. Coleopterists and taraxacologists will clearly outlive the rest of us. (Ermm, was it the sheer Coquetry of the RSPB approach that appealed, Mark?)
Whilst I haven’t divested like yourself, I have set aside a small pot of money to donate throughout the year based on NGOs doing things that I like.
Yesterday Greenpeace set up a anti-fracking demo outside Westminster. This Government isn’t listening to talk, reports and science. So I’m increasingly supportive of the more peaceful direct action approach.
Well done Greenpeace, a small donation is on its way to you, as well as my monthly contribution.
Rob – snap! Green peace get an extra small donation from me too.
£3 doesn’t seem much for Greenpeace and Butterfly Conservation but I guess £3 is better than nowt.
Reading the raptorpersecutionscotland blog led me to look at Trees for Life and Border Forest Trust. They really cheered me up. So maybe some of my money will wend their way this year. Wish we had an equivalent organisation in the Pennines of England. Plus, because of you, I bought my Christmas cards from World Land Trust this year.
Something that really inspired me was the article in the latest Nature Home about the incredible work with fishermen that really is saving Albatrosses. The guys who go out on the fishing boats really are heroes of conservation – I loved the story about the guy having to go out min his bedroom slippers to save a flock of seabirds blown onto the ships deck in the gale – that really is devotion !
But what struck me most was that these fishermen who are doing an incredibly dangerous, hard job and no doubt aren’t paid that brilliantly are prepared to co-operate and do their best for the albatrosses when in our super-rich society its not just that so many people won’t go the extra inch for wildlife but are actually becoming harder and more ruthless, as with the zero tolerance of any hen harriers at all in England. I think we should be ashamed and it is time we really started questioning the foundations of so many of our problems: ‘our duty is to our shareholders’ (subtext: however immoral the outcomes may be).
I only subscribe to two NGOs now and only because I support their aims and not because they provide individually focussed services for me after all when you give you didn’t ought to count the cost but what tests my patience most is the fact that they expect you to search for the best deal instead of them telling you that you could have paid less now that you have your Bus Pass but we won’t back-date it to when you qualified for that because that isn’t our policy and then there’s the cheap introductory offer Malarkey while they don’t give any reductions for loyalty even though they expect me to expire in March 2017
I just wish the rspb would do their membership renewals and fund raising by RSPB personel from The Lodge.
We prefer to pay by cheque which rather strangely went to Northampton and surprise surprise disapeared meaning we had to stop that cheque then send one to The Lodge.My take on it is that it would be more secure sending all money to The Lodge.
Wonder where the 650 who got 11% payrise (c.£7k) are donating to and IF it actually the rise of a proportion? 73/650 my what a generous bunch? http://www.donatemypayrise.co.uk/mp-list/ The Mirror reports the actual figure as just 25, but let’s be charitable and go with the website figure?
Results based is something I’ve elected to do, not because I want them to take up my agenda but because they’ve taken on politically sensitive issues.
Government is seeking to prevent political lobby by charities, but if we subscribe/ support specifically then their threats illustrating fear of community action is encouraging?
I divested a couple of years ago from most UK conservation NGOs. I figured that I only have a limited amount to give and I want to save as much biodiversity as possible with each pound – protecting tropical forests is one of the most effective routes to achieve this aim (pretty good at combating climate change as well as protecting biodiversity – so double the value for money). The World Land Trust do not have a large publicity machine. They just get on with buying up pieces of land and then work with local communities to protect them. So WLT gets a big slice of my budget – gift aided of course!
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/
Thanks for the reminder. They need all the publicity going.
I dare say that some of ‘their’ land supports some of our summer migrants(?)
Glad I’m not the only one who got a little grumpy at the RSPB newsletter. But since you have more sway than me, I hope they take note.
I hope Buglife buck up too. Their newsletters are always on the light side.
I agree with you about Butterfly Conservation though. They never fail impress me. They’ve sent me more newsletters, national and local conservation project information, booklets, news, and have engaged with me more in six months of membership than the RSPB and all the other 5 nature orgs I’m a member of have sent me in the last 4 years combined. They are an amazing little org.
BC are one of my two. I do appreciate the quality of their printed output but wonder whether this is the best way to spend their income, given the high costs of production and distribution. Their website is excellent, so …
I would rather they spent more on their reserves and projects. Not that there are any close enough to visit, though but, but no doubt others do.
As long as they continue to spend circa 80% of their income on conservation – which they’re doing according to their annual reports – then I’m happy.
That percentage is pretty similar to, and in some cases exceeds, larger nature orgs.
The British Ecological Society is something of an outlier amongst those bodies dropped by Mark, but it’s worth commenting that they and their special interest groups do an excellent job of promoting ecology and conservation science and of not only highlighting flawed policies but of drawing attention to and encouraging action on opportunities.