I've been nudged towards Mark Avery's blog which I didn't know about, but, then, I suppose he knows even less about me. Avery is an Ex-RSBP Director of Conservation, and much more.
I was struck by the following passage, which is part of a posting about the plethora of Wildlife NGOs:
If there are too many wildlife NGOs (as I believe, and as some of you believe) then how will mergers or closer working come about?
There are four major stakeholders involved: the senior staff in the NGOs, their trustees and their members – oh yes, and the Nature whose conservation we all want. But Nature doesn’t have a voice and so one or more of the other three need to speak up for Nature. However, it is worth mentioning Nature because that should be a beneficiary of the decisions of the other three players. ...
This caught my eye because of its narrow view, and what I see as a missing stakeholder set. That is, all those people who are neither staff (junior as well as senior), trustees, nor members; that is, everyone else. From some NGO points of view, looking quite narrowly, that might be everyone in a town or a county. However, if the NGO has a sustainability-focused vision that views matters much more broadly, or even holistically, it's likely to be everyone else – all of humanity, including the unborn and unbegot. We do all have a very personal stake in this world.
How myopic; how revealing.
Respond