Breaking the Pinewood Rules

Recent letters (Strathy) from Joe Dorward and Dr Adam Watson are rightly critical of the unjustified approval by the Forestry Commission (FC), Scottish Natural Heritage, and Cairngorms National Park Authority, for the RSPB application to plant trees in the south Abernethy area of boreal forest remnant, a designated National Nature Reserve.

This is in direct contravention of their own guidelines and regulations, in particular FC The Management of Semi-natural Woodlands Practice Guide No 7 Native Pinewoods (PG7). This defines them as ancient woodlands of “native trees and shrubs derived from natural regeneration or coppicing , not planting”, typically in a mosaic of dense stands and treeless areas, special areas requiring special management to retain their special characteristics.

PG7 states planting should only be used as a “last resort” if there is no nearby seed source – yet RSPB has elsewhere claimed there are 800 hectares of new pine regeneration, and thousands of broadleaves in the area, which prove adequate seed sources nearby.

They have also set targets and quotas for the planting of broadleaves in glades and open areas, despite the need to retain a mosaic structure, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee regeneration ruling that “targets should not be set for composition or the speed at which it occurs”.

FC management guidelines also state Aspen is only suitable for more moist fertile soils, yet the RSPB have stated 8,000 Aspen have been planted, and published photos of them being planted on totally unsuitable dry acid heath.

One of the worst aspects is the involvement of local school children in the planting – what lessons does this teach – that nature cannot exist and thrive without human intervention? Surely they need to be taught about the importance of conservation, natural history and forest evolution, that the pinewoods are special fragile living museums, part of of our natural heritage, held in custody for future generations.

Only nature can restore a natural forest.

Basil Dunlop
Grantown-on-Spey

Turning back on their ‘no planting’ promise

Joe Dorward (Letters, Strathy) rightly criticises the RSPB for applying to plant thousands of trees in south Abernethy, and the Forestry Commission because they deserted long-held policies for natural tree regeneration by self-seeding when they unwisely approved the RSPB scheme.

Donors helped the RSPB to buy Abernethy for forest expansion by natural seeding. The RSPB agreed this policy. Now, they have broken their word by planting. They are honour-bound to refund the donors.

After purchase, the RSPB received some criticism locally. They asked me as a northern Scot who knew many local folk to help, and in 1991 they published my article in their Birds magazine. In my article I praised their aim of self-seeding. Now that they plant, I wish I had not helped. I feel betrayed.

The Great Wood of Caledon by Hugh Miles and Brian Jackman (1991) wrote of Abernethy, advised by RSPB Manager Stewart Taylor, ‘there will be no planting.’ In 1993, the RSPB published Time for Pine. On Abernethy, ‘grazing is being reduced to a level which allows natural regeneration’.

The RSPB’s Nature Reserves and Local People in 1998, with Stewart Taylor as first author, stressed self-seeding. Now, the RSPB have lost their way in the Cairngorms. Their interference is landscape gardening in a place where nature should reign. Arrogantly they think they know better than nature.

They damage their integrity by ditching promises to donors who made purchase possible. Ending the scheme would stop the rot, and earn praise.

SNH deserve condemnation for approving the RSPB scheme. The decision was taken by three local staff, none a recognised authority on pinewoods. Senior SNH scientists were not consulted, yet this was an issue not of national and international significance, not just local. SNH covered up this bungling by not divulging it to the public who pay for SNH, or to the politicians who authorise the funding.

Dr Adam Watson
Crathes

Joe Dorward to Liz Kirk (FCS)

From: Joe Dorward
To: Liz Kirk
Sent: 5 January 2015
Subject: Freedom of Information Request (Consent 030/1/11-12)

I am very concerned about the impact that RSPB Scotland’s planting plans for Abernethy will have on the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood there. By (1) requiring RSPB Scotland to conduct an EIA, and (2) subsequently granting consent – FCS implicitly acknowledged their authority to withhold that consent.

The case for planting is weak, relying on RSPB Scotland’s misrepresentations about the condition of the Caledonian Pinewood. The case against planting is strong and I’d like to understand the process that led to consent being granted – to that end on 17 July 2014 I sent several questions to John Risby.

On 18 July 2014 he notified me, without explanation, that he would “ask a colleague to reply”.

On 12 August 2014 Keir Smith responded with such vague, patronising evasions that I did wonder if he had actually read my questions.

My blunt response to Keir Smith of 25 August 2014 included the following point :

I make the assumption that you (and John Risby) are at least as intelligent as I am. As such, I cannot understand how you could fail to answer a numbered list of questions unintentionally and must conclude that you avoided doing so intentionally.

I had hoped that my questions would have been the beginning of a dialogue that would lead me to understand how, in spite of the self-evident regeneration in the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy, that (1) RSPB Scotland’s misrepresentations of its condition went unchallenged, and (2) FCS failed to challenge those misrepresentations or notice that planting was unnecessary.

But, since we’ve reached this point in one step (in spite of two missed opportunities to keep the dialogue informal) I will take this opportunity to rewrite and expand my questions, and, given the demonstrated ability of FCS to avoid answering questions I have risked patronising you (in return) by being repetitive and long-winded, but my intention is simply to avoid doubt.

1. COMMUNICATIONS
For the purpose of this Freedom of Information Request the term ‘communications’ means any communication (electronic or paper) between FCS and RSPB Scotland and between FCS and SNH about (or relating) to the intention of RSPB Scotland to plant trees on the Abernethy Forest Reserve (including, but not limited to) those :

• between Bob McIntosh and senior RSPB Scotland staff (including, but not limited to) Stuart Housden, George Campbell, Jeremy Roberts
• between Bob McIntosh and senior SNH staff (including, but not limited to) Debbie Green, George Hogg, Keith Duncan, Des Thompson
• requesting meetings whether initiated by FCS, or SNH, or RSPB Scotland
• discussing the scheduling and location of meetings
• meeting records (minutes or summaries)

2. INITIATION OF DIALOGUE BETWEEN RSPB SCOTLAND AND FCS
2.1 Who (name and job title) at RSPB Scotland initiated the dialogue ?
2.2 When was the dialogue initiated ?
2.3 What form did that initiation take ?
2.4 Include copies of communications and documentation (as above)

3. FCS VISITS TO ABERNETHY
3.1 How many visits (dates, duration, and purpose) have FCS made to the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy between 22 March 2006 and 24 August 2011 ?
3.2 Who (names, job titles, and qualifications) from FCS have visited the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy between 22 March 2006 and 24 August 2011 ?
3.3 How much time (hours) did FCS spend surveying the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy ?
3.4 Include copies of communications and documentation (as above)

4. OBSERVATIONS, CHARACTERISATIONS, CONCLUSIONS
RSPB Scotland have characterised the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy as ‘struggling to survive’ and generally giving the impression that regeneration has failed, and that without planting, the pinewood will cease to be.

4.1 How do you characterise the state of regeneration across the ‘consent area’ ?
4.2 Include copies of communications and documentation (as above)

5. OBJECTIVE FACTS
In The Management of Semi-natural Woodlands : 7. Native Pinewoods I read “that planting should be the last resort”. In this context, my understanding of what ‘last resort’ means suggests a pinewood in which there is no regeneration and no possibility of regeneration (in any timescale). However, as a direct result of RSPB Scotland’s own actions to reduce red deer numbers both Stuart Housden and Jeremy Roberts have (rightly) boasted about how well the pinewood is regenerating while claiming full responsibility for 800 hectares of regeneration. In my superficial survey of 2013 I saw that Birch, Willow, Rowan, Juniper, and Scots Pine seedlings of all ages are well represented across the consent area.

Given “that planting should be the last resort” :

5.1 What objective facts about the regeneration in the consent area led you to conclude that the ‘last resort’ condition had been reached (and that consent should be granted) ?
5.2 What objective facts about the regeneration in the consent area would have led you to conclude that the ‘last resort’ condition had not been reached (and that consent should be refused) ?
5.3 Include copies of communications and documentation (as above)

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Although the first meeting between FCS and RSPB to discuss ‘the plan’ appears to have been in 2006, FCS did not ask RSPB Scotland to conduct an environmental impact assessment until 2010. It appears that ‘the plan’ had changed enough by 2010 for someone at FCS to decide that RSPB Scotland would (now) be required to conduct an EIA.

6.1 When was that decision made ?
6.2 Who (name(s) and job-title(s)) made that decision ?
6.3 What changed in ‘the plan’ that led to that decision ?
6.4 Include copies of communications and documentation (as above)

7. EC HABITATS DIRECTIVE
I understood that the provisions of the EC Habitats Directive protected the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy. By definition, planted woodlands are neither authentic nor natural.

7.1 Do the provisions of the EC Habitats Directive protect the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy (or not) ?
7.2 If the provisions of the EC Habitats Directive do protect the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy (7.2) In what sense is FCS discharging the obligations of the Scottish Government by permitting unnecessary planting ?
7.3 If the provisions of the EC Habitats Directive do not protect the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy (7.3) How is FCS protecting the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy by permitting planting within it ?
7.4 Include copies of communications and documentation (as above)

Joe Dorward
Bracknell

Misleading Tree Claims Repeated

I was interested in your article (Strathy, November 6, page 37) detailing plans by RSPB Scotland to block ditches in plantations in the Abernethy Forest National Nature Reserve.

As these were man-made in planted areas, almost entirely in the less natural North Forest near Nethybridge, this is validly presented as restoration.

However, an adjacent article again refers to the controversial RSPB attempts to plant up to 100,000 trees in the upper mainly natural South Forest, in the Ryvoan and Strathy Nethy area which already contains thousands of self-seeded trees.

Previous inaccurate and misleading claims already challenged have been repeated:

Claim – The planting will double the size of the forest
Fact – It is existing and future natural regeneration which will seed and possibly double the size of the forest, not the planting of the equivalent of 40 hectares of new natural regeneration.

Claim – It will restore the Caledonian pine forest to its natural glory.
Fact – The “former glory” was about 5,000 BC in a benign climate, impossible to replicate. One cannot restore a natural forest by unnatural intervention.

Claim – It will expand it to a natural treeline.
Fact – It cannot be a natural treeline if achieved by planting.

Claim– It will join up with other fragmented remnants.
Fact– What other remnants? Planting is planned adjacent to the treeless Cairngorms to the south, except at Glenmore which is already connected by trees through the Pass of Ryvoan.

Basil Dunlop
Grantown-on-Spey

Decision on RSPB Appeal Page ‘Defies Logic’

You reported (‘Strathy’, July 31, 2014) that a ‘complaint over the RSPB Scotland’s appeal to fund controversial plans to extend an important Strathspey woodland has been thrown out by the regulators’ and that ‘concerns were raised after the complainant, who is not named in the report, read an article in a national newspaper’.

As the unnamed complainant, I must emphasis that my complaint has only ever been about RSPB Scotland’s online appeal page. When I raised my complaint with Alistair McLean of the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) I wrote: ‘After twice raising a complaint with the RSPB over their ‘Help us keep Abernethy special’ appeal page (http://www.rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/abernethy/) and twice receiving brief, patronising and dismissive responses, I wish to raise a complaint with you against the RSPB in relation to the false and exaggerated claims they make on that appeal page’.

In spite of my several attempts to keep the attention of the FRSB on the online appeal page, (evidently) RSPB Scotland have been more successful in misdirecting the attention of the FRSB away from it.

In your report, you refer to the FRSB Board being reassured by knowing that ‘the RSPB’s approach to Abernethy Forest had been subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment, public consultation, and comprehensive scrutiny’.

My mind boggles – how can it be that concerns of the fundraising watchdog are reassured by the conclusions of the environmental watchdog?

Meanwhile, RSPB Scotland make contradictory claims.

In their online appeal page they make a ‘struggling to survive’ claim about its condition while (recently) both Stuart Housden and Jeremy Roberts (rightly) boast about how well the woodland is regenerating.

It cannot be both ; their ‘struggling to survive’ claim cannot be anything other than false and misleading and cannot be justified by the FRSB Board’s ‘call to action – fundraising language’ catchphrase.

The decision of the FRSB Board defies logic; the claims on the RSPB Scotland ‘Help us keep Abernethy special’ appeal page are self-evidently misleading, clearly likely to mislead, inaccurate, ambiguous, exaggerated, and omissive.
Joe Dorward
Bracknell

UNDER FIRE: the RSPB’s claim that Abernethy Forest is struggling to survive has been branded as ‘misleading’

Misleading Claims Made About Plantings

I refer to the articles on the South Abernethy plantings in the “Strathy” last week.

Despite the ruling of the Fund Raising Standards Board to a complaint (not mine), misleading claims are still being made. I assume these emanate from the RSPB:

“The project will involve planting up to 100,000 trees and will almost double the size of the forest”.

It is not the planting but ongoing natural regeneration from the existing and future self-seeded trees which will increase the area of forest. In other statements, the RSPB has confirmed it has already achieved 800 hectares of new natural regeneration by improved deer management.

“Restoration of the country’s native Caledonian pine forest to its former glory”.

This is not possible by planting – one cannot restore a natural forest by unnatural intervention. Its former glory was in a benign climate over 5,000 years ago, before climate change to cool, wet and windy conditions caused peat build-up and major forest decline.

“Joining up with other fragmented remnants”. The classic form of a dynamic natural Caledonian pinewood is a mosaic of stocked and treeless sections, giving the greatest diversity of habitats. South Abernethy is already joined up with Glenmore, the only other nearby remnant, at Ryvoan.

“No mechanical intervention”. 100,000 spade holes and tree fertilisation with Rock Phosphate permanently damages the soil profile and natural ecosystem.

However I am pleased to read that “No Scots Pines will be planted as part of the current project”, as this will protect the integrity, continuity and natural evolution of this very special and fragile piece of our boreal forest heritage.

Basil Dunlop
Grantown-on-Spey

Adam Watson to Debbie Greene (SNH)

From: Adam Watson
To: Debbie Greene
Sent: 17 July 2014
Subject: SNH approval of RSPB application to plant trees in South Abernethy

Dear Debbie

Many thanks for your letter and for sending the attachments.

I should explain that although I have publicly criticised the decisions of SNH and FCS to approve the RSPB’s application to plant many trees in Abernethy south, and shall continue to oppose this planting and the decisions, I am not the main critic involved. I wrote to Des Thompson about this matter last August, and was surprised to learn that he had not heard of the SNH approval until I told him. He replied that he would look into this matter, and this is why I wrote to him recently asking for clarification of SNH’s role and his role within SNH on this issue.

You have sent useful information, but I still believe strongly that the RSPB should not have done this U-turn and that SNH and FCS have made a serious error of judgement in approving large-scale planting. You should of course know the obvious point that any planting is bound to change the genotype, which has evolved naturally for millennia, in unpredictable and unnatural ways. This alone, as well as other reasons, was a clear warning to avoid large-scale landscape gardening, irrespective of any human political rather than scientific new policies on pinewood expansion, and irrespective of any support for these by governments.

However, as I said earlier I am not the main person involved in criticising this case, and therefore I will not be taking up your offer of a meeting. Likewise I will not be continuing further with this correspondence and hearing any further inadequate excuses from SNH for deserting long-established policies on natural regeneration in favour of planting that has not been justified and flies in the face of the RSPB’s own findings on natural regeneration. I shall therefore forward your letter and attachments to others. I remain a scientific adviser to them.

Adam Watson
Crathes

Joe Dorward to John Risby (FCS)

From: Joe Dorward
To: John Risby (FCS)
Sent: 17 July 2014
Subject: RSPB Scotland planting plans for Abernethy

On 24 September 2013 I visited the southern fringe of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy from Glenmore. I conducted a superficial survey by following the track east from Ryvoan to Bynack Stables (site of) and up Strath Nethy a short distance. I then turned and followed the Nethy north about half-a-mile then went cross-country back to Ryvoan.

Being aware of the claims made by RSPB Scotland about the condition of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy I was surprise by how far from the truth those claims were. On reaching the southern edge of the reserve at Ryvoan I saw several (apparently) naturally seeded Scots pines beside the reserve sign. In spite of RSPB Scotland claims about the inability of pines and broadleaved species to seed themselves in Abernethy south, on both sides of the track, I saw much pine, birch, rowan, willow, and juniper – all evidently old enough that they could not have been planted by RSPB Scotland unless they have been planting secretly for many years.

The two hundred photographs I took showing the actual condition of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy are here :
  https://www.flickr.com/photos/joedorward/sets/72157635871777246/

I am very concerned about the impact that RSPB Scotland’s planting plans for Abernethy will have on the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood there. The case for planting appears weak, relying on the misrepresentations of RSPB Scotland about the condition of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy. The case against planting is strong and undeniable. The Caledonian Pinewood is self-evidently regenerating and expanding without intervention (other than to control red-deer numbers). Fundamentally, planting will change the genotype of a naturally evolved woodland and should not have been considered for this reason alone.

I had presumed that the naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy was protected (in its own right) as well as from being partly or wholly within NNR, SPA, SAC, or SSSI designated sites. An integral part of that protection is that protection is that planting would only be considered in the case that no regeneration had occurred in decades, but both Jeremy Roberts (RSPB) and Stuart Housden (RSPB) have rightly boasted how well the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy is regenerating. RSPB Scotland can’t have it both ways – they can’t boast about regeneration while claiming the pinewood will cease to be unless they plant.

I struggle to understand how, in spite of the evident regeneration in the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy that you granted consent to RSPB Scotland to plant there. I would like to understand the process that led you to the decision to grant consent.

My own survey was superficial, yet I was convinced that the regeneration has taken strong enough hold across the ‘consent area’ that planting was unnecessary – so :

1. How much time did you spend surveying the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy ?

2. How many times did you visit the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy between 22 March 2006 and 24 August 2011 ?

3. How would you characterise or describe the regeneration state of the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy ?

In The Management of Semi-natural Woodlands : 7. Native Pinewoods I read “that planting should be the last resort” – so :

4. Did you conclude that the ‘last resort’ situation had been reached ?

5. If so, how did you determine that the ‘last resort’ situation had been reached ?

My survey convinced me that planting was unnecessary and your survey appears to have convinced you that it was necessary, so :

6. How different would the ‘consent area’ at Abernethy have to be for you to have concluded that planting was unnecessary and for you to have refused consent ?

6.1. Would there be more pine saplings ? If so, how many more ?
6.2. Would there be taller pine saplings ? If so, how tall ?
6.3. Would there be more broadleaved saplings ? If so, how many more ?
6.4. Would there be taller broadleaved saplings ? If so, how tall ?

I understood that the provisions of the EC Habitats Directive protected the authenticity and naturalness of the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy, so :

7. In what sense is the Caledonian Pinewood at Abernethy protected if RSPB Scotland can reduce its authenticity and naturalness by planting within it ?

Joe Dorward to Pete Meacham (FRSB)

From: Joe Dorward
To: Pete Meacham
Sent: 28 May 2014
Subject: RSPB ‘Help us keep Abernethy special’ Complaint

Pete,

Thanks for this, I have a couple of issues.

In 1.2 you write :

The complainant felt that the online fundraising page was falsely claiming that the RSPB was carrying out conservation work when they were in fact carrying out “large scale landscape gardening”.

Here you are again casting my complaint as being about the actions of the RSPB rather than being about the claims the RSPB make about their actions. May I suggest the following instead :

The complainant felt that, on their online fundraising page, the RSPB make false claims about the condition of the forest and their actions within it

My complaint to FRSB has only ever been about the claims the RSPB make on their online fundraising page.

In 2.5 you write :

Following several further email exchanges during which disparaging tweets about the RSPB allegedly posted by the complainant were debated …

I am concerned that you feel the need to describe my tweets as ‘disparaging’. This assertion is less-than objective and misrepresents how I have conducted myself. I note that George Campbell used the word ‘dispiriting’, but that says something about how he responds to criticism and nothing about what I wrote.

It is also less-than objective to characterise the exchange as you have. It misrepresents the exchange and can only serve to cast me in an unfavourable light – this, while omitting to mention that George, without any justification, flatly refused to answer any more of my questions.

I would also like you to include this recent tweet (below) by Stuart Housden in which he is clearly and rightly proud of the natural regeneration at Abernethy in spite of the claims the RSPB continue to make about the condition of the forest on their online appeal page.

Joe Dorward
Bracknell

Pete Meacham (FRSB) to Joe Dorward

From: Pete Meacham
To: Joe Dorward
Sent: 27 May 2014
Subject: RSPB ‘Help us keep Abernethy special’ Complaint

Mr Dorward

As promised, please find attached the draft adjudication report that will be presented to the FRSB Board at the adjudication meeting to discuss your complaint against RSPB on the 11th of June 2014; this will report will accompany all of the background papers relating to the case. I must inform you that this report must remain strictly private & confidential.

Please read through the report and get back to me with any feedback/additional comment by 5pm on Friday on the 6th of June.

Pete Meacham
London

FUNDRAISING STANDARDS BOARD STAGE 3 ADJUDICATION REPORT

Case Number: W20140611 – FS00333

Respondent: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

Area of Complaint: The complainant alleges that the RSPB’s online fundraising page “Help us to keep Abernethy special” contains several “false, misleading and exaggerated claims” about the condition of the forest.

Potential Breach(s): Potential breach of Section 5.2 (General Principles) of the Institute of Fundraising Code of Fundraising Practice (IOF Code) which states that “Fundraising communications OUGHT NOT to mislead, or be clearly likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.”

Date of Adjudication: 11 June 2014

Complaint Overview: The complainant initially raised their concerns directly with the RSPB having read an article written in Sunday Herald about the intentions of the RSPB to plant large numbers of trees in, around and near the Old Caledonian Forest on its property in Abernethy.

After several detailed email exchanges with the charity’s Regional Director for Northern Scotland, the complainant remained dissatisfied.

Key Questions for the FRSB Board: Does the FRSB Board believe that the content of the “Help us to keep Abernethy special” contains misleading statements about the condition of the forest and, as such, breach Section 5.2 of the IOF Code?

1. COMPLAINT SUMMARY

1.1 On the 30th of August 2013, the complainant sent an email to the RSPB outlining their concerns and highlighting specific passages from the online fundraising page which they felt were misleading, exaggerated and false.

1.2 The complainant felt that the online fundraising page was falsely claiming that the RSPB was carrying out conservation work when they were in fact carrying out “large scale landscape gardening”.

2. RSPB RESPONSES

2.1 On the 12th of September 2013, the RSPB provided a response confirming that it had consulted the IOF Code and had concluded that none of the statements included on the online fundraising page were in breach of the Code. In that response, the RSPB also confirmed that the charity’s plans at Abernethy were subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), a public consultation and scrutiny by statutory conservation authorities.

2.2 The complainant responded to confirm that they had received the RSPB’s email and would consider the contents. The complainant then sent a message to the RSPB via Twitter which had several pictures of pine regeneration in Abernethy. On the 30th of September, the charity’s Regional Director for North Scotland responded with clarification that the regeneration captured in the images had been due to the impact of the RSPB’s work.

2.3 On the 9th of October 2013, the complainant responded to confirm that they felt the images demonstrated that natural regeneration was taking place and that further involvement from the RSPB would not be necessary.

2.4 The RSPB responded on the 11th October 2013 to confirm that the Scottish Government had supported the charity’s work in the area and inviting the complainant to read through the EIA document which summarises the RSPB’s project plans.

2.5 Following several further email exchanges during which disparaging tweets about the RSPB allegedly posted by the complainant were debated, the EIA was sent out to the complainant on the 1st of November 2013. This was immediately followed up with a final email from the RSPB to the complainant confirming that it was sticking by its original assertion that the content of the Abernethy online fundraising page was not in breach of the IOF Code.

3. FRSB EXECUTIVE STAGE 2 ASSESSMENT

3.1 The complainant emailed the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) on the 4th of November 2013 asking for its formal intervention. The FRSB’s Compliance Manager subsequently contacted the RSPB and asked them to;

(i) Provide copies of all correspondence that had passed between the charity and complainant to date.

(ii) Provide a detailed summary of why it had used the wording and terminology it had done in its online fundraising page to raise money for the Abernethy project.

(iii)  Provide the “Environmental Statement for forest expansion proposals” in connection with the Abernethy project.

This information was provided by letter on the 14th of November 2013.

3.2 The Compliance Manager considered the complaint along with the background material provided by the RSPB within the context of Section 5.2 (General Principles) of the Institute of Fundraising Code of Fundraising Practice (IOF Code) which states that “Fundraising communications OUGHT NOT to mislead, or be clearly likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise.”

3.3 In summary, the FRSB secretariat concluded the RSPB’s online fundraising page for the Abernethy project had not breached Section 5.2 of the IOF Code.

4. STAGE 2 RESOLUTION(S) ATTEMPTED

4.1 The FRSB approached the RSPB to gain a better understanding of the Abernethy project and to ascertain how the complaint had been dealt with to date. The RSPB provided a copy of all correspondence relating to the case as well as a detailed paper outlining the reasons why it had used certain phrases and wording on the online fundraising page.

4.2 The FRSB secretariat concluded that the RSPB had been able to demonstrate that the language it had used was justified and provided an accurate picture of the condition of Abernethy Forest.  On the 10th of January 2014, the FRSB responded to the complainant with a detailed outline of the investigation that had taken place and confirming that it was felt at Stage 2 that no breach of the IOF code had taken place.

4.3 Whilst the secretariat concluded that a breach of the IOF Code had not taken place, it was felt that the RSPB could have been more conciliatory and detailed in some of its responses which would have gone some way in reassuring the complainant that their concerns had been taken seriously. This view was shared with both the RSPB and the complainant.

4.4 On the 14th of February 2014, the complainant responded with a 10 page rebuttal which was forwarded to the RSPB on the 17th of March 2014.

4.5 The RSPB responded on the 21st of March 2014 confirming its original position and that it felt further dialogue would not be of benefit. This was taken into consideration along with the conclusions that had already been reached at Stage 2 and the FRSB secretariat concluded that it would not be possible to reach a resolution at this stage. The complainant was therefore reminded of the three stage process and made a formal request for a Stage 3 adjudication on the 8th of April 2014.