RSPB replies to my open letter (1)

I recently wrote to the RSPB’s new Chair of Council, Sir Andrew Cahn, with a list of 10 questions about what the RSPB is up to these days – click here. I received a response on Friday and here I post the RSPB’s answers to the first four of my questions with more to follow tomorrow and Thursday in order to do justice to Sir Andrew’s response.

I am grateful to Sir Andrew for his pretty rapid, open and fairly detailed response. It is a good and rather classy response. There are bits of it that please me a lot, and bits that I don’t agree with so much, but such is life. I don’t need to agree with the RSPB on everything to support it like I don’t need to agree with the Labour Party on everything (and rarely do) to be a member and I don’t need to agree with Chris Packham on everything to be mates with him.

Sir Andrew’s response makes me feel better about the RSPB so it was worth it for me to write, and (since I really am revising my will) it may well have been worth it to the RSPB for Sir Andrew to reply like this. I hope you will find the RSPB response interesting and useful to you.

 

So, here we go with the first four questions, Sir Andrew’s (ie the RSPB’s) responses and my thoughts on the responses.

Dear Sir Andrew,

Congratulations on becoming Chair of RSPB Council, although I have to say that at the online AGM I voted against your appointment, not because I have anything against you personally but because I know practically nothing about you but I didn’t much like the look of your provenance. You appear to be a very establishment figure (from the information above) and that’s the very last thing the RSPB needs from its leadership (IMHO). Your WWF background is particularly unsuited to a land-owning and land-managing conservation body like the RSPB, and WWF is far too close to some rather nasty industries to my mind. But I hope you’ll be brilliant as RSPB Chair as the RSPB is becalmed in the doldrums right now.

I can’t imagine you know any more about me than I know about you so a few words of introduction. I’m an RSPB Life Member (although they are called Life Fellows which seems both pretentious and a tad gender-biased for these days) and I first joined the RSPB as a YOC member in c1970. I worked for the RSPB from 1986-2011 with the latter half of that period as conservation director. I write a blog (on which this letter to you will be posted, along with your reply), have written several books (my book Fighting for Birds (2012) will tell you more about the RSPB in the 1980s-2011 than most current staff could tell you) and my book Reflections (2023) is pretty complimentary about the RSPB and sets out my thoughts on the state of UK nature conservation. I am a founder and co-director of the campaigning organisation Wild Justice.

Enough about me, except to say that I am, I really am (I’m not just saying it), about to review my will and I will be considering charitable donations. My mother passed away this spring and I’ve inherited some money, some of which has already gone to local charities, national Alzheimer’s charities and one UK conservation charity (not RSPB) so this is your chance to impress me by your response to this missive.

By the way, I’ve seen some of the responses that others have received from you and heard how the recipients felt about them. It’s unclear whether you have  seen, let alone approved, the responses sent out. Maybe the RSPB could invest in an email address so that your name is attached to responses so that it is clear that you must take responsibility for their content? In the absence of such a technological fix, perhaps you might have a line in the response to this email which says something along the lines of ‘Sir Andrew has seen and approved this response’?

I’m not going to ask about the financial review being carried out, primarily but not exclusively involving expenditure on nature reserves, as I’m sure you already appreciate that a great number of RSPB members and supporters will be watching with great interest and current anxiety to see how that plays out.

Thank you for your letter and your congratulations on my appointment.

Despite your initial misgivings I do hope that over the course of my tenure you will see my appointment as a good decision. I have a love for wildlife and wild places and am keenly aware that the nature crisis alongside climate change is one of the biggest threats to our future. In terms of my suitability, admittedly I’m not a birder nor a career conservationist but I do think that my experience with big, complex organisations, past work on agricultural policy in Government and time with other major charities means that I have a lot to contribute to the organisation and the wider debate. We need both the public and private sectors to significantly up their contribution to nature recovery, if we have any hope of turning this crisis around. And I think I can play a part.

I am only a few weeks into the new role of course and still very much in the learning phase. Many of the issues you raise, as you know, are the responsibility of the Executive Team, so I have had some help from RSPB colleagues with the answers to your questions below.

Here are my questions.  I’ve limited them to 10 (although some have multiple parts).

1. When was the last time you were at the RSPB’s HQ, The Lodge? What are the plans for the complex there, buildings, gardens and the SSSI?

I last visited the Lodge in late October and amongst other things, I was there to get an update on the future of the site. The nature reserve is doing really well, continues to grow and I am pleased to say that we will be there for the foreseeable future. We have a long-term agreement with CEMEX, where we take on management of sections of the neighbouring quarry site as CEMEX finishes with them. All told it’s going to be the largest heathland restoration in the south-east. There have been breeding Nightjar in recent years, the odd Dartford Warbler appearing (hopefully one day actually colonising) and the introduction of ponies for some of the year has helped with heathland maintenance.

The building and garden complex is less straightforward. Since the pandemic, and our move to hybrid working, it’s not being used by staff on the same scale or in the same way as before. It is actively used as a place for meetings, workshops and collaboration and there are some teams such as IT, Conservation Data, Legal and Supporter Services who still use the site as an office base, but we’ve had to close some of the unused buildings in the face of rising utility costs. The longer-term future for these buildings is under review but I don’t expect to see any major changes in the short term.  But clearly, we recognise that things can’t remain as they currently are into the long term.

All of that sounds sensible and it illustrates the difficulties of deciding on the future of some sites. This is an iconic address and for all the time I have known the RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Beds has been its HQ. It doesn’t have to stay like that, after all, who is grieving over the move of the RSPB from near Victoria Coach Station to the current location in the early 1960s? No one, and the move was needed for expansion and now there may well be need for retraction – through a changing world but also through decisions already made on hybrid or home working.

This site is an asset and a liability. It has a listed building, listed gardens and an SSSI attached and all of that would be very attractive to many buyers so close to a railway station with a train into London at 40mins distance (on a good day). But many buyers wouldn’t want a lot of office space or the staff canteen or such a large car park at the end of the narrow drive. Deciding what to do will be much more difficult than closing some retail outlets (and yes, there is one of them at the top of the driveway too).

Hardly anyone now working at The Lodge, and possibly not Sir Andrew will have a copy of John Gooders’s Where to Watch Birds, published 1967, but I do and my first visit to the site was as a schoolboy in 1970 I guess. The book lists Nightjar, Redstart, Tree Pipit, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker and Woodcock as present in summer. As a staff member I only saw Woodcock in the 25 years I was based at the Lodge and I’m not sure they are still there. I’m glad the Nightjars are back and I have seen Dartford Warbler there too – signs of changing times.

2. Does the RSPB intend to add an in-person AGM to the online version for 2025? I think you should.

We don’t. By the time the pandemic hit, numbers attending the in-person AGMs had declined and the lockdown restrictions gave us a chance to try a different model of event. I appreciate it’s not everyone’s cup of tea but the feedback we have had from the majority of attending members (an increase on the numbers that attended the in-person event) has been overwhelmingly positive (89% from the 2023 event), both in terms of the format and the ease of attending for those from a far wider geographic area. And it’s also saving us money. Could it be improved? Absolutely, and we will continue to evolve the format. For example, I think that we could probably do more to use it to highlight our conservation successes and challenges and the Q&A section with Board members could be longer and more in depth, but the online version is here to stay for now.

Clear answer – I like the firm ‘We don’t’ at the beginning. Can’t get clearer than that. Although I think for a variety of reasons (see here) it is the wrong answer. I think RSPB staff are losing touch with each other and also they are losing touch with the membership. There is nothing like putting on your suit and talking to loads of people you’ve never met before about the work of your organisation to make you realise where the money comes from and that it is real people who fund it. That applies to the newest Council member, the newest member of staff in Information Technology based at The Lodge and the most cynical long term reserve staff from the north of Scotland being dragged down south to do their bit. It’s not all about money it’s about team spirit and empathy, and I’d say that for the staff attending those few hours of contact time were worth 10 training courses. Call me a sentimental old softie if you like (though I rarely have been before!) but the RSPB has to watch out for whether it treats everyone as a number, as a cash cow, as a potential legacy or as a person. But we’re not going to fall out over this either. I was thinking about complaining to the Charity Commission about the loss of an in-person AGM but Sir Andrew has been so helpful and charming (and it would have been a fruitless complaint I’m sure) that I won’t do that now.

3. Will the RSPB publish its response to the NPPF consultation on its website? Or will you provide full copies of the response to that and other consultations in the four UK nations to members on request? I’d like to see what RSPB says to government and decide whether or not I agree with it (I’m expecting that I will, but I’d like to be sure).

We don’t usually publish detailed consultation responses on our website as they already go into the public domain as part of the Government’s consultation process, but I have attached a copy for you. There is a summary in the document, but long story short, there is some good stuff in the proposals but also some that we have challenged. Overall, it fails to ensure the nature-friendly planning system that we need. That said, this is an interim consultation. There will be a more substantial one coming in the spring where I understand the team have been working hard to advocate for nature-friendly policy measures and we are hopeful that the revised documents will be improved. We shall see.

That’s fair enough too, and thank you for saying that you have sent me the response (except that doesn’t seem to have happened!).

Every consultation is an interim consultation in some way and I think the words you have been given to send me underplay the importance of the NPPF consultation. The speed with which it was produced by the new government and the importance that new government attaches to a major building programme suggests that this is a highly significant moment. Be that as it may, when a conservation charity attempts to influence government policy then it is using the financial support of its membership to seek that influence, and will be mentioning the large size of its membership or supporter base as added reason why its views should be noted by government. 

The RSPB and other large NGOs never really tell the membership or public what line they are taking on consultations, and they never have, but the more I think about it, the stranger that seems. It’s your job to tell me what you think, not my job to seek it out on a government website when I don’t know to which consultations the organisation has responded. I have thought about it a bit as the tiny organisation of which I am a co-founder and co-director, Wild Justice does publish its responses (here is our response to the NPPF, and we have published simple versions of many responses to other consultations prior to the closing of the consultation with the aim of inspiring our supporters to respond to the consultation as individuals). It’s not difficult to empower supporters to act for wildlife conservation if they are cause-led supporters.

I can see why organisations such as RSPB (the RSPB is not unusual in this regard) might not be keen on publishing their consultation responses – they are unlikely to be 100% agreed by 100% of a large membership but that is an argument of convenience not transparency. When dealing in public policy, charities should be obliged to make their views available to the supporters who have funded those views being formulated and to the public whose lives may be affected by the success or otherwise of the charities’ submissions.

What the RSPB said about the NPPF at the online AGM (through choice) was very uninformative and that partly prompted the question. Of course if it had been an in-person AGM then I could have sought out a member of staff who could tell me a bit more, and I might have gone away feeling much better about it.

There may not be many people who would compare what the Wildlife Trusts, RSPB, Woodland Trust and National Trust say about the English planning system but all should have the opportunity. I might find a bunch of howlers or things that prove to me that the RSPB has become a nest of communists if I could see the response. I’d be very surprised if any Council member knows what the RSPB said on the NPPF but of course I might be wrong. 

Sir Andrew, you haven’t convinced me at all on this one. All charities talk about transparency and usually are led by the Charity Commission to be transparent about money but that should be extended to transparency about views.

As a conservation investor, if I find that the RSPB is talking rubbish with my money then I’ll make my conservation investment somewhere else. But if I am delighted by what the RSPB is saying then I may increase my investment.

4. What plans does the RSPB have to row back on its sales of bird food? I ask because I think there is sufficient evidence for harm from disease transmission at bird feeders (and distortion of ecological balance) to warrant a change of RSPB position. If you don’t agree then please put me right on the science. If I spend £20 on bird food, how much of that is profit which can be spent on proper nature conservation – would £2 be a good guess?

This is a serious question and one that also concerns us. Whilst there are studies showing the benefits of supplemental food for some species through improving survival during cold weather and, for species such as House Sparrow, better breeding success, there is mixed evidence and understandable increasing public concerns about the potential negative effects. These effects include an increased risk of disease transmission from visiting dirty or certain types of feeders, especially for finches, and the potential for some specialist species to be outcompeted for nest sites or possibly food by more dominant generalist species.  

Our scientists are currently reviewing the latest available scientific literature on the pros and cons of supplementary garden bird feeding and are conducting field tests for a peer reviewed study. Once concluded this will directly inform an update of the RSPB’s position and practice whilst also highlighting areas where further study is needed. Our teams in Conservation Science and Commercial are working together closely on this. From feedback on the review so far, we are anticipating that our current advice will change, as will some of the products we sell in the first half of 2025.

Sir Andrew, these are all serious questions!  And this is a seriously poor answer. The concerns about the impacts of bird feeding on birds are public concerns in that they are publicly voiced and in the public domain, but they do not only come from the general public, they come from serious ornithologists on this side of the Atlantic and the other. RSPB ought to have reviewed the evidence ages ago and already formed a view – it’s just reading and thinking after all. 

Instead, the response you have been given to pass on to me sounds like a government department playing for time or a vested interest calling for proof when there already is enough evidence on which to act. Of course, the danger is that people may think that the RSPB is acting as just that, a vested interest, because of your sales of bird feed.

Your answer does not say ‘We’ve looked at this and are sure there is nothing to worry about’ because that would be a very difficult position to defend. Nor does it say ‘We’ve looked at this and have already acted in a precautionary way’ because the RSPB hasn’t. It says, in essence, ‘We’re looking at it now’ which suffers from the problem that this issue has been sufficiently known that RSPB (and BTO) ought to have looked at it earlier.

Why has RSPB not already come to a view, perhaps a provisional view? Has the RSPB not come to a view because it is slow on the uptake? That’s not a good position to be in when every week I seem to get communications from RSPB offering me bird food. Or has the RSPB not come to a view because there is an internal tension between fears over impacts on birds and the income which selling bird food and fuelling a potential problem might cause? That’s not a good position either. Only if you believe that the RSPB has moved quickly and decisively to review this matter is the RSPB in a good position, and you don’t say that in your response and if you had I would disagree with you.

The RSPB needs to come off the fence and should already be on one side or the other. Maybe you might enquire why that hasn’t happened? I’ll watch developments with keen interest.

Sir Andrew, thank you for replying. I’ll be back with your other six answers later this week (on Wednesday and Thursday). Tomorrow I will cover your responses to questions 5 and 6 where we disagree a lot on question 5 and agree quite a lot on question 6, and then on Thurday I will address tour responses to questions 7-10.

Thank you again.

 

 

 

[registration_form]