Cactus genome sequencing project

[Apicra]

IanW,

You are making potentially damaging allegations about operation of the BCSS Conservation Fund. I think you need to justify them, or withdraw them. It sounds like you applied for a grant and did not like the response.

Best Regards,
Derek Tribble

[IanW]

I've never had any reason to apply for a grant from the BCSS because I simply wouldn't have the time to work on a conservation project so no, I've not been denied anything by the fund.

My comments about lack of transparency come from the debate in the private society forum a few years back where someone applying for funding claimed that they were given no justification why, and discussions elsewhere - I'd link but a) I no longer have access, and b) even if I did it's presumably in a private forum for a reason. My comments about what are hopefully jokes of using society funds are based on these comments here:

http://www.bcss.org.uk/foruma/viewtopic ... on#p227389

I don't know what the current status quo is, maybe it's a solved problem, maybe those making decisions have already taken this on board and are already offering better feedback, but if it is then it's not obvious that that's the case. I assume the comments above are as I say just jokes. But you can't criticise others attempts to fund their projects when the BCSS' own conservation fund has long been far from a shining example of transparency and openness. Just leave it be and let people fund what they feel most comfortable funding and stop trying to influence that, or accept that in doing so you similarly deserve the same level of scrutiny as you're imposing on others.

It'd be an absolute shame if projects like this didn't get funded, whilst funds are getting deflected into a pot that has at least historically lacked any kind of transparency and showed an incredible dearth of actual outcomes - nothing in over 9 years if the BCSS' very own site is anything to go by:

http://www.bcss.org.uk/downloads/Conser ... ojects.pdf

If this is out of date, then well, there's my point about transparency. It's kind of hard to sell a fund for which there appears to be no obvious public evidence of it doing anything in 9 years. You can't get upset if someone questions why people should redirect their money to what frankly looks like a bit of a black hole right now when they're being given the suggestion of funding something that is open and transparent about how much it needs and what it aims to achieve.

I hope therefore you can see why it might seem a bit hypocritical of you to suggest that the BCSS fund is somehow a trustworthy way to fund these sorts of things when it's not even clear that it actually even does anything any more, hence not clear where the money goes, and hence why it's probably a bit inappropriate for people with influence in the society to joke about using it to fund themselves a trip.

I would love nothing more than a vibrant, active, BCSS conservation fund, that regularly reports and provides public outreach information on it's work and successes and would gladly donate to it. But that's not what it is currently, currently it just looks like a black hole and I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole because there's no obvious sign that any money going into it is actually doing anything to aid conservation as is intended. Change that and make it clear what it's activities, requests received, and decisions are, and then beg for more money. Otherwise just let projects that actually bother to explain what they're doing have the funds. It's all towards the same goal of furthering knowledge of the plants we love at the end of the day, the difference is that one is doing it more proactively, and transparently than the other - that's something it should be praised for and that the BCSS fund could learn lessons from, not something that it should be faulted for.

The only damaging thing here is the fact that the society seems to be completely offended by the idea of transparency as usual. That's not my doing.

[Lindsey]

I too am currently a "Registered Guest", having reluctantly let my BCSS membership lapse for personal (health) reasons - I am expecting to rehome most, but not all, of my plants as soon as possible. Meanwhile I continue to watch this Forum and to recommend the BCSS (and the MSG) to anyone new to the hobby.

It might be useful if one or more of the following happened:

(a) if anyone critical of BCSS policy can give evidence (e.g. an online link) to show that other plant-related societies have a conservation policy that is transparent and viewable by the general public;

(b) if an official BCSS statement on conservation policy could be posted on this thread as soon as possible (AGM coming up next month!) - also this Forum is a "shop window" for possible new recruits;

and (c) if there could be a brief summary of currently active BCSS conservation projects.

I hope this is not too much to ask....

[ChrisR]

It shouldn't be Lindsey.

I do recall reading articles where the authors have thanked whoever supplied their funding. I might be wrong and would appreciate being corrected if so - but I read the BCSS Journal & MSG Bulletin and can't recall ever seeing a report on where (or to whom and how much) they have handed out grants from their research funds. Maybe figures are mentioned in the financial reports but I confess to never reading or keeping them. But I would like to know exactly where the money goes.

[Lindsey]

Thanks for quick & helpful response Chris

I also found this
http://www.bcss.org.uk/downloads/Aug14agd.pdf
which mentions the publication of a relevant article in an issue of the RHS "Plantsman" under para.5(b).

I expect there are those on here who take the Plantsman and can enlighten those of us who don't?

[Apicra]

I hope therefore you can see why it might seem a bit hypocritical of you to suggest that the BCSS fund is somehow a trustworthy way to fund these sorts of things when it's not even clear that it actually even does anything any more, hence not clear where the money goes, and hence why it's probably a bit inappropriate for people with influence in the society to joke about using it to fund themselves a trip.

Thanks IanW for your explanation. It is now clear that, since you seem not to be a BCSS member, you do not see reports about the BCSS Conservation and Research Funds in our CactusWorld Journal, nor the annual accounts showing how much these funds contain, nor the BoT quarterly meeting minutes distributed via branch secretaries. They do have a shortage of good quality applications I believe, but the BCSS is continuing to fund good work in these areas and is completely trustworthy.

The BCSS web site is sadly very out-of-date and a major update is being prepared according to the December minutes of the BoT meeting, but I know the volunteers involved all have busy day-jobs.

So IanW, it was inappropriate of you to write about something you admit to knowing so little about. And I do not like being called hypocritical.

Regards,
Derek Tribble,
Chairman Harrow Branch

[IanW]

I don't think you've really sold your case Derek, and again, saying it's something I "know so little about" is desperate deflection at best. I mean, that's kind of the point isn't it? If a member of the public can't find out anything useful about the fund then why would they want to donate to it over a project whose goals and funding target is extremely clear?

Contrary to your assertion, I do have access to the accounts, because these are made public by the charity commission. It's not obvious what section of the accounts are conservation funds (one for David K no doubt), and it does state that just over £9000 was spent on three conservation projects last year. Beyond that it's impossible to ascertain what exactly those projects were, how effective they were, how worthwhile they were and so on and so forth.

In general you seem to be implying that the fund has healthy reserves, but that it's got a shortage of worthwhile conservation projects to fund. Again, if this is the case, then why does the fund need more money than say the project cited in this thread? Why does it make sense to put money into a fund that's struggling to find things to fund?

Normally when charities ask for conservation donations, they do so with a specific goal in mind due to a lack of funds to achieve that goal, and whilst referencing their past successes so you can see that they have a healthy ongoing track record of achieving their goals. Let's look at a few examples:

Born Free Foundation (http://www.bornfree.org.uk/): Their front page lists a number of current projects seeking funding. Underneath is a fundraising event, followed by a plea for funds for a specific goal, followed by an example of past conservation success.

Marine Conservation Society UK (http://www.mcsuk.org/support_mcs/Fundraise+for+MCS): Their donation page tells you how to donate, with a top right graph showing how funds are spent, that links to a much more detailed breakdown. Lots of information on their conservation work.

Bat Conservation Trust (http://www.bats.org.uk/): Their conservation page lists a lot of projects they've done in quite some detail. It's clear the variety of projects they're supporting and how they spend their money.

World Land Trust's Big Cat Appeal (http://www.worldlandtrust.org/projects/big-cat-appeal): An example of a specific appeal - they need money for a specific goal, the numbers are there, the goal is clear. There's an obvious reason to donate.

These are just a handful that came back from a Google search for conservation charities. About the only charity I came across that does as poor a job of publicly explaining what it does with conservation money is the CSSA, so at least the BCSS can point to them and say they're just as bad I suppose.

Saying "donate to us because we've got plenty of funds, little to spend it on, and aren't going to let you know about anything we've done in the last 9 years" doesn't really sell it very well. Without justification or ability to spend on conservation, what you're effectively advocating is hoarding, and I don't really see how that benefits anyone. Unless the BCSS can consistently spend it's conservation fund in an efficient and effective manner, then why does it need more money when other conservation and research projects are ready to go if they can get funding?

On one hand, you seem to be adamant that I didn't have a point, on the other, everything you've said backs up my point precisely. Your response is a classic case of pride before reason.

[Lindsey]

The BCSS web site is sadly very out-of-date and a major update is being prepared according to the December minutes of the BoT meeting

Ah, that's very good to know I look forward to it!

Would it be possible for the publicly viewable list http://www.bcss.org.uk/downloads/Conser ... ojects.pdf to be updated before the new website goes live? ... say by the end of April 2015, would this be realistic? I know the Society is dependent on volunteers, and I also know from personal emails/PMs that some have volunteered but (to my knowledge) the BCSS did not take up their offer.

Would a non-member be allowed to know who is responsible for keeping the conservation PDF list updated, or is that classified information?

[Apicra]

Hi Lindsey - sorry, I can't answer your questions.

IanW, you write reams more speculation based upon one comment I made - that discourages me from writing anything!

The problem here appears to be that you expect everything to be available via the WWW, whereas the BCSS still does most communication via printed paper. Isn't it obvious that the research & conservation funds raise nearly all of their money from people who subscribe to BCSS publications? The funds are very efficient in the sense that 100% goes to target projects - I think I am correct in saying that the parent BCSS charity pays any administration expenses. The majority of viewers of this Forum are also BCSS members, so it is quite reasonable for me to give them a reminder to donate.

Instead of sniping from a position of ignorance, why don't you get involved with the BCSS? Attend the BCSS AGM in ten days time and speak directly with the people actually administering these funds to find out what projects are in the pipeline. Perhaps volunteer to help improve our charity's web site?

Regards,
Derek Tribble

[Phil_SK]

There is also a research projects list, http://www.bcss.org.uk/downloads/Resear ... warded.pdf although this is also out-of-date, though less so.

If this information is being produced on paper it should be being passed on for addition to the website, so paper/www shouldn't be an issue. Getting hold of this seems not to have been easy at times - see BoT minutes for Sept 2012 (item 12b) and several previously.

Reading the minutes, it's clear from the number of rejected applications that the cttee seeks to fund proposals that are within the remit of our society in terms of species (such as the rejection of a Ledebouria project, see September 2013) and that are of sufficiently wide interest to our membership (Echinopsis terscheckii, December 2011; Leptocereus February 2011 - both rejected). In December 2013 we read about the "current healthy state of the Fund and current lack of projects".

The BCSS is evidently very careful in how it spends this money and offers peace of mind to potential donors in that sense but that doesn't mean there's no place for crowd funding. Ian well demonstrates that we are unusual in not having a 'wants' project list which we're seeking to fund. Perhaps being able to direct funding to a particular project might affect the level of donations. If they really have garnered $1318 from 43 donors then you have to admit that there are people out there with the cash to chip in who probably aren't queueing up to donate to funds like ours. I've no idea how you'd do it and it sounds like a lot of work but I like the idea of the BCSS deciding on our priorities, identifying who might be interested/qualified to investigate it and then to fund it, rather than waiting for people to apply. The http://ssk-kaktus.org/en/index.php may have used a model a bit like this.

When Dr Jiang started this thread it was me who approved it (it was his first post) and I did have a bit of a ponder about whether it was appropriate, which I think it is, and maybe 5-10mins trying to satisfy myself that it wasn't a scam.