I’m sorry I won’t be able to go to the BTO Conference this year – it looks pretty good. I haven’t been for a few years now – maybe next year.
I am a great supporter of the BTO and I’m looking forward to doing the English winter bird survey on ‘my’ two BBS squares later in the winter.
And I happen to be a great supporter of the BTO’s boss-man Andy Clements too. He has led a great leap forward for the BTO (as have, to be fair, all of his predecessors in their different ways) since he took over the helm at the BTO in August 2007.
But there’s at least one thing that Andy and I differ over – and that is whether the BTO is a conservation organisation. It clearly isn’t! I know it winds Andy up a bit each time I point out that the BTO isn’t a conservation organisation, which is one reason I do it now and again.
When Andy gave what was, for me at least, the most enjoyable talk of the day at the Kent Ornithologists’ Conference a few weeks ago, he went out of his way to make the point that the BTO is a conservation organisation. His supporting evidence seemed to be merely that the BTO does a lot of good science (which it does) and that we need science for nature conservation (which we do, although nowhere near as much as scientists always think). On those grounds the Met Office, Landrover and Microsoft are all conservation organisations too because their work is useful and sometimes absolutely essential to nature conservation.
Let me say again – I think the BTO is great! And I think no less of it because it isn’t a nature conservation organisation – after all there is quite a lot more to life than nature cosnervation. I don’t think any the less of the NHS because it isn’t a nature conservation organisation so why should I think less of the BTO?
But there are quite a lot of organisations that want to be seen as nature conservation organisations. Let’s just consider BASC and GWCT for example. Both have changed their names and got the ‘C’ word into their names.
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation used to be the Wildfowlers’ Association of Great Britain and Ireland and I can see why they wanted to change that name because BASC are involved in far more than wildfowling these days. The name-change came in 1981. But is BASC a conservation organisation – not for me.
And they aren’t really a conservation organisation according to their key aims as listed on their website which are:
- A strong and unified voice for shooting
- All party backing for shooting
- Balanced comment in the media
- Continued opportunity to go shooting
- High standards
Those seem quite sensible aims for some pro-shooting organisation to have, but they don’t seem to include any nature conservation aims. They do seem to be about conserving shooting, but that hardly counts! I have quite a lot of time for BASC, far more so than for several other pro-shooting organisations, but I can’t really see that BASC should have the ‘C’ word in their name. It looks a bit like passing themselves off as something that they aren’t to me. Which doesn’t mean that they are a bad organisation (that’s a different question) but, for me, they certainly aren’t a conservation organisation even if they occasionally do things that benefit nature conservation.
So how about our mates at GWCT? They used to be called the Game Conservancy Trust but changed their name to Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust in 2005. Now, unlike BASC the GWCT is a charity so we can look at its charitable objects on the Charity Commission website (provided we avoid the awful GOV.UK website).
GWCT’s charitable objects are:
- TO PROMOTE FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT THE CONSERVATION OF GAME AND ITS ASSOCIATED FLORA AND FAUNA
- TO CONDUCT RESEARCH INTO GAME AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT (INCLUDING THE USE OF GAME ANIMALS AS A NATURAL RESOURCE) AND THE EFFECTS OF FARMING AND OTHER LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON THE ENVIRONMENT; AND TO PUBLISH THE USEFUL RESULTS OF SUCH RESEARCH
- TO ADVANCE THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC AND THOSE MANAGING THE COUNTRYSIDE IN THE EFFECTS OF FARMING AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND WHICH IS SYMPATHETIC TO GAME AND
OTHER WILDLIFE - TO CONSERVE GAME AND WILDLIFE FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT INCLUDING: WHERE IT IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, THE CONSERVATION OR PROMOTION
OF BIOLOGICAL BIODIVERSITY THROUGH:
THE PROVISION, CONSERVATION, RESTORATION OR ENHANCEMENT OF A NATURAL HABITAT; THE MAINTENANCE OR RECOVERY OF A SPECIES IN ITS NATURAL HABITAT ON LAND OR IN WATER AND IN PARTICULAR WHERE THE NATURAL HABITAT IS SITUATED IN
THE VICINITY OF A LANDFILL SITE.
These things often look a bit odd, as do the words above, but they do describe a type of conservation organisation. And, let’s be fair, taken across the broad range of the GWCT’s work (much of which is very good) it is acting like a nature conservation organisation with a rather odd view of the world, but nonetheless a nature conservation organisation.
GWCT does enough that looks like (and is) real nature conservation that it can get away with doing some odd things in some areas of its work. And it has done some good research in the past, but a lot less in recent years in my humble opinion. So, slightly grudgingly, I would concede that the GWCT is according to what it says it is going to do and what it actually does, some form of nature conservation organisation (not one which will get my cash though).
So, let me turn back to my friends in the BTO. What are the BTO’s charitable objects listed on the Charity Commission website?
Here they are:
TO PROMOTE, ORGANISE, CARRY ON AND ENCOURAGE STUDY AND RESEARCH AND PARTICULARLY FIELD WORK FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE IN ALL BRANCHES OF THE SCIENCE OF ORNITHOLOGY. PERMANENTLY TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT LANDS AND OBJECTS WHICH BY THEIR NATURAL FEATURES ARE SUITABLE FOR THE PRESERVATION AND STUDY OF BIRD LIFE AND OF FAUNA AND FLORA GENERALLY.
http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityFramework.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=216652&SubsidiaryNumber=
The second sentence is a bit odd but must have been written with something in mind, by someone, sometime, but I’d love to know what it is supposed to mean (I can guess, but it isn’t clear). But the first sentence faithfully describes the BTO I know (and love) – a research organisation (ahem, not a nature conservation organisation).
Delving further into the BTO’s entry on the Charity Commission website we find this interesting document from 2013. This all looks very sensible, and even quite inspiring as these things go, but it doesn’t describe a conservation organisation.
So, Andy my friend, I don’t think you can call the BTO a conservation organisation whereas your fellow NE Board member, Teresa Dent, probably can call GWCT a conservation organisation. But don’t worry, my support for the BTO is as unwavering as, these days, is my distrust of the GWCT.
I suppose it depends how you define ‘conservation organisation’. In my head, I think of BTO as a conservation organisation. The primary aim of conducting the surveys and research is to provide the information that conservationists need to help them act effectively. In that, they differ completely from Landrover, Microsoft and the Met Office, where any benefits to conservation are fringe spin-offs rather than part of the core objectives. In similar vein you could ask whether George Monbiot (for example) is a conservationist. Under your definition probably not. He is a journalist/writer. But his journalism and writing have huge benefits for conservation and, if you asked him, he’d probably say that was his primary aim in doing what he does. I don’t suppose it matters too much in the end – conservation organisation or research organisation aimed at furthering conservation. Either way, well worth parting with your cash.
Ian – maybe it doesn’t matter, but it seems to matter to some BTO staff, and clearly to BASC and GWCT too.
The BTO does not work primarily to conduct surveys and research that conservationists need, though.
Back in the early 1980’s the BTO proudly announced that it was to have some new research projects funded by the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board). Back then conservationists here and in the rest of Europe had become very worried about northern lakes and forests being damaged by acid rain due to coal power station emissions. If the BTO had had an ounce of conservationist thinking it would never had considered such a liaison. But maybe things have changed for the better now. (There again it would be interesting to know about their current investments).
Mark you are right — it’s not a conservation organisation. If it is, it’s definitely not a campaigning one.
Hmm – a tricky one. I certainly would not suggest that conservation charities (or any other charity) should accept money from wherever it happens to come, no questions asked. On the other hand though, where should we draw the line? The British government played a major role in perpetuating the situation in which coal-fired power stations in the east of England pumped out sulphur emissions which then acidified forests and lakes in Scandinavia so should all the bodies that received public funding for conservation projects at the time – including, I am sure, the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts – also be said to have lacked an ounce of conservation thinking?
Conservation organisations still receive grants and donations from a wide range of different commercial organisations including those in industries that have been involved in significant pollution issues (either chronic or catastrophic) including water companies, oil and other energy companies and so on. How ‘clean’ does the record of these companies need to be to make their money acceptable? How far along supply chains should we check for evidence of unacceptable practice? What alternative funding can be found to replace that which is spurned as being too dirty?
I stress that I am not suggesting that it does not matter where the money comes from that is used to support conservation work but rather am trying to raise some of the practicalities involved in deciding what is or isn’t acceptable.
Yes, tricky and you’re right to ask where to draw the line re financial provenance.
But there might be an answer, albeit a shallow one. It’s to do with perceptions and image. What I should have said was, ‘an ounce of self-awareness’ rather than, ‘an ounce of conservation thinking’. That’s because at the time the BTO’s grand announcement appeared stupid and naïve. But if there really had been no alternative sponsorship, the sensible thing would have been to have kept quiet while at the same time being ready to deploy your general point about government funding (conservationists are all tarred with the same brush) if any objections arose.
As you know, back in the 70’s and 80’s acid rain’s destruction of pristine forests and lakes was an internationally hot conservation topic – hence a prestigious and renowned BTO should have been thinking much harder as to how this decision would be seen at home and from abroad. And of course, good habitat protection has always required political nous which in turn has always required some self-awareness.
But it’s all a long time ago and anyway, conservationist or not, the BTO continues to be a world leader when comes to doing rigorous research be it by professional or citizen scientists.
Strange bedfellows abound
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/diabetes-uk-defends-partnership-soft-drinks-firm/fundraising/article/1519485
All the BTO’s work goes towards helping conservation, and that’s what they do it for. So, while they’re not doing conservation themselves, they are supporting it. Are the people who make the syringes a health organisation? They assist the NHS, although they are paid for their work, while much of BTO’s work is done without pay. Think that’s close enough to be called a conservation organisation (sensu lato), if not sensu stricto.
I notice wildlife only gets a mention in the G(W)CT’s aims if it’s straight after ‘game’. Shows what they really care about. And what’s that weird bit in their aims about landfill sites?
It runs its own reserve at Nunnery Lakes https://www.bto.org/reserve and carries out ‘conservation’ work there https://www.bto.org/reserve/friends-nunnery-lake-reserve
We always enjoy the BTO Annual Conference and have been for many years. Never yet met you there Mark!
As a career scientist in the NHS, I always enjoyed my profession’s Annual Conference, excellent presentations of scientific papers mostly with practical applications to diagnostic procedures. Following retirement, over twenty years ago, the BTO Conference has perhaps compensated for my withdrawal symptoms!
Is the BTO a conservation organisation? Well it’s President, Chris Packham, is certainly a hands-on conservationist. Unfortunately the BTO Conference often coincides with an important trip for Chris and he frequently misses the AGM. No doubt there will be the perennial call from the floor to sack him from the post as he fails to appear. When he chairs the AGM he is excellent and is obviously a good advocate for the BTO.
Conservation can only be based on a sound scientific background and well researched knowledge. The BTO’s data base in this respect is second to none in the world. James Pearce-Higgins, Director of Science is a top man. Without this science the “Conservation” societies would not function well.
I admire Andy Clements and always try to hear his contributions at Bird Fair. I have tried to discover what comments he makes as a Board Member of NE, as it seems that many of their policies could lead to a conflict of interest for him. What is his attitude to “brood meddling” for instance.
Once more we look forward to the usually bleak weekend in December at Swanwick.
As others have said Mark it depends how you define conservation. I think they do count as a conservation organisation because they do supply a lot of scientific data on declining bird populations which the RSPB uses in really good practical conservation work.
As far as BASC and the GWCT are concerned I take a tough line. Any organisation that is deliberately concerned with shooting wild animals and birds for enjoyment can in my books NEVER be classed as a conservation organisation, quite the contrary. In fact I would got much further and say no individual should be allowed to own a gun and that only in very exceptional circumstances should the shooting of wild creatures be allowed under a strict licensing system. Shooting for fun would certainly not be part of any license.
I’m not sure whether the BTO is a conservation organisation or not, it is an organisation dear to my heart and I have been a member for much longer than I have the RSPB ( another organisation of which I am a member and care about deeply). One thing is for sure our conservation would be much the poorer without the BTO’s science, they are in fact vital to conservation, as of course are RSPB. BASC and GWCT, I have more faith in BASC than GWCT but that is precious little. I think of GWCT in the same bracket as the Moorland Association, Countryside Areliars or You Forgot the Birds, you will all know what I mean I hope.
When people ask me the difference between the BTO and the RSPB, I always suggest that the BTO is a scientific organisation that provides the ammunition and the RSPB is a campaigning organisation that fires it?
While most (all?) BTO members/staff are conservationists at heart, the BTO shoud (and I think does) maintain a level of objectivity that allows its science to be widely respected and regarded as independent.
yes its objectivity allowed it to accept sponsorship for Yellowhammer in the last Atlas from Songbird Survival. It also did some analysis of data for said organisation, although I don’t think they liked the results.
These days SS seems to use much more dubious scientists work. EG the decline of House Sparrows is apparently due to sparrowhawk predation according to one piece of work they quote. I think its a prime example of you can prove anything with statistics but it doesn’t make it true, personally I think its utter rubbish but there you go.
Mr Cowieson who used to comment here will of course think otherwise!
“I think its a prime example of you can prove anything with statistics but it doesn’t make it true”
The problem with this statement is that it can just as easily be turned round and used by your opponents to cast doubt on things you do consider to be true such as the evidence for a widespread problem of raptor persecution on grouse moors.
It is true that numerical information can be abused to create a fog to confuse the issue and support an erroneous case but ultimately the data show what they show and sufficiently rigorous analysis should eventually unmask these cases of deception or delusion.
There is no doubt that in SOME scenarios predation pressure may have a harmful impact on the conservation status of prey species – in the case of introduced rodents preying on island-nesting sea-birds for example – but I agree with you that it is very unlikely that the return of the Sparrowhawk to pre-DDT levels of abundance is responsible for the decline of the house sparrow and SBS are a long way short of proving the contrary.
What I should have said Jonathan was that you can “prove” almost anything with the misuse of statistics. Including the tripe the MA peddled about Merlins that BTO objected to the use of their/our data for.
I disagree – I think the BTO is a conservation organisation in the same way David Attenborough is a conservationist – it is soft power vs the hard power of campaigning bodies like RSPB. And it can have a very significant impact. Murray Marr has probably forgotten that more recently the BTO carried out research funded by Songbird Survival – which, as factual as BTO research always is, completely undermined their position in a way no advocacy conservation body could – despite the fact that in my strong view RSPB research is just as objective as BTO’s .
The CEGB connection is historically interesting as possibly one of the greatest successful confidence tricks in recent history – it didn’t matter who you were, it would have been hard not to find the impact of acidification in poorly buffered watercourses across upland Britain – and we all know the cause, of course – it is conifer forests that cause acidification. Except, if you think about it, is wasn’t – conifers unquestionably concentrate airborne acidifying pollution – but it’s coal fired power stations that produce the pollution, yet somehow the blame was firmly stuck on the forests, with hardly a mention of the source. Interesting.
The BTO definitely is a conservation organisation. The word conservation is mentioned in the first line of the preface to the most recent BTO atlas. I would be very disappointed if the data that I collect was not going to be used to aid bird conservation. What are BASC/GWCT doing to halt the decline of our native grey partridge and why is it still legal to shoot waders!? Very much looking forward to BTO conference this year as usual.
Re. the strange second sentence, as I understand it this had to be added when the BTO moved from Tring to Thetford and in the process as well as new offices unexpectedly acquired a nature reserve as well as a derelict medieval nunnery – as you do. It had never intended to own conservation land but I guess saw this as too interesting an opportunity to miss.
In fact having been offered such extensive accommodation the Trust then developed the rather grand concept of a ‘National Centre for Ornithology’ to brand it. When I joined the staff in 1996 there were still road signs around Thetford pointing visitors to this putative Centre, but sadly even by then the concept seemed to be dying a slow death and is now long-buried. The lovely little reserve, though, is well looked after and well worth a visit.