It’s the RSPB AGM on Saturday – any member can attend the morning event for free (you should register first).
I was planning to go, but I can’t – a family event intervenes (which isn’t England v New Zealand or the racing from Cheltenham) so I’m glad that there will be a keen observer in the suditorium prepared to tell us all what happened in a future blog.
This will, of course, be the first AGM with the RSPB’s new Chief Exec, Rebecca Speight – that’ll be interesting.
Last year the RSPB glossed over the fact that it was downsizing its staff complement by c20% – which I thought was quite shocking (the glossing more than the downsizing). How will the financial position be described this year?
Martin Harper promised last year to come back on Saturday with an answer on meat-free Mondays – I hope he hasn’t forgotten.
And, I gather, there will be another interesting thing emerging…
[registration_form]
Sorry I won’t be bumping into you again on Saturday, Mark.
Judging by the accounts for the last financial year (available on the website), the current financial position is fine. As Beccy said on Woman’s Hour, a lot of work has been done.
My immediate thought last year on meat-free Mondays was that you would not be able to use up the meat left over from the weekend – another unintended consequence?
Bob W – yes, all’s well – apart from losing several hundred staff. And if that is your first thought then maybe you’d better have another one.
Thanks, Mark – a waspish response! My regret at not seeing you on Saturday is sincere.
I must admit I don’t know much about catering but I’m sure Martin will have sussed it out.
Referring back to your Sunday quote on journalism and democracy, I recommend “Brexit and the Failure of Journalism” by Helen Lewis on the Atlantic website (free to read without registering, for me anyway).
Meat in the fridge lasts for days esp beef also you can freeze it
Just to let you know Mark, I will be there, best wishes for your family do, Looking forward to hearing Becky Speight.
Alan
One perennial frustration of the AGM is that there is never sufficient time allotted for the question-and-answer session.
This ought to have been addressed long ago. Either the timetable should be rescheduled or the AGM should be held on a different date from the other part of the Members’ Day.
Is it the case that RSPB chiefs do not welcome too much scrutiny in a public forum? Do they not like being held to account?
A slightly lesser concern is that the president is seeking re-election for a third term. She’s a very personable and engaging lady, but I feel she should be gracious enough to step down in order to allow someone else to enjoy three years in this honorary position.
For those, like Mark, unable to attend, perhaps the RSPB could broadcast it on the internet or make a podcast available.
Good idea. For many members getting to London is a long and expensive journey.
James – it was live streamed a couple of years ago but the uptake was not enough to justify the cost.
James I second that. it seems ridiculous in this day and age when we are supposed to be reduceing emmisions not to do podcast. Our Wildlife Trust is equally guilty, some interesting talks; or is it just me, not wanting to do an hour’s drive early in the morning across there on our wandering Suffolk roads.
Jonathan and Andrew. Getting to London is a pain but the big plus about being there is getting to talk to staff and members of the management team (and Council) and you can ask them whatever you want – without the need to take up time in the main hall.
If I were attending the AGM, these are among questions I might consider asking:
How supportive is the RSPB of the activities of Wild Justice?
How much revenue does the RSPB receive annually from the wind energy industry?
As well as its Tetney Marsh (Lincolnshire) site, at which other of its wetland reserves does the RSPB permit wildfowling?
What example does the RSPB set to the farming industry and gardeners by continuing to use agro-chemicals on its farm in Cambridgeshire?
What does the RSPB’s new chief executive regard as the organisation’s top three bird protection priorities over the next 12 months?
I expect other readers of this blog might come up with others.
James – I used to aave to answer such questions at the AGM and elsewhere so, although wildly out of date, I could have a go at all of them for you here:
The RSPB thinks that Wild Justice is brilliant (on the whole), just as Wild Justice thinks the RSPB is brilliant (on the whole).
Hardly any except for the wind turbine the RSPB erected at its headquarters a few years ago. why do you ask?
The RSPB does not ‘permit’ wildfowling where it owns the shooting rights of land. When you buy land the shooting rights usually come with the land and are included in the price. There are some RSPB nature reserves which were offered for sale without the shooting rights where the RSPB had to make the decision to buy the land without the shooting rights or not to buy yhe land at all. the RSPB will only very rarely do this. Sometimes the vendors of a piece of land retain the shooting rights for their lifetimes as a condition of sale and then the shooting rights revert to the RSPB. These circumstances are rare and the RSPB avoids them wherever possible. As far as i know, the RSPB has never ‘activated’ the shooting rights on any bit of land where shooting was not taking place before and the overwhelmingly normal outcome is for shooting to stop when RSPB acquires a piece of land.
The RSPB farms a very large area of land and has (true when I was there) the largest organic sheep farm in England on its land (Geltsdale). The area of RSPB farmed land with organic status has increased every year for the last 15 or so. Hope Farm was bought specifically to be a demonstration farm to other farmers, as such it uses modern farming techniques applicable on other arable farms. It’s not a nature reserve. The aim was to maintain the crop yields of the farm whilst increasing bird and wildlife numbers – Hope Farm has been successful in both regards and therefore stands as a good model for other farmers and has influenced government agriculture policy too.
I can’t speak fo Beccy.
How did I do?
Conservation is now about social media, watching TV animal documentaries, and – no more snow leopards – how sad, put the kettle on dear! That’s how most people contribute; it’s a click of a mouse button – end of involvement. In many ways that’s how the RSPB, Wildlife Trust employees work, it’s geared to funding and job survival, – well they’re in for a bloody big shock with this government.
The most depressing thing this week was the RSPB’s CEO introduction, nothing on conservational matter, only that she managed to increase funding by 15% for the Woodland Trust whilst she was in the job. I can only describe the last 5 years of CEO Clarke’s stewardship at the RSPB as imbecilic and I’m being polite.
To run the charities liabilities at £90m, when your turnover is only £100m, is incompetent, and 300 people have paid the price for that.
The RSPB needs to deregulate itself into constitutional parts, each part responsible for it’s own funding and governance. Get back to it’s core business – it’s membership, and reserves – stop treating the membership as if they are an aphid cash-cow to be continually squeezed.
Dr Avery I’ve just read the last post, I would argue with you about wildfowling on RSPB land (pretty lame) and Hope Farm especially, but I just can’t be bothered this time.
thomas – and I could rule the world but I can’t be bothered.
Thanks, Mark, for taking the time and trouble with your last response. Considering you’re no longer on the management team, good of you to field questions on the RSPB’s behalf. Top marks for magnanimity!
1) My interest in the Tetney Marsh reserve was prompted by the discovery that the local wildfowling club had an arrangement allowing it to shoot ducks, etc.
Club members are required to provide details of ‘bags’ with info being passed on to Natural England.
According to Natural England, wigeon top the list, but less common species, such as pintail, also come a cropper in most years. (I suspect the wildfowlers would keep quiet if the occasional smew or long-tailed duck was shot).
Even if there longstanding shooting rights, it does seem odd for shooting to take place on what surely ought to be a safe refuge.
2) Re income from wind energy firms, I note that regularly listed in the RSPB accounts as ‘business supporters’ are the likes of Scottish Power and its associate organisations plus SSE Renewable Generation – all big offshore players.
There is also the deep relationship with Ecotricity which operates numerous onshore wind estates plus the turbine at Sandy.
The RSPB always seems to bang the drum loud for wind energy, but only seldom and very gently for the potential impact on birds – not just marine species but also on the whole range of migrants from goldcrests and warblers to raptors (including ospreys and sea eagles) and Bewick’s swans.
By contrast the American Bird Conservancy, while supporting wind energy, is far more ready to speak out on the perils.
Although the RSPB would deny it, I can’t bring myself to believe that the RSPB is not at least partially compromised (for instance, on whether or not to object to windfarm planning applications) by its partnerships with the Renewables industry.
3) Re Hope Farm, I was impressed with the number and range of birds occurring – until the RSPB spilled the beans that it was importing birdfood from external sources.
James – no problem.
1) It might seem odd, but it probably is not in the RSPB’s power to change things so they can hardly be faulted for the oddness.
2) Good points. When I was conservation director I spent approximately as much time defending the RSPB’s position on wind energy (in favour if it is in the right places) to the wind energy industry (and some environmental NGOS who are more concerned aboutt climate change than wildlife loss) as I did defending it from the other direction. At that time (say, 10 years ago) the RSPB objected to c10% of windfarm applications (those we regarded as being in the wrong places or where the applications had poor environmental information). I would guess the % has probably declined (but I don’t know that) because the industry was young and impulsive then, and now it is a bit more canny. The industry will have learned how to play the system better over time – and that’s how regulation should work.
I’d forgotten that the RSPB benefits from Ecotricity – which was quite careless since I am an Ecotricity customer! RSPB used to have a link-up with SSE but that, let’s just say it didn’t seem to be working for either side so the RSPB pulled out. That was an interesting example because RSPB put a lot of time into choosing a business partner but it still didn’t work out.
So you may well be right that RSPB benefits from money from windfarms, but which came first, the approval of ewind energy or the money? I can assure you that the RSPB policy to be in favour of wind energy (in the right places) came many years before any financial link-up. So, be cynical all you like, fair enough, but I think you’d be wrong (although I may be out of date).
3) I don’t think that has anything to do with the trebling in Skylark numbers or much else really. I’m very attached to Hope Farm as I was much involved with its inception and the first 10 years of its existence. It’s a big success.
Good stuff, Mark. I would just add on shooting rights that I think there are one or two areas where the RSPB allows wildfowling on its land in return for the wildfowlers not shooting their areas and so making viable sanctuary areas.
Of course if the RSPB had not been prepared to establish some reserves subject to limited shooting continuing we would have no Minsmere or Leighton Moss, to name but two. In both cases the RSPB acquired the sporting rights later.