Indications have been growing for some months that the RSPB is in trouble but it’s no use hiding it any more. Many organisations go through what seem like interminable reviews, and RSPB has had its share in the past decade or so, but this one is pretty serious.
The jobs of hundreds of staff have been reviewed, some posts and people are going, others are having to choose between new jobs they don’t much fancy and not having a job at all.
Core areas of work, such as nature reserves are not exempt from this process. I’ve heard from several staff and volunteers that some nature reserves are being mothballed and some might be on the market for disposal.
School programmes on nature reserves are under threat, as are other areas of work where grants have kept things going.
There is more, but that’s enough to give a flavour of what is happening.
Why is it happening? It’s apparently driven by financial issues. I can’t spot the signs of impending trouble in these figures on the Charity Commission website – click here – can you?
It’s difficult not to speculate on what has gone wrong. Did LIARgate have an impact? Have we reached the time when Brexit kicks in and EU funding finally disappears for many projects? Are RSPB members simply drifting away? Has there been some expensive recent project, perhaps a recruitment campaign, that has bombed? Or, quite possibly, none of these. Or quite possibly, all of them.
These events might explain what otherwise seems a strange move to bring in a completely new Council member to be Chair of Council at the impending RSPB AGM – click here. I don’t know anything about Sir Andrew Cahn than what I read here but he seems an unusual choice to be parachuted in, if the members vote for him, to become Chair of Council. It is rare for that post to be filled by anyone who has not served their time as an ‘ordinary’ member to get to know the organisation. This suggests that none of current Council was moved to become Chair – unusual and not a good sign. Previous experience of the RSPB and UK nature conservation are notably missing from this pen picture. I might not vote for Sir Andrew at the online AGM. You, like me, should be a conservation investor and checking out these things is our due diligence.
I’m saddened by this apparent state of affairs and have been hoping that the glimpses of what is happening that I have had weren’t really representative but it seems that they are. My sadness is because I feel a great deal of respect for the conservation institution for whom I worked for 25 years and which I still think of as ‘us’ rather than ‘them’. I’m sad for those former colleagues of mine who are going through this and for all of their colleagues who I don’t know at all, and, indeed, for the senior staff and Council who have to manage this.
Let’s hope that things aren’t as bad as they seem, and that even if they are then the RSPB can make a full recovery.
I heard yesterday that I am registered for the online AGM in a couple of weeks time. I will be listening intently.
[registration_form]
I don’t think it matters if he has not come up through the ranks. We need to have confidence in the processes that the board had in place to select this person. Who seems to have a good range of skill sets. It is the leadership skills that are important in this role. Especially if difficult decisions will need to be made by the board. Every organisation whether it’s a company, a charity or a government body go through these machinations of having to review and sharpen up operations to ensure that it can be sustainable in the long term and deliver its charity objectives. People do not like change. But sometimes this is necessary. Looking at the longer term all would do well to plan for different fiscal scenarios. We know that the health of the economy is related to the income generation potential in the voluntary sector. Cycles of boom and bust in terms of economic growth and recessions. Interest rates are higher now so that’s good for investments. Will membership growth continue once boomers have popped their clogs? Etc!!!
When I click on your Charity Commission link I get a CC page which says ‘You do not have the roles required to access this portlet. ‘
Hi Mark. I’m glad you are on the case. I heard yesterday that two or three nature reserves are being considered for sale. That would be the end for me and the RSPB if it went ahead (after 60 years).
I spoke to the Lodge this morning. They confirmed that a major review is underway with staff being consulted but could give no definitive answer on possible sales of reserves. I asked if members would be consulted but they could not say. The accounts for last year give no hint of financial trouble but they spent less than £1m on land purchase.
I think the problem is that the current leadership do not value the reserves in the way that we do. They are more concerned with ‘global’ stuff – RSPB are involved with bog restoration in Iceland for example which is great if the money is there. Leaving the theoretical pension deficit aside, I do not believe there is a shortage of money. They have just decided to spend it in areas other than the reserves.
I hope that the RSPB council and leadership can be made to change tack and that you will do all you can to make this happen. I registered for the agm with no trouble. Bob
Without knowing which reserves are being considered or the reasons why, or indeed who they might be sold to (as a crude example another conservation organisation would be a very different proposition to an open-cast coal mining business!) one can only speculate but I can at least conceive of a reserve sale being a rational decision. If sale of reserves is necessitated by financial problems I am not sure how helpful it would be to terminate your membership if you still agree with the overall objects of the charity.
I would be wary of playing ‘global’ activities off against local ones. A wader wintering/migrating along our coasts is a ‘British’ bird but it is also an Icelandic bird and a French bird and perhaps a Mauritanian bird. If it is encountering problems in any of the places it passes through during its annual cycle it is relevant to us so it seems perfectly reasonable to be involved in conservation work in Iceland. Personally, I would go further – I am as concerned by the threats faced by, say, Albatrosses on oceanic islands in the southern hemisphere as I am by those faced by birds here in Britain and am happy for the RSPB to devote some of its resources to such overseas issues.
Obviously it is a concern if finances are under pressure and the organisation is in the position of having to decide which bits of its work it should cut back on.
Jonathan – wise comments as usual.
I know more, but won’t say much more until after AGM.
I know at least one of the reserves which was a shock to me as I did read part of the document. I will that reserve if Mark agrees. If Mark agree’s. I will say what that one reserve in particular I was shocked and upset
Bob – there was very little mention of nature reserves at last year’s AGM nor much in annual reports, so I share some of your concerns. More mention of financial reserves but no indication of problems.
It does feel as though nature reserves are getting a particularly harsh scrutiny.
But there are other changes too – challenges of whether and how to combat raptor persecution for example. Enthusiasm for having friendly chats with grouse moor owners – that only takes things back c30 years!!
Thanks Mark. At the moment it is a puzzle as to how much of this is driven by a planned reorganization and how much by new financial considerations. The official line, as given to me over the phone, is that the RSPB has a duty to ensure that all its assets are giving best value for money and that is why the reserve holdings have been included in the review.
I can understand why some leased / held by agreement reserves might be discarded – Tudeley Woods being a recent sensible example. But to consider selling freehold reserves (unless for a big reserve gain) seems madness, even if sold to another conservation body. What message would that send to existing and potential members and people thinking of leaving a legacy: we’re so useless we can’t even manage our own nature reserves effectively – support some other charity! If that is what’s proposed the RSPB’s enemies are going to have a field day.
Over the last few years it has often seemed as if the RSPB has almost been embarrassed to be a large landowner, let alone wanting to trumpet acquisitions. Even at the last few AGMs in London the reserves were being downplayed. I have a horrible feeling focus groups are involved in this. Leaders need to lead, not follow.
Following the job vacancies gives some idea of what is going on at the RSPB. I think a while back they were recruiting more HR staff to deal with a reorganization – presumably this is it. They have also been recruiting (expensive?) staff to push diversity – I understand why but am not a fan. They should always be recruiting the best people regardless of gender or ethnicity – competence should trump diversity in any organization. So, one way and another. the workforce has grown and perhaps not in a way that serves conservation on the ground best. At the same time quite a lot of new jobs are fixed term contracts where funding for a project will already be in place – sensible for the organization if not so good for the people recruited.
It seems to me that some good people have left the RSPB in recent years, which is a worry. More seem set to go now of course. It would be sensible to try and keep the best, and ones who deliver tangible conservation results rather than tick boxes. And if RSPB is abandoning education on reserves that is indeed a tragedy.
Friendly chats with grouse moor owners FFS we tried talking years ago, lets be blunt here, they wanted to talk almost as an end result but it achieved absolutely NOTHING. Simply because the “grouse lobby” don’t want to change, under it seems, any circumstances, I think that is still true for many if not most of them. Tackling Wildlife crime associated with driven shooting of grouse, pheasants and partridges will only be successful with continued pressure AND changes in the law. Personally I’d ban ALL DRIVEN shooting and almost all releases of pheasants and RL partridges. If RSPB go soft on this one they can count me out.
There has been massive changes in the way sporting estates are run.
Raptor persecution cases have dropped dramatically,
As acknowledged by the police.
Those same keepers you vilify were the ones who rushed to help put out wildfires on the rspb reserves.
I don’t think it is too difficult to see what has happened. Five years ago, in 2019, there was a big restructure called Structural Effectiveness which was supposed to put the RSPB on a sound financial footing for the future. From recollection over 250 staff left the organisation through a combination of redundancy and finding new roles elsewhere. I was one of them!
The narrative being given about this current restructure is that income has been growing but not fast enough to keep up with the growth in costs. The statistics being quoted are that it took £150 million to deliver the RSPB’s work two years ago. Today that same work will cost £165 million, a 10% cost rise.
However, it seems to me that this narrative is somewhat misleading.
If you look through the annual reports (freely accessible on the RSPB’s website) you can see that between 2019 and 2023, the average number of staff increased from 2139 to 2406 – an increase of 267. So, over the past five years, head count has been allowed to grow back to the level before Structural Effectiveness – the last big restructure.
As employing people is expensive, the salary bill (excluding NI & Pension contributions) also increased from £48.596m to £65.296m – an increase of £16.7m.
As well as the increase in the number of staff, it also looks as though average salaries have increased from £22,719 in 2019 to £27,138 in 2022 – an increase of nearly 20%. OK, some of this will be a result of annual increments and some of the increments may have been quite large due to the cost of living crisis.
However, the RSPB also seems to be employing more staff in higher salary brackets – the number of staff earning in excess of £60,000 pa has increased from 27 in 2019 to 38 in 2023. Even the CEOs salary appears to have moved from the £120,000 – £130,000 bad to the £160,000 – £170,000 band – Beccy Speight might be earning as much as Sue Gray and more than the Prime Minister!
My reading of the situation is that the financial resilience that was supposed to have been provided by the 2019 restructure was abandoned by an incoming, new CEO and a combination of unpredictable events (COVID, Ukraine, Truss’s mini-budget) has resulted in this current financial crisis.
What I find particularly sad is that it is the hard-working reserves staff who are bearing the brunt of this mismanagement. These are the folk who are out in all weathers managing habitats, engaging with visitors and being the public face of the RSPB and giving school children wonderful wildlife experiences which might stick with them for the rest of their lives and inspire them into a career in nature conservation.
Thanks Rob – and yet last year there was a v small excess of spend over income. So what has happened since?
Your last paragraph is the very reason I ceased my volunteering role after 14 years helping those very people who in my opinion are the backbone of any reserve.
It not just the RSPB. I’ve heard other conservation NGOs (and other NGOs) struggling too. There are more charities/groups fighting over less funding/grants. I was working for a small charity and we got funding turned down for projects the funders said would have been funded, but there were bigger priorities being matched by other grant proposals.
Couple this with increasing costs of materials, fuel and contractors etc, staff costs increasing to keep up with inflation, which adds to losses under Covid restrictions (and increased costs in this time from extra use and idiots destroying stuff), and I dare say some folk spending less in cafes/shops and reducing/cancelling memberships as the cost of living increases, its not surprising they are struggling
Neil – it is a bit surprising if you look at their accounts as it is a while from covid, but you are right that there is a lot of competition in the conservation world. Many small conservation bodies did well during covid and continue to thrive and many large ones too. Most organisations fail, or falter, because they made poor decisions (or unlucky ones).
This is upsetting and alarming news. I’m enormously fond of the RSPB and personally very grateful for their wonderful support of projects I’ve been involved in, but feel that it’s an organisation that needs to start running just to keep in the same place far less expand. Love it as I do it frustrates the hell out of me. I know they have a policy of NOT highlighting raptor persecution in general on their stalls at open events because it’s felt to be too ‘strong’ an issue for the public – I couldn’t disagree more with that. I struggle to think of anything that shows how arrogant and ridiculous humanity’s approach to nature is than the illegal killing of some birds so other ones can be shot for fun. It’s like having a howitzer, but putting it aside to use a pea shooter instead.
Even worse is that at an nature event in a deprived, lower income area run by friends and I the RSPB staffer who had came along to help (a fantastic bloke and just a part of the wonderful support we received from the organisation) told me that it liked to be “invited in” by such local communities rather than approach them directly. Well meant, but I was appalled at this. I grew up in such an area and know that more ignorance and apathy towards nature by adults meant less chance children would have their eyes opened to it therefore the greater need for conservation organisations to compensate by being proactive. The RSPB’s strategy is exactly opposite what it should be in waiting for an invite that will probably never come while the children’s interests gets appropriated by vandalism and anti social behaviour instead thanks to the wrong type of ‘peers’. Vicious cycles of ignorance and apathy won’t be broken by hand wringing over misplaced concerns about supposedly ‘imposing’ yourself on communities when you’re actually just doing your job.
I know these are unlikely to be directly relevant to the RSPB’s current problems, but it doesn’t help if you’re not broadening your appeal and relevance to more people and thereby boosting membership. donations, grants and sponsorship opportunities. I’m not sure twee ness helps either ‘Nature’s Home’ and ‘Vote for Bob’ among others make me cringe to the point of reaching for the puke bucket. There is a point where the saccharin and hyper inoffensiveness are counter productive.
Re the latter imagine if the RSPB went full tilt spreading the word about how eco-restoration in our more upland areas wouldn’t just help wildlife, but also dramatically reduce the flooding of homes, businesses and the better quality farmland (i.e that which actually produces decent amounts of food) lower down? Reigning themselves in to keep in with vocal, vested interests to the point where others are excluded from what they need and are entitled to know is hardly democratic and isn’t going to get you real friends in the long run. I really hope it gets itself out of a hole it’s bad enough the John Muir Trust has hit big problems too – https://www.scotsman.com/hays-way/scottish-land-charity-report-john-muir-trust-conservation-4782814
I believe costs have risen far more than income. Naturally everything has to be paid for. If you are an RSPB volunteer you can see many of the docs about the process. Would people rather no action was taken and the organisation goes bankrupt? What a disaster that would be. It’s easy to snipe from outside.
From what I have read of their docs the proposals seem sad but reasonable in the circumstances. It’s a pity but an organisation has to live within it’s income. (BTW I don’t work for the RSPB, though I am some sort of volunteer.)
That’s interesting MP. I’m a Life Fellow. Can the members see the docs? They were quite cagy when I rang the Lodge to express my concern when I heard the rumours.
Of course the RSPB needs to live within its means. The debate is about how it spends its money – see Rob Lucking’s comment above – and future direction. How about this for a legacy advert : “Want to leave your money to a charity that sells its nature reserves? Look no further than the RSPB”.
I love the RSPB. I give them quite a bit of money each year. I don’t think wanting to know what’s going on is “sniping from outside”. This sounds like a major change and one the members should have a say on, not be asked to approve after it has happened.
The first thing in all failing organisations is to check whether it is top-heavy; is it over-administered, are there projects that achieve little on the ground but make management feel good, etc?
For those with long memories there was an ex-boss of ICI, John Harvey-Jones who turned round businesses on television. He was a no-nonsense, knife wielding, down-to-earth chap and much admired. Businesses today should stop pussyfooting around problems and say how it is. I look forward to a report on the AGM when people with balls ask the difficult questions.
Austringer – the format of the online AGMs has not really allowed questions from known people answered individually. It’s most unsatisfactory.
Top heavy? Maybe. I know at least two Directorates which now have two deputy directors, including Mark’s old Conservation directorate. If you look at the growth in the number of people earning £60k plus, it does suggest an element of topheavyness.
I was interested by Mark’s suggestion that the individual nominated as prospective chair might be a ‘parachute’ candidate.
Does ‘parachuting’ also apply to the three other council nominees, none of whom seems to have a professional background in nature conservation?
Intriguingly, three of the four nominees (including Sir Andrew) are/have been trustees of Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and two are/have been trustees of WWF UK.
Talk about ‘old pals’. Is this what is meant by ‘diversity’?
I wonder who interviewed them before the nominations were made. Might one of the panel have been the chief executive?
I asked the RSPB for clarification on the nomination process, and they insisted that vacancies were all advertised both on their website and externally.
James – I had noticed that too. Seems odd to me as well.
If you look through the current trustees, only one appears to have a professional background in nature conservation. Yes, you need a diversity of skills and experiences on council but the apparent lack of conservation expertise amongst the trustees is a bit concerning.
I’m really glad this is getting some notice.
I left the RSPB in April this year, having served as Learning Officer for 4 years and having been with the RSPB as staff and volunteer since 2016.
It was clear to myself and colleagues for some time that the RSPB was turning it’s back on education, and how we were treated and how things were communicated to us around the changes was shocking- in any other industry there would have been strike action.
At the end of the day, the RSPB completely canning it’s educational offer and making Learning staff redundant is going to harm the charity in the long run, as children and young people won’t get to experience the amazing wildlife on the reserves. Its a decision that was made with zero input from those of us doing the job, they simply didn’t care about us
josh – thank you for your first comment here and i wish you well for the future.
Thank you Mark. I was fortunate to find another job before redundancies were announced, but it still smarts to see mine and others efforts over the years count for nothing
I was thinking of joining the RSPB to help the bird population as I love all nature. But before I did, I wanted to see where the money is spent.
Unfortunately like a lot of so called ‘charities’, it appears far to much money is going into people’s pockets. My view is that if you work for a charity it should be a calling and you should do it for as little as possible/as you can afford.
Salaries of over £60K are exorbitant for a charity and should not be allowed.
Now I know some will say you get what you pay for, etc etc. But having run two successful companies myself I know in most businesses there is a lot of ‘deadwood’ that do as little as possible for as much as possible.
There are also a lot of good retired successful people out there who, with a bit of persuading, would be willing to help.
I learned today that two thirds of reserve staff on every manned reserve will be made redundant. That came from ******* (unofficially).
Clare – that would be momentous so I wonder whether it is true since the official RSPB line seems to be ‘nothing too much to see here’. I’d expect this to be mentioned at the AGM on Saturday but we’ll have to see.
It came from a volunteer at the flagship reserve I apparently can’t mention.
It`s not true
Have you fired in a question or two, Mark?
If so, any chance of a sneak preview?
Unfortunately, experience of past annual meetings is that speechifying by the high-ups (plus a couple of videos) fills up most of the morning, and only a relatively small number of questions are answered.
It always seems very rehearsed – and somewhat hollow.
James – no I haven’t tabled a question as they don’t seem to work very well.
The online AGM seems a rather hollowed out affair – but let’s see what this one is like.
The test of the RSPB is what they say to their members – I’ll be listening carefully.
M
I’ve found out that the Wilowl Trust’s AGM later in November 2024 is going to be an online only AGzM for the first time. Is this the start of online charity AGM’s for the future. I certainly hope not
I was fortunate enough to spend almost twenty years at The Lodge as part of the team of land agents, ecologists and site managers, acquiring new and extended reserves across the UK, therefore “Upsetting and alarming news” is putting it mildly. The idea of selling off any RSPB reserve land fills me with horror and dread for the future of the Society. It would be the start of a slippery slope into oblivion.
But what can we, as members or fellows, do about it?
Will the AGM give anything away?
It’s so sad that reserves no longer receive the attention they deserve in the Magazine. And why are there no longer any public land purchase appeals, which always generated so much member interest, other than some online appeals?
Yet Impact magazine which goes out to donors and potential donors, is full of good news reserves stories. Not long ago it was still mentioning the target of doubling land holdings by 2030. Can we remind the Society of that promise?
Maybe the Society is too top heavy, maybe salaries are too high, maybe staff numbers have crept up again and so another review should take place, but please do not sell any land.
And by the way, is it possible to cut out working from home now. It cannot be anything like as productive as having constant interaction between staff, teams, etc, in a busy head office environment.
Geoffrey, I think quite a lot of like-minded members had made their feelings known and what the consequences for RSPB would be. At the AGM the Chairman, Treasurer and CEO said about ten times more about the reserves (and their importance) than is in the annual report! I listened very carefully. I think and hope that selling is now off the agenda. As far as land is concerned, all the talk was of future acquisitions. No doubt Mark will be letting us have his take on what was said.
Bob – I noticed the step-change in mentions of nature reserves too. I’ll make some comments here, probably Tuesday.
Geoffrey – hi! I hope you are well. I miss land purchase appeals too – and the RSPB misses my money as a result.
I looked at the online accounts on the RSPB website, and noticed the shortfall in the funding of RSPB staff pensions which, over 2 years, totalled about £15 million pounds. Could this shortfall result from having to pay the Final Salary Pension Scheme that the RSPB could have closed much earlier than they did? I also noticed an increased number of senior staff (& on higher salaries) over the last 2 years. Is this where the money is going?
Maybe there are other issues in the mix too?
As another ex-long time RSPB staffer, who still has friends in the organisation, I sense an RSPB that increasingly ranked a technocratic management style above all else.
Efficiency is king in this mode – trading off all other values. ( Sounds a bit like the on-line AGMs?).
Surely impact is won by a practice that blends community & spirit with sound financial management?
Has the RSPBs soul been sold or nurtured?
I visited Rainham Marshes this summer and was saddened by the state of parts of the reserve. Along the north side is a boardwalk which is one of the glories of the reserve, running through reedbeds and giving unrivalled closeups of summer visitors. Sadly, this is now closed in a state of extreme disrepair, and the path has been rerouted though a long and uninteresting roadway. If essential maintenance cannot be carried out, then members will be discouraged from visiting affected reserves,
Not having been able to attend the AGM, I was wondering whether there were any news/developments arising regarding the cuts?
From Romford Recorder 22/10/24. They’d previously been told by the RSPB that the visitor centre was safe. https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/24670334.rspb-rainham-marshes-cuts-plans-include-shop-cafe-axe/
I believe there is a ” staff meeting ” at the Loch Leven/Vane Farm Nature Reserve site on Thursday (according to the website for this centre ). Within the context of the above, this looks ominous. The CEO appears to me to be on an excessive salary.
Whilst I have nothing to add in terms of what may or may not be coming up – as a volunteer I’ve seen the results of the hard work & effort that have gone into my local reserve. This hard work has come both from the unpaid volunteers & low paid reserve staff. I say low paid – what there seems to be precious little regard for is that the staff have chosen to work for the RSPB bringing skills & experience that would be paid at a much higher rate outside the charity. They have chosen to do so at a cost to their & their families living standards in order to benefit nature in those local areas.
I do not know if the reserve I volunteer at will be sold off – what I do know is that it wasn’t here 30 years ago & the impact on the local area (& to those both locally & who come from miles around) will be massive. It provides an immeasurable increase in biodiversity & species density. Without it, this will be lost.
I worry that what we’re seeing here is the RSPB being changed from a charity that generates income & results locally to one which generates income as a “brand”. The beneficiaries of which I will not detail here but you can be sure they will be vastly different.
As such, I fear it will loose its relevance & special place both the volunteers & the wider public.
I have been an RSPB member since young when I first volunteered in 1980’s. I have noticed things changing but I was shocked to learn in Private Eye Magazine that the RSPB have begun, in July, a pre-planning application process for 12 homes, a business courtyard and parking on its Winterbourne Down reserve in Wiltshire. When I heard about this I looked up Beccy Speight’s salary, can it really be over £180,000 per annum and reported to be over £190,000. When I worked all week and dashed to the reserve to man the desk early on a Saturday morning I was on a pittance as a low life with the local council. Don’t most members and volunteers want to see some element of heart and soul from the people at the top. Beccy is earning our joint annual membership x10 every day! Of course she needs to live but Wow! If they sell off Reserves and get rid of hard working staff I will not feel the need to be a member any more. The RSPB was in my will and I was looking forward to volunteering more again when I retire but now I am looking elsewhere for where my money will be used for the wildlife, the whole point of my original involvement. I cannot believe that this organisation that has been part of my whole life has come to this and I cannot support such money grabbing behaviour when there are so many young and capable people who would do so much better on a decent rather than excessive salary whilst showing more enthusiasm and commitment.
My old reserve RSPB Strumpshaw had the all staff meeting on Thursday to find out the ” reorganisation plans” and who were likely to have redundancy forced upon them.
It seems there was a training session (30mins) for site managers and a points system of 20 questions on the wardens affected abilities and their effectiveness in conservation issues on the reserve. A long standing warden of 20years hasn’t reached the stated level and is now going through the consultation period for redundancy. I’m so glad I’m not longer volunteering for the RSPB and having to watch these people suffer at the hands of financial despots