Funding again

Following yesterday's posting there have been some serious discussions. 
One quite controversial but valid point was that perhaps there are too many smaller conservation organisations and to lose one or two might be no bad thing.  Too many small groups can dilute the message and work done, not to mention spreading the funding thinly, each group requiring their own offices, admin, marketing etc.
Opposing that was the argument that small groups are highly focused are can throw the spotlight onto their cause bringing an overlooked area to the fore. There was the feeling that larger organisations can become too big and wrapped up their own importance which can lead to them becoming irrelevant or even exerting too great an influence on discussions (last year's forest sell off, this year's badger cull etc) by being big enough to shout louder than other groups.  Smaller organisations may have a huge wealth of expertise and knowledge but without a higher profile that knowledge may not be available because those who need or can use that information are unaware of the groups existence.  And when it comes to those big discussions smaller groups can be drowned out by larger groups simply because the larger organisation is more well known and has the skills / funds to be seen and heard.
We went round in circles and didn't reach any conclusion, so one or two large groups or lots of smaller ones maybe with a high level of co-operation and resource sharing?

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!