Funding

Yesterday we heard the sad news that The Grassland Trust has been forced to go into liquidation due a collapse in funding and they are unable to secure match funding to allow the charity to continue, even despite a programme of cost cutting.  This is the second small charity providing vital support to a specialised area to go under, the first being FWAG earlier this year (and FWAG Scotland last year too).  On the same day I read in the Shooting Times that the RSPCA and RSPB  "Between them have an annual income of around £240million (Charity Commission Annual Accounts) and spend an average of £19 million per year on media activity".   The same article also claimed that "In 2011, the RSPB received £27million in grants.". That's a awful lot of membership fees and coffee mornings being spent on publicity.

There seems to be a huge imbalance here.

Is there no way the larger charities can somehow help out the smaller ones?  Not necessarily with cash but what about offering (more) assistance with staff and access to expertise. I'm not suggesting that where there is direct competition for funding one organisation steps back to let the other have a free run but isn't there room for co-operation? Surely an organisation that is spending millions on publicity would be able to offer pointers to a smaller struggling group after all we're all fighting for the same cause aren't we?  To secure a long term, healthy, sustainable future for the British countryside and its wildlife.

Funnily enough the ST article was making a similar plea to the fieldsports organisations, well known for bickering amongst themselves, to work together and share expertise.

PS: The ST article makes no mention of other big countryside conservation charities such as the National Trust; I'm assuming they picked RSPCA and RSPB because they are seen as diametrically opposed to commonly held shooting opinions - now that's one for another day!