I attended the RSPB’s online AGM on Saturday. It was slick, a bit uplifting, but not entirely satisfactory and not entirely convincing.
Amir Khan was a very cheery President and looked entirely natural in that position. Kevin Cox (Chair) and Beccy Speight (CEO) also said good things and said them well. Nobody goofed their lines.
I speak as someone who has attended 25+ RSPB AGMs, some as a junior member of staff (lots of nodding and smiling and being helpful), as a Director (lots of nodding and smiling and being helpful and answering questions from the floor which could be about absolutely anything and thinking on one’s feet), and as a member. An online AGM lacks the jeopardy of the question whose answer is fumbled and causes a noticeable mutter of discontent to spread across a packed room of signed-up supporters. It feels sanitised and lacks the excitement of even a crown green bowls game let alone a bull fight! No staff or trustees were gored to death on Saturday, despite the fact that there should have been some tricky bits to negotiate because of recent events.
The tricky bits were probably:
- Liargate …
- and its associated Trusteegate …
- and whether the RSPB is outspoken enough …
- and whether the RSPB is seen to be a campaigning organisation or whether it’s a bit staid and dull considering there is a wildlife crisis.
Liargate was explained, as it had to be, just as I described in a blog or two at the time (click here and here). Kevin Cox sounded a bit miffed that so many people had got the wrong end of the stick and although he didn’t mention George Monbiot I think he had him in mind. We were told that there was an investigation into how it had all happened and that was not yet concluded – and as we watched on our computer screens we thought ‘that’s convenient’ and there was no real opportunity to ask when it would be concluded and how would we know the result. So there’s plenty of scope for coming back to this at next year’s AGM except it will take a massive effort to do so. Those at The Lodge were unable to hear or see the whole online audience (well, me at least) shifting in our seats and doing a bit of harrumphing. And the whole online audience was unable to see that everyone else was shifting in their seats and harrumphing. It is a very sanitised thing, an online AGM.
Trusteegate was more interesting, I thought. Again, the Chair explained that any decisions by Council are joint decisions and that single trustees don’t have any individual power. He also spelled out that the only way to get rid of a trustee is through a three quarters vote of Council for that to happen. There is no scope for a vote of members at an AGM to oust Council members. I didn’t hear the Chair saying that he would be unhappy if a certain Council member were to be kicked off Council by his fellow trustees but then, to be fair, I didn’t hear the opposite either. This then is also left hanging which is somewhat inconvenient if we, the membership, allow it to drift away out of sight and out of mind. Kevin Cox also reminded everyone that trustees are elected by the membership (unless the number of proposed trustees (proposed by Council itself and the membership) is equal to the number of vacancies). How many of those moaning about the RSPB are members? And how many were at this AGM so soon after the events moaned about (see below for answer)? It’s like real politics – if you don’t get involved then don’t moan about the outcome!
Is the RSPB outspoken enough and does it really make its voice heard? There was a strategic mention of 130 years of campaigning which rather glossed over about 90 or so years when there was very little campaigning and the last decade where there hasn’t been anything like enough! The question of whether the RSPB was supportive of marches and peaceful demonstrations was addressed by saying that it was but couldn’t necessarily turn up and publicise everything (despite having an income of, we were told, £164m). The trouble with all this was that none of us knows what questions were asked of the RSPB, how many of them, by whom or anything else. At an in-person AGM then one hears the words of the question asked, and can see the response of the questioner to the answer, and see the response of other members to the answer too. This online version is barely credible as a way of allowing the membership to ask questions and hear them answered, it does not properly fulfill the functions of an AGM.
I have the impression that the RSPB thinks it is very brave but that actually, it isn’t. It is very timid. At the moment much more timid that the Wildlife Trusts. Blimey! To think that it has come to this!
Other things:
- Licensing of gamebird releases – I’m pretty sure I heard that the RSPB is in favour of this.
- Spend on nature reserve management topped £50m for the first time. Sounds good but it depends whether it was spent on conservation or visitors or whatever. Nature reserves had a very low profile in this AGM and recent AGMs which is unwise as they are a great strength of the RSPB multifactored approach to nature conservation. ‘If we aren’t campaigning, and we aren’t really influencing government then at least we are pumping out the wildlife from those places which we can control’ is a good subliminal message to get across. For some years it has been difficult to believe that the RSPB is keen on nature reserves except as visitor destinations and locations for filming. I wonder who on the management board are the strong advocates for this approach? I haven’t been asked to fund a conservation land purchase for ages – why not (because I would!)?
- I think the RSPB has lost its corporate memory and there are very few at or near the top of the organisation who really understand the RSPB’s conservation achievements in the last quarter of a century. That’s the only explanation for statements like that saying the RSPB has been campaigning on sandeel fisheries for two decades. Well, actually, ahem!, it has been going for well over three and a half decades – see here which led to a 5-year closure of the Shetland sandeel fishery (see here). But that’s just an example, there is no corporate pride it seems in the conservation successes of the past, maybe because nobody knows much about them or that the current leadership doesn’t think they will be replicated in the future?
- the RSPB is a poor collaborator – if you are a big organisation then you should spread the praise around, liberally, and generously, rather than appearing to want to get the praise for anything that has your logo on it despite having everybody else’s logo on it too. I absolutely knew that the RSPB would mention that it was the senior author of the recent State of Nature report – it is a tiny thing, hardly worthy of mention at all. Let’s be honest, hardly anyone has read the SoN report, hardly anyone could tell you what it said (except that it said the same as the last one), and it is a report documenting failure to act. It will be one of the most-quoted and most-unread of works. Nobody cares, except it seems the RSPB, who was the senior author of it!
- in similar vein, there was a lot made of the RSPB’s role alongside the National Trust and WWF-UK in the Wild Isles TV series and book. We were told that these things would be pivotal in launching a nature recovery. No they won’t. Have the public relations team really got the RSPB messages by the throat because it doesn’t look as though any conservationist has.
- Do I sound grumpy? I am past grumpy because the RSPB is so much better than this. I know enough of what RSPB is actually doing on the ground and in the corridors of power to know that there is a much better, much more convincing corporate tale to be told. It’s so frustrating that the RSPB isn’t making the most of itself. And there is a need for a strong, vibrant and confident RSPB. On top form, no other UK conservation organisation can match it. But it’s not on top form, and it isn’t even making the most of the form that it has.
Two more slightly less grumpy things.
The RSPB Medal is awarded to some conservation stars each year and this year two Medals were awarded. The second was to a group of people working on climate change in Northern Ireland, but I had to leave at this stage (after two hours) so I can’t say anything more. However, the first RSPB Medal was given to Alastair Fothergill who was series producer for the aforementioned Wild Isles. This was a good thing to do. Notwithstanding my remarks above, it was a wonderful TV series focussed on UK wildlife and had a few conservation messages in it. I first met a young Fothergill when he was an undergraduate doing a project in the Camargue and I was studying Bee-eaters – he’s come a long way. He sits well in a line of nature communicators including Robert Gillmor (artist), Michael McCarthy (journalist), David Attenborough and Chris Mead (broadcasters) and others to have received the RSPB Medal but is, I think, the first film-maker. It is an entirely fitting award but maybe that is another reason why the RSPB shouldn’t have banged on about the part it played in the series and the book? On the day, it looked rather like giving a prize to our mate, rather than to someone of stature who deserved recognition in his own right.
Attendance – if the number in the left of my screen next to a symbol of a person indicated the number of attendees online for this AGM (and I think it did) then I didn’t see it top 400 (though I wasn’t fixated on it!). Even allowing for people coming and going, more people will read this blog post than attended the RSPB AGM? That’s a fail! And big time. Were all Council members present at the Lodge? Or online? And all those committees that are now in existence – were their members present? Clearly not many staff attended – maybe they aren’t also embers these days? In the olden days, an in-person AGM in London would regularly attract 6-700 members, and just once or twice over 1000. For an organisation which claims 1.2m members, 400 is pitiful (unless there were 3,000 people watching every computer screen and there was just me watching mine). The AGM is a decision-making event although not many decisions but some quite important ones. This AGM approved, through the votes of 400 members, the appointment of two trustees – if you weren’t there, don’t moan! I reckon I could engineer some unwelcome voting results at an RSPB AGM if I put my mind to it, but I won’t because I have the RSPB’s well-being as a conservation organisation at heart. I warn the RSPB, others might look at that low turn out and act differently. There is nothing like an in-person event for the attendees, staff, trustees but most importantly the members to get a real feel for whether the organisation knows what it is doing and is in good hands. I’m pretty sure that if this AGM had been held in person it would have been much more of a bonding experience for all. Next year please!
[registration_form]
The highlight of the members days of the past was not the AGM (with yet another question from a certain gentleman about why the RSPB doesn’t kill more foxes etc. or from another about cats) but the talks in the afternoon and the chance to meet staff. This year the talks have been split off to another online event and I’m very much looking forward to that.
I enjoyed this years AGM and shared none of your discomfort. The answer about joining demonstrations was very straightforward and sensible and Beccy was very honest about the difficulties a charity has with politics and campaigning and the challenge of the run up to the next election.
I think you are far too downbeat about the reserves. They mean everything to me and, like you, I would gladly respond to a land purchase appeal – you can of course give to the general land acquisition fund. They spent more on land purchase last year and I was delighted about that. A constant criticism used to be that RSPB were always asking for money. My sense is that in the present economic climate they are trying to focus on wealthy individual and corporate donors for land purchase. I would love to know more about what they are buying but of course publicity is not always a good thing. And some great management is being done now such as re-wetting an extended Lumbister, the main part having been owned for decades with, I assume, no physical management at all.
On numbers, I think you have to recognize that most people lead busy lives. The people at the old Members days were mostly old – like me, people with grown up families with time to spare. I live in Suffolk. Would I go to London (or anywhere else) for a members day/AGM now? Probably not. I’m quite covid cautious and don’t fancy the train and tube anymore. Online suits me fine. And with a hybrid event you do need to make sure the cost of a venue is justified.
And I’m fine with the RSPB’s campaigning. It’s obvious that a huge amount goes on behind the scenes. (How much robust tweeting is just consumed by the like-minded anyway?) And I did attend an RSPB demo once – with you, Mark, opposing Cliffe airport. But there weren’t that many people there, not because people didn’t care but because they were leading busy lives no doubt. And I made a point of speaking to you and saying that I supported the Ruddy Duck cull. It was a time when the RSPB was pretty much a lone voice on that and most editors and organizations were keeping their heads well down. But the RSPB were doing the right thing for conservation – and, for me, they still are now.
Bob W – you are mixing up advocacy and campaigning I think. Maybe the RSPB is too.
When you have a fairly receptive administration then you can have a sensible chat behind closed doors and in private. And you may achieve things. But you need to keep the threat of public criticism up your sleeve.
When you are dealing with a bunch of untrustworthy and unreliable decision makers you need to be more public – not least to show your members what you are calling for.
You haven’t appreciated the change in landscape in your comments above – maybe the RSPB hasn’t either.
You mischaracterise my position on nature reserves – I am very much upbeat about them which is one reason I think the RSPB should be more outspoken about them too. They weren’t on Saturday, and they aren’t generally. Big mistake and big lost opportunity!
Thanks for replying Mark.
I don’t mind what you call it but, for example, by working behind the scenes and in public the RSPB and others were successful in their campaign to persuade the House of Lords to defeat the proposed scrapping of the Nutrient Neutrality measures. There will, I’m sure, have been much briefing of members of the Lords to achieve that. So, a two pronged approach works best I think and I guess the RSPB thinks so too. Beccy said there are hints this may come back in the Kings Speech – heaven forbid.
I know exactly what sort of government we are dealing with. It is determined to reap the “benefits” of Brexit as it sees them. What you can’t get away from is that we live in a democracy and the Conservatives were elected with an 80 seat majority.
I agree with your point about bigging up the nature reserves. Yes, RSPB should do more on that. Buying land where possible and managing it has always been the key but visitor stuff is important too. East hide at Minsmere is now accessible for wheelchair users – who would have thought that would be possible a few years ago. I have never been in any doubt that RSPB is still very keen on the reserves. The fantastic habitat restoration and creation works going on across the four countries surely shows that, but yes, lets hear more about it.
A very fair assessment Mark, although I didn’t attend.
I too have wondered why I haven’t been tapped up for any contributions to land acquisitions for a long time. I hear a lot about super new photography hides and upgraded visitor centres but barely anything about new nature reserves, although other wildlife organisations aren’t holding back.
Needless to say I don’t think they should apologise to the Conservative government either about calling them liars.
A small point but the correct spelling is Robert GILLMOR
Robert – it is, very embarrassed, thank you. Although I have spelled Robert’s name wrongly in so many different ways over the years…
‘I could engineer some unwelcome voting results at an RSPB AGM if I put my mind to it, but I won’t because I have the RSPB’s well-being as a conservation organisation at heart’ – You might also be cut-and-paste labeled as a shadowy far-right junktank entryist funded by a dark money lobby group working from a desk in Bufton Street
Not making the most of the able, enthusiastic and talented people it has isn’t the sole preserve of the RSPB – Lions led by Donkeys is a progressive disease also affecting other organisations.
On a related note: I decided to cast votes in the NT Members votes this year as Membership has become a very expensive way of not parking at Mottisfont because it’s full and alternatively there is a beautiful rainbow over Humpton Dumpton at the moment if you fancied burning a load of petrol to see it and look after your mental health and why not indulge in a delicious pumpkin and anchovy scone while you are there so I thought I would squeeze some more value out of it and duly signed in with my membership number, name and address and plodded through the treacle of the motions and voted for them all individually as I saw fit. Only after hitting the save/quit/goodbye button did it occur to me that this was not an anonymous ballot. OK – the live version would be a show of hands with faces attached but who makes notes? In the digital version my votes are there for everyone to see, forever. The Internet never forgets – something worth remembering
AGM questions would be better if they were publicised beforehand and each needed a minimum number of supporters before it was put to the AGM itself. Just enough proposers to cut out the lunatic fringe. But you’re right, in person is much better – though much more expensive of course.
Sadly, I agree strongly with what you’ve said. Mainstream conservation has taken for ever to grasp what this Government is about, which was patently obvious on day 1 when they wiped out a whole raft of environmental bodies and plans. But conservation behaved as if it was business as usual, leaving them way behind the curve. Most recently I’ve been shocked by the churlish response to rewildling and the alarming enthusiasm for NFU’s food security myth.
With hindsight, Liargate looks straight from the Lynton Crosby playbook – and the anti-wokers were caught out into shooting the RSPB message to the top of the news, reaching places in the right wing press RSPB would never normally be.
If I were holding the enquiry I’d be issuing a ritual beating in public but behind the scenes urgently seeing how to repeat the trick. If senior management are intimidated by what happened they need to toughen up -its going to get worse before it gets better.
Trusteegate similarly – my only regret is that no other trustees came out to publicly condemn their colleague – I certainly would have when I was on council. Back when I was there was similar nervousness about the odd potentially disruptive trustee and silly discussions about limiting democracy. The reality is that one trustee can do absolutely nothing – other than irritate colleagues. It’s the ones who practise politics – making friends and influencing people – you need to watch ! But you are right about the need to participate and the establishment doesn’t always feel very encouraging in that respect.
The anti-wokers make a lot of (often ugly) noise and I hope it doesn’t intimidate senior staff and trustees because in fact they aren’t doing well at all – two National Trust votes have gone against them and they failed last year to get Rees-Mogg’s trustees elected. The Government and judiciary are having great difficulty getting juries to convict environmental protestors and are resorting to contempt of court to get round public opinion.
I get incredibly frustrated at the RSPB because while I’m enormously fond of it, it is – as you say, far too timid even taking into account it has to tiptoe around working with other groups on the ground (e.g farmers) and having to worry about a spiteful govt moving the goal posts re charity legislation. I was attending a vegan festival a few years ago and was delighted to see a RSPB stall which emphasised raptor persecution – an issue I suspect would move the general public more than any other bird conservation one due to its cruelty and utter effing pointlessness. It was full on, pictures of trapped, shot and poisoned buzzards, harriers and eagles. I mentioned this to the guy running the stall who told me it was only because of the nature of the event the RSPB had decided to taking a ‘stronger’ (i.e non twee) stance than it usually did. I found this discouraging, not a change of direction for the RSPB, a very occasional deviation from the rather insipid standard.
There are so many other examples – being reluctant to do conservation projects in lower income communities unless they are ‘invited’ to do so (the more need to do so, the less the chance that request will be forthcoming) or not banging the drum and drawing the link between the ecologically dreadful state of our uplands and the terrible flooding hitting homes, businesses and farms lower down. The economic and human welfare case for substantial rewilding in our hills is outstanding, but it’s not being made openly I suspect because there’s no wish to ruffle some feathers that frankly need to be ruffled.
I totally agree Mark with really all of what you say but particularly about an online AGM being a bit of a failure . I find it difficult to conjure up much enthusiasm for on line AGMs where as I always used to set aside a year in advance the date of the in person AGM we used to have in London. Besides feeling really involved these in person AGMs used to provide excellent opportunities to talk to staff and council members in the breaks and over lunch. The on line AGM is really a very poor substitute.
I guess the argument will be is that on line AGMs save quite a bit of money as against hiring a big facility in London. However it has always occurred to me why not pitch a large marquee in the grounds of the Lodge for the AGM and open up a part of the Lodge building itself for various information displays etc. After-all the Lodge building is far far less used now now that most staff work from their home.
The RSPB definitely needs to think this through much better.
I have to say that I, too, am unimpressed by the solely online format of the AGM.
I thought the 2023 event was staid and/or stale – not much more than a series of presentations from the great and the good of the RSPB. Much of what was said was fairly predictable.
Considering the impressive extent of the society’s income, I would favour a return to an in-person or hybrid annual meeting at a prestigious location, not necessarily in London. Perhaps, like party political conferences, it could do the rounds of cities/towns.
I would not, however, favour The Lodge given that it is tricky to access by public transport.
Someone told me that Sandy was an expensive town for a national organisation because staff had to be paid the London weighting allowance.
At the very least, I hope members might be invited by management to express a view on online/in-person/ hybrid in advance of the 2024 meeting.
In the National Trust Annual Report, it is stated that £21.3M was spent in 2022-23 purchasing coast and countryside, £5.4M acquiring collections, and zero on acquiring historic buildings.
The previous year it was £6.6M, £0.2M and £4.2M respectively.
I am pleased to see the NT funds are being used to acquire land, as in the long-term, it is the only way to ensure sympathetic land management for conservation.
Land acquired included 54ha woodland at Polesden Lacy, 23ha in Dovedale, 28ha at Wicken Fen, 125ha farmland adj to a NNR in Dorset, 256ha near Divas Mountain.
I struggled to find such information on land purchases in the RSPB Annual Report, but that might just be me.
https://opendata-rspb.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/RSPB::rspb-reserves/explore?showTable=true
The above is a link from open data RSPB showing a lot more RSPB reserves that is on the list of RSPB website.