natural history societies and recording schemes in the uk: natural
TRANSCRIPT
Natural history societies and recording schemes in the UK: Natural history societies and recording schemes in the UK: A consultation into the factors that limit their functioning and development
A consultation into the factors that limit their functioning and development Written by James Hindson and Lucy Carter Written by James Hindson and Lucy Carter
1 SHROPSHIRE
Contents Introduction 3 The purpose of this study 3 Defining a natural history society 4 Data collection 4 The current state of natural history groups in the UK 5
- size of the group 5 - how active are the members? 5 - age of members 6 - gender ratio 6 - growth or decline of membership 6 - recruitment methods 7 - income and finances 7 - staff and volunteers 8 - aspirations 8
SWOT analysis 9
- strengths 9 - weaknesses 10 - opportunities 11 - threats 12
The key factors limiting the work of natural history groups 13 Top 10 support measures requested by natural history groups 15 Consultant’s recommendations to OPAL 17 OPAL’s programme of support 19 The Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity 20 Contact us 20
2
Introduction
In 2009, the Natural History Museum and OPAL (Open Air Laboratories network) commissioned a consultation and research programme to identify the key factors limiting the operation and development of natural history societies and recording schemes in the UK, as perceived by natural history society committee members. The research was carried out by an independent consultant, James Hindson, working with the Shropshire and Sheffield Wildlife Trusts, and supported by a research assistant, Jie Zheng. This report summarises the main findings of the consultation. The purpose of this study OPAL is an exciting initiative aiming to inspire discovery and celebration of the natural world. Funded by the Big Lottery Fund, OPAL comprises a partnership of 15 organisations including the Natural History Museum (NHM), Field Studies Council, National Biodiversity Network, Met Office, Royal Parks, Imperial College London and nine universities spread across each region of England. Between 2008 and 2012, the partners are running a wide range of participative programmes including local outreach projects and national surveys to encourage people of all ages and from all backgrounds to get back in touch with nature. Through these programmes OPAL is enabling them to explore, study and learn about their local environments. OPAL aims to bring scientists, ‘amateur-experts’ and the public closer together, and is working with a wide range of community groups and voluntary networks to engage the public with nature, whilst generating valuable scientific data on the state of our environment. As part of OPAL, the Natural History Museum is running a dedicated and well-resourced programme of support to promote and enhance the vital role that natural history societies and recording schemes play in developing the understanding and conservation of UK biodiversity, and in communicating this to the wider public. Before this programme of support began in April 2009, OPAL wished to identify the factors that were limiting the functioning and development of natural history societies in the UK. The NHM contracted James Hindson, working with the Shropshire Wildlife Trust, to undertake a consultation with natural history groups. The findings of this consultation, reported here, are being used to inform the OPAL support programme and to ensure that resources are channelled towards areas of greatest need and maximum benefit. The consultants could find little or no existing research focussing specifically on natural history societies and the issues they may be facing. Much anecdotal evidence existed, but little hard fact. This consultation aimed to gather quantitative data on the current state of natural history groups and begin the process of identifying needs and opportunities, not only informing the OPAL support programme but also providing a starting point and baseline for future study.
3
Defining a ‘natural history society’ Defining a ‘natural history society’ With no definition of a ‘natural history society’ in the literature, the researchers chose to include a wide range of groups, stretching from small local groups through to large national bodies and from entry-level general interest groups to specialist recording schemes. Both biological and geological societies were included, however the research did not encompass local community groups or ‘Friends of’ groups.
With no definition of a ‘natural history society’ in the literature, the researchers chose to include a wide range of groups, stretching from small local groups through to large national bodies and from entry-level general interest groups to specialist recording schemes. Both biological and geological societies were included, however the research did not encompass local community groups or ‘Friends of’ groups. The Natural History Museum’s Nature Societies Online website was used as the starting point for identifying and contacting natural history groups in the UK. The Natural History Museum’s Nature Societies Online website was used as the starting point for identifying and contacting natural history groups in the UK. Visit the Nature Societies Online website
Visit the Nature Societies Online website It was recognised that groups of different sizes, focuses or aims may have very different needs and limitations, so as well as looking for overall trends, the data were split into four categories for analysis. Specialist societies are ones that study a specific group of organisms, whilst generalist societies are ones concerned with a wide variety of natural history. The four categories were: National with a specialist focus, e.g. British Lichen Society National with a generalist focus, e.g. Systematics Association Local with a specialist focus, e.g. Suffolk Moth Group Local with a generalist focus, e.g. Yeovil and District Natural History Society Data collection Information was gathered from natural history groups using three methods.
1. A questionnaire was circulated to all groups in the Nature Societies Online
database, supplemented by databases provided by the Shropshire and Sheffield Wildlife Trusts. 166 completed questionnaires were received - a response rate of 19%. Whilst it is not possible to state with any certainty that the sample is representative of all natural history groups, the 166 organisations that responded include examples of almost every size, type and focus of natural history group, with good geographical coverage across Britain.
2. Three workshops were held in London, Shropshire and Sheffield. These were
attended by 47 people representing 30 organisations. In small groups, participants were asked to undertake a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis for natural history groups, and identify support measures that they would like to see developed through the OPAL programme.
3. In depth interviews were held with a number of individuals and organisations,
to get more detailed perspectives on the issues facing natural history societies.
4
The current state of natural history groups in the UK “Maybe old-fashioned natural history societies like ours, where people take part and exchange experiences out of interest in the subject, are a thing of the past?” Responses from the questionnaire survey of 166 natural history groups gave an indication of their current state in terms of membership, finances and day to day operation. In some cases the quantitative information, such as the age and sex ratio of members was estimated by respondents, therefore the following information should be interpreted with that in mind. Nine key attributes of natural history societies are described below. 1. Size of the group Figure 1 shows the distribution of membership numbers, with a peak at 100-249 members. Understandably, the national groups were on average much larger than the local ones. On a local level, generalist groups were usually much larger than specialist groups. Figure 1. Number of members in natural history groups 2. How active are the members? We asked groups to estimate what percentage of their members they considered to be ‘active’ i.e. that take part in the majority of group activities. Most groups estimated that between one third and one half of their members were active. The proportion of active members was inversely related to the size of society. Specialist societies had a higher proportion of active members than generalist societies. Figure 2. Proportion of members described as ‘active’
5
3. Age of members The survey supports the anecdotal evidence of an older membership. Overall,
ocal generalist groups had the oldest membership, with only 12% of members
inked to the issue of age is occupation. Across all types of group, an average of
n average, societies had a greater proportion of male members than female
. Growth or decline of membership
Despite anecdotal evidence for the decline of society membership, the results of
or groups that had seen a recent rise in membership numbers, two causes could
here there was a reported decline in membership, this was felt primarily by the
79% of members were aged 45 or over, and 39% were aged 65 and over. Laged under 45. In local specialist groups nearly 30% of members were aged under 45. L54% of members were retired. At a local level, generalist societies had a much higher percentage of retired members (70%) compared to specialist societies (43% retired). 4. Gender ratio O(58% to 42% respectively). The generalist groups were fairly evenly split, but specialist groups tended to be male dominated. 61% of members of local specialist groups and 70% of members of national specialist groups were male. 5
this survey show a relatively healthy situation with 81% of groups maintaining membership at the same level, or growing. It would be interesting to determine whether this also holds for the groups that did not participate in this study. Fbe identified. The first was a local high profile issue/campaign that had involved the group, the resulting publicity leading to a rise in membership. The second was where the leadership of the group had a very positive, proactive approach to growth and promotion, hence the group specifically developed programmes and activities to encourage new members. Wgeneralist groups (at a local level, 28% of generalist groups were declining compared to only 8% of specialist groups). In such cases, there was very much a feeling of it being a vicious spiral that was difficult to break free from. Fewer members bring in less income, therefore activities had to be cut back, it was harder to invest in recruitment drives and joining fees may have been increased – all of which led to further decline. The lack of ability to attract young members was also mentioned as a reason for decline.
6
6. Recruitment methods
6% of societies stated that they were seeking new members. All were welcome,
rom the detailed responses it appeared that direct methods such as word of
roups often gave conflicting opinions on the relative success of recruitment
ocieties were also asked for their opinions on why people may choose not to join
7. Income and funding
he distribution of income levels is shown in Figure 3.
igure 3. Annual income levels of natural history societies
iled responses it appeared that direct methods such as word of
roups often gave conflicting opinions on the relative success of recruitment
ocieties were also asked for their opinions on why people may choose not to join
7. Income and funding
he distribution of income levels is shown in Figure 3.
igure 3. Annual income levels of natural history societies
8but younger and more active members were particularly highlighted as priorities. Fmouth and inviting people to special events were the most successful methods of recruitment, with indirect methods such as adverts in local media less successful. A face to face approach, giving potential new members a ’taster’ of the group’s activities seemed to be very effective. A good website that is linked to other sites is also a key recruitment mechanism (mentioned by 19% of organisations).
mouth and inviting people to special events were the most successful methods of recruitment, with indirect methods such as adverts in local media less successful. A face to face approach, giving potential new members a ’taster’ of the group’s activities seemed to be very effective. A good website that is linked to other sites is also a key recruitment mechanism (mentioned by 19% of organisations). GGmethods. This may indicate that it is not just the method used but the way it was implemented that affects success rates. Leaflets can and do work – but they need to be effectively designed and given to people in the right way, at the right time and place.
methods. This may indicate that it is not just the method used but the way it was implemented that affects success rates. Leaflets can and do work – but they need to be effectively designed and given to people in the right way, at the right time and place. SStheir group. Respondents perceived that the most important barrier is a lack of time, especially for evening meetings. Other barriers to joining were a lack of interest in the focus of the society and a lack of awareness of the society. 28% of local societies felt that bigger societies offered more to people and therefore attracted members more easily.
their group. Respondents perceived that the most important barrier is a lack of time, especially for evening meetings. Other barriers to joining were a lack of interest in the focus of the society and a lack of awareness of the society. 28% of local societies felt that bigger societies offered more to people and therefore attracted members more easily.
TT FF Income % of societies Under £1,000 39% £1,001 - £5,000 28% £5,001 - £10,000 11% Over £10,000 22% As expected, the majority of groups had a relatively low income of under £5,000
he majority of income was generated through membership subscriptions and
per year. Whilst most had enough income to fund their activities, 18% of groups were running at a small deficit each year. Tpayments for one-off events. Funding for special projects primarily came from local or national grant giving bodies.
7
8. Staff and volunteers
atural history groups overwhelmingly rely on
. Aspirations
projects in mind that they would like to do, but had not yet
ses,
here is a general perception that natural history societies are somewhat under
ue to their voluntary nature, nD
volunteers to run the group and organise any activities. 85% of societies had no paid staff, and a further 5% had part-time staff only. The majority of the groups with paid staff were national organisations or county Wildlife Trusts.
ach group has a management committee with posts that must be filled each Eyear. We asked groups how easy it was to find willing volunteers to run the group. Only 6% of groups said that they found it very easy and had plenty of willing volunteers to sit on the committee and help run the society. 44% said they managed to find committee members each year but a further 49% of groups said that they found it quite difficult in some years.
9 0% of societies had7
managed. This demonstrates the enthusiasm and potential of natural history groups to expand their activities and impact, given the right support.
wide variety of potential activities were mentioned including training courApublications, habitat management and practical conservation, public outreach, fieldwork, computerising records and website improvements. The following sections give details of some of the main factors that restrict the activities of natural history groups and the interventions and support mechanisms that may help to overcome these. Tthreat from declining and ageing membership, however, the results of this survey show that it is not clear-cut. Many societies do work hard to keep going, and some are suffering from a decline in membership. However, much of the sector is thriving, and many groups are experiencing significant growth.
8
SSWOT analysis of natural history groups
and threats (SWOT nalysis) of natural history groups helps to give an overall view of the current
this topic were held during the three workshops and involved a tal of 47 people representing 30 organisations. Data have been combined and
trengths
e positive attributes of natural history groups; traits to showcase, evelop and build upon. The key strengths identified were:
WOT analysis of natural history groups
and threats (SWOT nalysis) of natural history groups helps to give an overall view of the current
this topic were held during the three workshops and involved a tal of 47 people representing 30 organisations. Data have been combined and
trengths
e positive attributes of natural history groups; traits to showcase, evelop and build upon. The key strengths identified were:
Reflecting on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities Reflecting on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities aasituation and also to look to the future. Strengths and weaknesses are internal characteristics of the organisation. Threats and opportunities are external influences. Considering these helps to put the group’s overall position into a real world context. Discussions on
situation and also to look to the future. Strengths and weaknesses are internal characteristics of the organisation. Threats and opportunities are external influences. Considering these helps to put the group’s overall position into a real world context. Discussions ontotothe key recurring themes pulled out. There were a number of comments specific to a given group and these have not been included here. Instead, this report focuses on overall characteristics applicable to a wide range of natural history groups. It should be emphasised that the bullet points in this section are the opinions and perceptions of the workshop participants, and may not be shared by all.
the key recurring themes pulled out. There were a number of comments specific to a given group and these have not been included here. Instead, this report focuses on overall characteristics applicable to a wide range of natural history groups. It should be emphasised that the bullet points in this section are the opinions and perceptions of the workshop participants, and may not be shared by all. S S Strengths are thStrengths are thdd
Knowledge and expertise of members
Enthusiasm, commitment and dedication of members to natural history
Large variety and diversity of societies
High levels of cooperation and networking between groups
Low cost, both to run and to be a member/take part
Independence (freedom to choose their own direction/focus)
Wide variety of programmes and activities run, providing opportunities to gain new knowledge, develop social networks, new skills and interests
A key strength is “the enthusiasm of members in specific
taxonomic groups – bordering on obsessions – but with lots of expertise!”
9
Weaknesses
eaknesses are areas where natural history groups are lacking, or poorly
Weaknesses
eaknesses are areas where natural history groups are lacking, or poorly WWperforming. Some may be characteristics that are very difficult to change. Others may be tackled to improve society functioning and development. The key weaknesses identified were:
performing. Some may be characteristics that are very difficult to change. Others may be tackled to improve society functioning and development. The key weaknesses identified were:
Large passive membership – many members enjoy taking part but don’t want to take on the work necessary to keep the group going. As a result, there is a reliance on a few key people to keep the group running. Administration can become a burden, making it difficult to attract new people to these roles.
Internal communication is sometimes poor. Often there is a lack of
interaction between local and national branches of a society.
Old fashioned image and an older/ageing membership. This makes it difficult to attract younger people. Programmes are not aimed at young people. The name ‘Natural History Society’ may be a barrier in itself.
Not being recognised and credited for their expertise – have an amateur
image, despite often high levels of expertise in the group.
The specialist language used by some groups makes communicating with the general public (including potential new members) a challenge. Many groups find it difficult communicating with young people.
Poor promotion, promotional materials, and websites (or none at all).
Members aren’t always interested in promoting the group – they are enjoying their pastime and don’t care if others don’t share it.
A number of societies have similar remits and there is sometimes
competition between these groups.
Personalities. Members of societies often represent themselves rather than speaking with one voice and differences of opinion can make reaching a consensus difficult.
Many societies that focus on wildlife recording are overloaded with data
“The type of person that’s a wildlife specialist isn’t necessarily much of a ‘salesperson’ to publicise the society.”
and don’t have enough time for verification and validation. Entering data onto national schemes is time consuming and feedback not always adequate.
10
Op Opportunities are current gaps
ies could exploit to gain new members and funding, or to eir activities. The opportunities identified were:
Op Opportunities are current gaps
ies could exploit to gain new members and funding, or to eir activities. The opportunities identified were:
portunities
that could be filled, or external influences and
portunities
that could be filled, or external influences and situations that societextend or enhance thsituations that societextend or enhance th
Natural history is currently extremely popular. A huge passive audience has been created through the media and programmes such as BBC SpringWatch.
Societies should be more imaginative and attract new members through
other motives such as health, recreation and hobbies (such as photography) not just natural history knowledge. There may be opportunities to involve young people though school/college coursework.
There is a large gap between the number of nature observations made and
the number of biological records uploaded to recording schemes.
Big initiatives: Societies could take advantage of larger organisations or
ies and current issues.
initiatives such as OPAL and the RSPB Garden BirdWatch through promotion on their websites, and also capitalise on big news stor
Links to current issues that are important to people should be exploited,
e.g. the relationship between natural history, wildlife recording and understanding climate change.
There is potential for increased collaboration and knowledge sharing with
other societies, to run joint events, pool resources and for reciprocal publicity.
The knowledge and expertise of society members could be promoted
much more widely.
People want qualifications or accreditation to put on their CV that will help
experience or volunteering opportunities.
“Lots of people want to get involved – they just don’t know it yet!”
them to get a job. Societies should target university biology students who are looking for work
11
Th
hr external influences or situations that may have a negative impact on atural history groups. They are factors that societies need to be aware of and lan for. The key threats identified were:
Th
hr external influences or situations that may have a negative impact on atural history groups. They are factors that societies need to be aware of and lan for. The key threats identified were:
reats
eats are
reats
eats are TTnnp p
The declining and ageing membership of societies is leading to a loss of specialist knowledge in particular areas.
Taxonomic support from organisations such as museums is declining.
People ‘taking out and not putting back in’. For example, a person might
o submit records. join a bat group, gain training and a bat licence, then leave to become an ecological consultant without continuing t
Little whole organism biology is taught in schools and universities, and
there is a lack of jobs/career structure for students who do study this.
There is little academic reputation for those involved in the work of amateur societies, and little incentive for scientists to make their work more accessible.
Despite having an interest in nature, the public want to be spoon fed
‘naturetainment’ so only want to take part if little effort is involved.
The growth in red tape and bureaucracy limits the work of natural history groups.
Child protection, and health and safety issues make fun and exciting
activities that really instil the excitement for the natural world in young people more challenging to organise.
nt economic climate, people are losing jobs and
d the most active and aluable members of groups are retired. This only becomes a weakness if the age created by the group prevents or deters a wider mix of age groups from
“In the currecutting down on perceived unnecessary expenditure. Membership of societies is likely to suffer…” Overall, the participants in these workshops identified more weaknesses than strengths. It should be noted that some weaknesses identified may actually be issues with publicity and public image, rather than inherent weaknesses. For example, age is not in itself a problem. Many UK experts anvimjoining. The weaknesses and threats listed here, combined with the questionnaire responses can be used to identify areas where natural history groups could be better supported to help improve their functioning and development.
12
The key factors limiting the work of natural history roupsg
an be identified.
uman factors - a lack of time and active members
on a voluntary basis and therefore rely on people to give their me freely. A shortage of time was mentioned by 85% of questionnaire spondents, and a lack of motivated people was mentioned by 64%. The
t the barrier of time and ommitment. Making existing activities more efficient and encouraging more
ar to year. However, the majority of societies would ke to do more and access to small funding grants would enable this. A lack of nding was identified as a limiting factor by 43% of questionnaire respondents.
ssue is a lack of audio-visual equipment for indoor meetings nd a lack of field-kit for field meetings and surveys (mentioned by 25% and 15%
h different groups and management enerally. Although very few of the questionnaire responses or workshop iscussions specifically mentioned a desire for training, it is quite clear that
t some of these needs. Suggested areas r training include effective publicity and promotion, working with young people,
In the questionnaire survey, societies were given 15 possible factors that might limit their work, development and the promotion of their group, and were asked to tick all those that apply. Their responses, combined with the weaknesses and threats listed above, can be grouped into themed categories and a number of key limitations c Grouping the limitations into themes like this helps to focus effort by highlighting quick wins, longer term aims, and problems which are very difficult to solve or are out of our hands. H The major limiting factors for societies were ones of time and energy. Most societies are run tireevident desire to do more always comes up againscmembers to play an active role are key areas for development. Although a lack of young people was also raised as a limitation, several societies recognised that the key issue was not necessarily a lack of young people, but the need for more active people of any age. A lack of funding Most societies are relatively small in terms of financial income and usually live within their means from yelifuConnected to this iaof questionnaire respondents respectively). A lack of expertise in specific areas Many of the people involved in running a society are not experts in marketing, writing grant applications, communicating witgdaccess to training or advice would meefofundraising, how to manage a society effectively, managing an ageing membership, networking and collaboration skills and running successful public
13
activities (e.g. planning a good guided walk). Training on some of these topics is already provided by organisations such as BTCV and the Environmental Trainers Network. Visit the BTCV website
activities (e.g. planning a good guided walk). Training on some of these topics is already provided by organisations such as BTCV and the Environmental Trainers Network.
Visit the BTCV website Visit the Environmental Trainers Network website Poor promotion
he questionnaire results showed that 61% of societies felt the need for better l knowledge to build websites.
his feeling was repeated during the workshops. The lack of confidence to pproach new groups of people e.g. teenagers was also mentioned.
also lack a ody that that can provide them with advice, ideas and support for collaboration, etworking, growth and development. The majority of natural history societies
ve many of them feeling isolated nd unsupported.
le and that lobbies for and protect their interests and supports eir growth and development at a national scale. OPAL should consider dopting this role, and creating a structure that would be sustainable after the end
Tpublicity materials and 17% lacked the technicaTa A lack of access to information and support The need for better access to information was raised, particularly access to online keys, scientific papers, conference announcements, etc. Societiesbnwork independently of one other, which can leaa Networking, collaboration and lobbying There is currently no organisation that can represent the views of natural history societies as a whothaof OPAL funding.
14
Top 10 support measures requested by natural history roups
atural history groups were asked to identify steps that OPAL, or other rganisations and initiatives, could take to support their work and address the
he top 10 measures requested by natural history societies in order to ir aspirations, overcome some of the barriers currently limiting their
eties Online website to enable the
. A series of one day themed activities to engage new audiences with wildlife
with one another.
inancial and in terms of design advice, to develop public-friendly
d work and taxonomy to be studied at
eties Online website.
g Noissues described above. Below are tchieve thea
activity, and begin to seize some of the opportunities identified. . A renewed and expanded Nature Soci1
public to find out about societies, with encouragement to join! This could include a map showing local events and training courses, and information on the benefits that joining a natural history group can bring.
2
and natural history societies, e.g. ‘National Find a Fungus Day’ or regional BioBlitzes.
3. A societies fair, where a wide variety of societies each hold a stand to
publicise their group to the wider public and to networkSupport to attend events and fairs organised by others was also requested by 35% of questionnaire respondents.
Help, both f4. display and promotional materials, e.g. posters, banners and leaflets.
5. Local and national publicity, promotion and awareness raising to the public as
well as government agencies, universities and funding bodies. Lobbying for more whole organism biology, fielschools and universities and for the maintenance and expansion of natural history collections in local museums.
6. Basic guidance, possibly in the form of help sheets, on how to grow your own
society, such as how to gain charitable status, managing accounts, effective promotion, good web design, how to work with different groups and organising an interesting programme of events. Also a directory of speakers and free access to on-line journals would be useful. It was suggested that this might form part of a redeveloped Nature Soci
7. Funding to support members’ attendance at conferences and training courses,
expenses for recorders to carry out surveys, for the purchase of lab and field equipment to run workshops, ID courses and public events, and for publication costs of atlases and taxonomic guides. 64% of questionnaire respondents said that they would welcome the creation of a website that lists available sources of funding to which they might apply.
15
8. Support for recording, specifically increasing access to keys, especially online keys, and support for the validation and verification of data, and the uploading of this data to national databases.
9. If OPAL is running a grant scheme, a ‘clearing pool’ was suggested, where
unsuccessful applications to the OPAL funding streams will be automatically passed on to other organisations offering similar funding.
10. Support for development of new societies where there are geographic gaps.
16
Consultant’s recommendations to OPAL
is probably true to say that natural history societies don’t want or need oordinating and that any attempt to do so would be doomed to failure. They trongly value their amateur status and independence. Having said that, it ppears that most would welcome the existence of a body that they could call
form of “one stop ofessionalism without
hallenging their current strengths. Such a one stop shop could have both a
ctors, basic field kit, microscopes, leaflets and small ublications. A “simple to apply to and quick to respond” source of small grants ould be very welcome. Such grants would probably be most effective if linked to
pects of support listed below.
the public), plus resources for ocieties themselves including training materials, keys and scientific papers, a irectory of speakers, and interactive facilities enabling societies to share good
of conferences.
A one or two day onference could combine a number of high profile speakers with practical orkshops related to topics of concern identified by this research. Regional
most accessible to local groups, and ould potentially be hosted by OPAL’s regional partners.
ld consider adopting this
Itcsaupon for help and support. Natural history societies need some shop” to access support and to build their greater prcvirtual and physical presence. The research team recommends the following five measures, which should be linked and be coherent with one another in order to be most effective. Financial support Although not top of the list for all societies, certainly the smaller societies would welcome the opportunity to request support for some basic equipment such as multi-media projepwsome of the other as Access to information via a new website An improved Nature Societies Online website with greater functionality and content is recommended. Content could include an easier to use and more informative database of societies (searchable by sdpractice, sources of funding and notification Conferences and training programmes Although few groups explicitly requested training, many of their needs could be met through conferences and training workshops. There is a good case for holding an annual conference for natural history societies.cwconferences and training events might bec Facilitating networking, collaboration and lobbying There is currently no organisation that can represent the views of all natural history groups and that can lobby for and protect their interests, and support their growth and development at a national scale. OPAL shou
17
role and through working with other organisations could create a structure that ould be sustainable after the end of OPAL funding.
f natural history knowledge rogression. Such an opportunity has to be set within strategic thinking to be ffective, which has to consider the big question of “what happens after OPAL”.
port has to consider who is going to take on the role when OPAL nding comes to an end. During some of the individual discussions held as part
w Sustainability OPAL presents natural history societies both in England and the wider UK with a unique and timely opportunity to raise their profile, increase membership and enhance their potentially pivotal role in the ladder opePlanning for supfuof this research, several larger societies expressed an interest in being involved in such a role.
18
OPAL’s programme of support
etween 2009 and 2012 OPAL is running a dedicated programme of support for atural history societies to actively address some of the issues and overcome ome of the limitations raised through this consultation. To date, a number of upport measures have been implemented and these are described below.
ibuting funds to local and national natural history groups has been running since April 2009. Grants are awarded
A series of online help sheets are available on the OPAL website to give
Improving the functionality and user-friendliness of the NHM’s Nature
PAL and the NHM are keen that this programme of support is responsive to the
, so please get in uch using the details at the end of this report if you have suggestions or
Bnss • A competitive small grants scheme distr
to support the day to day operation of groups as well as supporting the expansion of outreach and recruitment activities. Themed funding rounds are taking place in 2009, 2010 and 2011 and full details can be found on the OPAL website.
• Across the OPAL portfolio, OPAL partners are running a wide range of public-
facing activities, events and training courses. Wherever possible, natural history societies are being invited to take part in these activities, to publicise their group and build partnerships with other local or regional organisations, and with their local communities.
•
guidance and advice to societies on a range of topics including banking, cash flow and fundraising, the steps involved in setting up a new group, considerations when running or attending public outreach events, and easy and low cost ways of creating an effective website.
•
Societies Online website was a key recommendation from this consultation, and this process is now being initiated. Further consultation with natural history groups and other stakeholders is likely, to ensure the development of this resource meets a wide range of needs and aspirations.
Oneeds of societies, and are therefore committed to maintaining a dialogue with natural history groups to develop resources that continue to meet their needs and to put in place measures that will be sustainable beyond 2012 when OPAL funding comes to an end. Although it cannot meet all requests, the programme incorporates a certain degree of flexibility and responsivenesstorequests for support. Full details of the OPAL programme of support for natural history groups are available on the OPAL website, so please visit to find out how your society can benefit. Visit the OPAL website
19
The Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity
he OPA
The Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity
he OPATT L team at the Natural History Museum are based in the Angela Marmont entre for UK Biodiversity – a new space within the museum dedicated to
uralists and celebrating UK biodiversity. Housed inside ludes a workshop space equipped with microscopes and
udio-visual equipment that is free for natural history groups to use for meetings nd training workshops. Other facilities include access to the London Natural
wide range se visit the
ebsite to find out more or to book your visit.
L team at the Natural History Museum are based in the Angela Marmont entre for UK Biodiversity – a new space within the museum dedicated to
uralists and celebrating UK biodiversity. Housed inside ludes a workshop space equipped with microscopes and
udio-visual equipment that is free for natural history groups to use for meetings nd training workshops. Other facilities include access to the London Natural
wide range se visit the
ebsite to find out more or to book your visit.
CCsupporting amateur nat
e Darwin Centre, it incsupporting amateur nat
e Darwin Centre, it incththaaaaHistory Society library, access to the museum’s UK collections and aof identification guides and keys. Anyone can use the centre – pleaHistory Society library, access to the museum’s UK collections and aof identification guides and keys. Anyone can use the centre – pleaww Visit the Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity website Visit the Angela Marmont Centre for UK Biodiversity website Contact us: Lucy Carter, OPAL Project Officer, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London.
W7 5BD
ac.uk 20 7942 5188
20