My last post on WWF and Greenpeace has generated some comments and emails. These have been mostly supportive, and a couple suggesting I am being overly harsh on WWF.
I agree, I am harsh on them. I take no pleasure in beating them up on the blog.
We need them to be better, so I’m trying to help them see they need to change. (I’m aware how pompous that sounds, but it is true)
I do see part of the role of the blog to reflect the views of my readers, which that post very much did. If I hear a lot of people talking about something, I blog on it with a view. That’s part of the point of blogging.
To my mind (such as it is) the ‘implementation’ NGO of the future is comprised of committed niche experts and is small enough, flexible enough and cost efficient enough to get real work done, as well as being strong minded and not worried about saying no to companies.
The Forest Trust is an excellent example.
The complex problems companies face will need ever more specialist help on the ground.
The NGOs that help will follow this model: Nimble, niche, specialist and uncompromising.
I can’t see a better solution. Tell me I’m wrong.
(I understand that in some areas, disaster relief, for example, scale is important. That said, one of the most interesting and innovative NGOs in that space, is tiny, but brilliant)