The longest-ever serving GWCT Chair, Ian Coghill is standing down after eight years, in July. He will be succeeded by former Defra Agriculture Minister of State, Sir James Paice.
Ian Coghill has led the decline in reputation of the GWCT over the last eight years, although Chief Executive, Teresa Dent, must take a large share of the credit too.
When Mr Coghill was given the chance to write a guest blog here back in November 2011 (Wow! That’s a long time ago) he used it to have a dig at the RSPB and that has characterised his chairmanship of GWCT. Similarly, when I was last at a Game Fair debate, Ian was on the panel too and kept telling the audience what I thought – most of which he got wrong! Ian has developed a new fieldsport in recent years which involves finding the weirdest ways to attack Chris Packham – see here. And under his leadership the GWCT has moved to an organisation of spin rather than science. Although GWCT still are basking in the true glory of their former real scientific achievements under Dick Potts, those days are long gone and by any measure, including I find, the opinions of fellow scientists, GWCT has ‘lost it’. I’m told, by those deep within the Fordingbridge lair of GWCT, that the staff are now a rather unhappy and unsettled bunch.
Mr Coghill showed his loyalty to GWCT but lack of grip on reality when he said that GWCT is ‘the best research organisation in the country’.
Sir James Paice is another kettle of fish. I’ve always quite liked him.
[registration_form]
Paice was the moving force behind the badger cull of course.
GWCT is currently the only wildlife NGO battling to see the continued use of neonicotinoid insecticides – https://www.gwct.org.uk/blogs/news/2017/november/ending-neonic-use-entirely-will-negatively-affect-farming-and-wildlife-our-letter-to-the-times/
Their website claims “so far these effects [sub-lethal adverse effects on bee brains, individual bees, or colonies] have not been seen in the field.” A disappointing statement for an NGO that has built its reputation on its science, especially given the number of studies now showing impacts on neonics in the field, e.g.:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep12574
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12459
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/518181/1/N518181PP.pdf
http://www.jordbruksverket.se/download/18.3ec93f5a1556be131d186227/1466489692286/RundlofEtal2015Nature.pdf
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11829-017-9527-3
Since hardening their position in support of neonicotinoids GWCT have received a number of submissions setting out the scientific evidence of harm to wildlife – bees, butterflies and aquatic life -, including from Buglife, and have promised to review their position. But that was over 3.5 months ago.
Some of the motivation for the GWCT position appears to be concerns about the impacts of pyrethroid sprays on in-crop insect populations, but we should be reducing harm from all pesticide use, not trading off one environmental negative for many.
The GWCT position seems particularly ironic given the recent evidence linking neonic use to the decline of a key game bird, the northern bobwhite quail, in America.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532045617300303
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191100
Jim Paice’s stint as Defra minister preceded the appointment of Owen Paterson and his position on neonicotinoids was more considered than Owen’s, as is apparent in this 2011 debate – https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2011-01-25b.67.0&s=honey+bee
Never-the-less it seems that Jim remains basically pro-neonicotinoid in his views – https://www.fginsight.com/news/news/neonicotinoid-decision-pours-further-fuel-on-brexit-debate-12319
Perhaps now that the EU scientific authorities have determined that neonics fail the bee risk assessment in 600 ways the GWCT will soon issue a revised position on neonicotinoids?
https://www.buglife.org.uk/news-and-events/news/eu-regulatory-scientists-confirm-neonics-harm-bees
Matt
It seems to me that they are becoming the ornithological equivalent of climate change deniers. Such a sad decline for an organisation that was once well respected. I wouldn’t mind so much if they just came out and said “yes we admit it, we are just a political lobby group” but to continue to hide behind a veneer of sham scientific objectivity is becoming more and more unsustainable. I feel incredibly sorry for the good scientists left in GWCT, whose work is just being used as cover.
Is Mr Coghill standing down to spend more time with his collection of otter penis bones?
Pre-ban, obvs.
With his attacks on Chris Packham and the spins that spin forth from GWCT it does not sound like Mr Coghill is a very great loss
It is always idle to suppose that the new one will be any better than the old one.
They are all hewn from the same turd.
I don’t know what you found to like about Sir James Paice, but as well as his enthusiasm for Badger culling he created one of the biggest ever unnecessary political cockups, the forest sales fiasco. As well as being a sharp, highly visible defeat for the anti-environment Government at a time when conservation NGOs were persuading themselves they could work with it, it may also turn out to have been the privatisation high watermark as more and more dodgy privatisations fall apart.
Perhaps its a reflection of the fact that many of the conservation NGOs still can’t really accept it happened – and have still failed to absorb that the Government isn’t on their side and that it is time to move on from the successes of the 1990s.
I fear Matt is being over charitable in describing GWTC as a ‘wildlife NGO’ – once perhaps, today simply a shooting organisation increasingly stretching its charitable status.
Roderick – I am generous to a fault, aren’t I? I have always quite liked James, perhaps because he certainly does know what a Skylark’s song is like and has probably, like me, and you Roderick, sometimes paused to stop and listen and enjoy it.
I hope he might be minded to resurrect the reputation of the GWCT, which is rock-bottom. But it is a hope rather than an expectation.