August 29, 2025 • 41 mins
We sat down with Nick Von Westenholz CEO of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and had a conversation about what it has been like for him so far, the challenges facing rural wildlife and landowners and managers in 2025, the function of conservation organisations and plans for GWCT in the future.
This episode was recorded on the GWCT stand at The Game Fair with a backdrop of lively chatter and burgers being cooked.
CountrySlide is a podcast that looks at farming, conservation and life in the British countryside.
Send us photos of your interesting trinkets that your other half wants to burn or bin as submissions to the calendar or for fun at: contact@countryslide.co.uk
Links
- GWCT
- Subscribe on Patreon for extra content (you can cancel at any time)
- If you enjoy what we do, consider a one-off tip on Ko-fi
- CountrySlide website
- Negus' book tour dates can be found here
The Hosts
Richard Negus website
Callum McInerney-Riley website
Richard Prideaux website
Edited and Produced by Amy Green for Rural and Outdoor.
This episode was recorded on the GWCT stand at The Game Fair with a backdrop of lively chatter and burgers being cooked.
CountrySlide is a podcast that looks at farming, conservation and life in the British countryside.
Send us photos of your interesting trinkets that your other half wants to burn or bin as submissions to the calendar or for fun at: contact@countryslide.co.uk
Links
- GWCT
- Subscribe on Patreon for extra content (you can cancel at any time)
- If you enjoy what we do, consider a one-off tip on Ko-fi
- CountrySlide website
- Negus' book tour dates can be found here
The Hosts
Richard Negus website
Callum McInerney-Riley website
Richard Prideaux website
Edited and Produced by Amy Green for Rural and Outdoor.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Loyal listeners of Scribe Pound Scribe Pound, take that go.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Hello, Hello listeners of Country Slide. We are still at
the game fair, which might seem interminably long view, but
it's not.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
For us, because we're still enjoying ourselves.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
Now.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Richard and I are sat out in the back lawn and.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Signed a GWCT stacked which has been a high of activity.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
Of proper types for thus far.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
And we most importantly have got the most important chat
in the whole organization. The new chief executive, knit one
Vesterner Holts, has very kindly agreed to come and talk
to us and end his career. Welcome to Country Slide, Nick,
thank you.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Right, So Richard will have a killer question start off.
Speaker 5 (00:51):
With go, so in your how many months into the
post four and a half, four and a hair what's been.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
The biggest surprise. I don't mean there's been a surprise
actually because I that's a good answer, all right, It's
been nothing. Is nothing surprised me. I've been a member
of g w CT for a long time, so I
know the work that does. I know. I don't know
the organizing organization intimately or didn't, but I knew it,
(01:18):
and you know, having come from the NF you as
director of strategy there. It's fairly aware of the issues
that we're facing into politically publicly, even the issues that
are supporters and members are facing on the ground in
terms of the climate, the weather, et cetera. So so,
no no great surprises, but it has been sort of
(01:45):
four and a half months of learning.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
So what a four and a half months to have
joined me in the middle of it's been.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
It's an interesting year.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Let's bad timing, Nick, you know, let's let's be honest.
But perhaps is that the thing is that you're coming
into this job now, let's be honest. See, I've supported
the Game Conservacy as it was. I think I can
remember going to the Wessex Game Fare when I was
eleven years old and that was when I joined the
(02:17):
Game Conservacy was and I've had uninterrupted membership and support
the now the GWCT for therefore lots of years, you know,
over over forty six years. It's something where you are
wedded to this organization. Is it suddenly a bit weird
where all of a sudden it's something that you supported
(02:37):
and now not only are you employed by them, but
you're holding the can for all these people like me
who are so wholly wedded to this trust. Is that
sometimes you get to, oh my god, it's me. The
buck stops with Nick. Yeah, that sounds that rings true.
Speaker 4 (02:55):
It's a big responsibility, I think, And you're right, it's
some people are really passionate about it. It really means
an awful lot. And actually, I mean, you know, to
the b's the original question. Actually probably I wouldn't say
it's a big surprise, but but someddly maybe I didn't
really appreciate is how much it does mean to some people,
(03:19):
because as I said, I've been a member, a supporter,
and have thought that one of the most important organizations
operating in the in our area, in our sector, whatever
you want to call it. But for some people that absolutely,
you know, they feel really passionate about it, and they
feel really passionate about the work it does. But also
it's it's viability, and it's it's ongoing health and and
(03:44):
they're real advocates for it as well with other people.
You know, they really think everybody, which is great, Beau. Absolutely,
when I'm sitting out I agree with them, But everybody
should be supporting that the gw CT in then in
any way that they can. And that's that's definitely been
something really and so you're right, yeah, I mean that
that that does mean, you know, quite a big responsibility
(04:05):
on my show.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
There's a sense of ownership possibly I think the deeble
feel this organization, which is which is quite quite strange
really that that of how it happens. One of the
interesting things we did a podcast as well with two
of your team and I discovered the sixty percent of
your team that you've got a female women. Now, is
(04:31):
that if you ever run an organization with such a
female heavy thing, and is this going to be a.
Speaker 4 (04:36):
Great opportunity If not not in that way, Nick, I'm
on about.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
To go and have a different dynamicisations your career.
Speaker 4 (04:46):
I'm not particularly surprised or find that unusual. I mean,
I've worked, as I said at the beginning, I was
at the NFU for a long time that had you know,
a fairly even balanced so I think gender wise, and
actually the teams that I ran there were often more
women than men, And say, I've always been pretty comfortable
(05:10):
working in that environment. And I think, yeah, it's you know,
I'm all I really want is good people working on
their areas on merit, but is there good at their jobs?
That's you know, the be all and end or really
for me?
Speaker 1 (05:25):
So the reason I asked that question isn't just for
a cheap lot, although I do usually make most things
for a cheap lot, is that we're talking about how
you get that cut through with farmers and land owners
of saying you know that your priorities here are not
just the growing crops you're a farming yourself, but also
that that custodianship.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Over wildlife is also your role.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Excuse me, I slightly get the impression that they were
able to get that side over slightly easier than from
when Roger Drake it was saying when he first started
with the Trust that everybody looked exactly the same and
they all wore the same tweed, They are the same tie,
they are the same comfortable brogues. Is all of a sudden,
you've got this slightly different mindset that is cutting through
(06:11):
with farmers to get them to embrace this idea that
custodian ship of their farmland for wildlife is an integral thing.
Do you think is that a challenge that you see
still getting that message across the farmers that then they are.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
They are they.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Are the place where nature recovery will happen. Is that
a challenge for you?
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Yeah, I mean there's a there's a bit to unpack.
I think what the layers breaking down? Well, I mean
I think the diversity point is is actually about because
I think, yes, if everybody looks the same, we're all
you know, as you say, wearing tweed, you know, pale, male, stale, whatever,
then there's nothing wrong with that on an individual basis,
(06:55):
but clearly on an organizational basis, then yeah, you're you're
liable to fall into green think or you just don't
have that diversity of thought and approach that my work.
So a diverse staff, diverse diversity in in the work
we do and who's doing that work is important. You
know that that actually helps us deliver I think much
(07:18):
better if we've if we've got that. So, so that's
important in terms of actually whether farmers will not understand.
I mean, firstly, there's an interesting point there because you know,
obviously many people see us because of our history where
we've come gone from as all about game management. Game
management runs pretty crucial to what we do. It's fundamental
and it's our history, and we've got amazing data sets
(07:40):
in relating to that. But actually, you know, conservation goes
much broader, and what the way I like to look
at it is actually, if you're managing, if you're doing
the you know, if you're doing what's right and what
works for nature, then maybe it's because you're running a shoe. Well,
maybe it's because you're running a farm. Well, maybe it
(08:00):
is because you're doing all sorts of things.
Speaker 5 (08:02):
Well, sorry, just listeners to interrupt this. That is becoming
traditional throughout the game Fare recordings. My colleague Ridge Andigus
has been asked to sign a book. He has got
a book out.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
You know, he's been very quiet about it.
Speaker 5 (08:16):
Yeah, there's there's occasional bits of evidence that there might
be a book somewhere around.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
But I'm just I'm just on so I can't it
was for you if you want they get more rare.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
Sorry, So the game aspect that you were talking, yes,
I mean it's just that that.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
Actually, it's it's got to be about more than that
as well. It's what you do on the land, the
works to help nature, to help the environment, et cetera.
And clearly, very often we can we can use our
assertion answer to so how you can do that if
you're running for suit, if you're running whether that's uplands,
(09:00):
whether that's lowland release burst, whatever it might be, you
can do that in a certain way. And we are
absolutely there to provide the evidence that Shawsy has to
do that properly. But equally we should also be working
with farmers and other land managers showing them how what
they're doing, whether it's producing food or something else, works
(09:21):
in a way that is complimentary to nature as well.
Speaker 6 (09:26):
So in trying to describe the organization, in trying to
describe the GWCT or game a Wildlife Conservation Trust, are
you primarily then an ecological organization? What's because it's we're
here at the game fair and just over there is
bask and the Countryside Alliance are down there.
Speaker 5 (09:45):
And it'll be easy for someone to look at this
and think, oh, well, they're a shooting organization, but that
doesn't say to be true.
Speaker 4 (09:51):
Well, there's no doubt we have a very strong link
to shooting because, as I said, you know, a lot
of the work we do demonstrates how you can run
a well managed to shoot for the benefit of wildlife
and and actually if your running street isn't for the
benefit of the world of wildlife, we're not interested. Yeah,
that's that's the important bit. So we are broader than that,
(10:11):
and we should be Borderman in that. And you just
it's in a way we've got a cheat as as
you know, I have a cheat. A CEO of g
w ctu's got some you know, working with the trustees
and guiding them in what we do because we're charity
and we've got charitable objectives and it's written there. You know,
it's about the conservation of game and associated fauna and flora.
(10:33):
It's it's the whole picture. And that that, you know,
actually is really helpful because that's what we can fall back.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
It's the word game ever a hindrance too.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Do you think when it comes to parracxiciating yourself in
front of we've got current government who cures seem ambivalent
of best really about shooting we've got possibly when you
come to.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Funding, is that that perception of game?
Speaker 4 (10:59):
The tweet the top the very first letter, isn't it
the G?
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Does the G sometimes?
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Do you think that's possibly a millstone or is it
not an issue either?
Speaker 4 (11:09):
It is an issue. I think it's a more nuanced
issue than probably you set out there. There is no
doubt that sometimes G the G game is a hindrance.
I've got no doubts about that. As someone who's a
long background and working in public affairs and lobbying and
talking to politicians, it's quite clear to me that at
(11:31):
the moment, you know, we we struggle to get as
attentive an audience with policymakers and politicians as we ought
to given the as we've already talked about the strength
of the science and the research that we do. However,
there are others I think, you know, certainly supporters, members
(11:51):
and others for who it's very important and who because
it is our history, it's where we came from, and
as I've said already, it's a really crucial and critical
part of the work we do. You know, we are
never going to not have game game management as a
fundamental part of what we do going forward. But I
(12:13):
do think we have to think very carefully about how
we present ourselves, how we talk about ourselves, to make
sure that we have the best chance possible getting a
fair hearing and people listening to us getting off through
it or whatever you want to call it, and that
I think can be can be a problem. So it's
not I don't think there's an easy answer, I guess,
(12:34):
is what I'm saying. But I think I certainly think
that it's something we need to think very hard about.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
So you wouldn't necessarily go and rush to change saying, right, okay,
well that's been a stumbling Potentially let's change the name
because they're not make everything fine now, well, I.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Mean you then you could change the name. It would
need to be a very careful decision, but it is
something that that may one day happen. But equally, you know,
as I say, you need to think very carefully about
why and what you're shanging it to and make sure
you did it properly. So I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
(13:13):
But in a way also, I think there has been
a lot of discussion about this recently, and to some
it's important. The name is clearly important, but but it's
I think it's almost given too much important. Sometimes the
really important thing is that people understand who we are
and what we do. Now the name can kind of
(13:33):
help that, but actually the name really is about the
recognition and people, something familiar, familiar with yourself. You don't
really have to have a name that explains every single
thing you do for us. If we did, it would
be twenty words long because we did absolutely an awful
life lots of things.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Did have a suggestion there, it's just free of charge,
right is double is Wildlife Conservation? But then I thought
of the title that had been initials of supporting WC.
Now it's just it's just doesn't quite got the ring
all of a standing man. Now I'm not hold on,
hold on my wife's back again with another book to sign.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
While he's signing this book.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
My next question when you came on them, when you
had your your week running up to your start as
chief exec, did you have a list that you have
some ideas about things you wanted to try and achieve
in your your tenure here or something you wanted to
move forward with or to focus.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
On, not explicitly know. And the reason why is because
I mean, I think maybe some people would have taken
that approach, It's not really my style or my approach.
What I want to do is to really get to
know something and understand it before suddenly coming up with
a vision of where it's got to go and and
(14:49):
what the challenges are, but it needs to rise to
in the next whatever your time frame is, months, years,
decades now. I obviously was pretty aware of what the
challenges facing the sector are facing shoesing, facing fields, words,
facing the countryside more broadly and farming. But you know,
I think to me it's it would be presumptive just
(15:13):
to come in and say, right, this is how we've
got to do. These are all the things. So the
last four and a half months had been really used
in just kind of absorbing information both internally how we work,
what our processes are, what our structures are, who our
supporters are, all of that, but also what are the
batch of big issues that we need to be to
be What I would say is I hope quite soon
(15:34):
now to be able to probably do that bit that
that that you talked about, so actually really start start
developing a clear picture and vision of what our you know,
main objectives also be over the next few years, and
then how we're best structured positioned to do that.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
So not to preempt that too much, then, but is
there an issue or is there something either happening or
on the horizon for the countryside of the English countryside,
for the British countryside in this world, as I say,
a sort of gesture broadly over at the Marquee that
maybe hasn't got the public attention that it needs, or
that we aren't as aware as we could be. Is
(16:18):
there something that you're not necessarily privy to, but you
can see because you're living and breathing this day in
day out, that the general public might not well.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
I do think we've got big challenges, and I would
put those into three main pots, and they all interconnect
to a degree. We've got the climactic what climatic challenges,
you know, for whatever reason people can argue over that
with the climate's changing. We've seen it this year again,
(16:49):
you know, the incredibly dry spring that we've just had.
Farmers and land managers are right at the forefront of that.
They can see it really matters to them, Marvive does
any other parts of society have to deal with the
impact of that every day And they are doing that
right now. They're supposed to be out there harvesting having
seen their drop crops, you know, drying off in the
(17:10):
field for weeks and weeks and something. Now that we've
gone black brain in for you know that, and that's
so when it comes to the world that we do,
we've then got to think about it again, well, what
does that mean in terms of where we focus our research?
What are the questions we need to be starting to
look at an answer now because they're going to be
(17:30):
useful and relevant two years, three years, five years, ten years,
or whatever it is. So that's a big challenge. The
challenge out there in the field bes also challenge for us.
Second area is the economic one. You know, times are
tougher than they have been for a long time, but
in particular public funds are drying up. You know, farmers
and land managers have been reliant for a long time
(17:52):
in one way or another on public support for what
they do in terms of financial support that is, and
we know that that is kenny smaller and smaller each year.
We also don't really know what and even what form
it's going to be delivered in, with the SFI having
been canceled at the beginning to new applicants at the
beginning of the year, and we're all still waiting for
(18:14):
Daniel Zeitchner wasn't really any more illuminating today on what's
what's coming down the track on that and that probably
won't emerge until next next year is an option, so
that I think that's quite interesting too because that brings
into start reality the fact that land managers are going
to have to find alternative sources of income, and that
(18:37):
actually again brings into play an organization like us, where
we can help with the evidence work out what works,
what doesn't work, what sort of actions on the ground
are going to help restore nature. Government has targets for that,
but they're not willing to pay for it. So what
are they going to do in terms of providing or
(18:58):
boosting some of those private markets, voluntary markets, etcetera that
can come in and actually start paying farmers for those
public goods in the way that the market currently doesn't
say quite a lot there, But again a challenge because
money is not going to be what it was in
the future, and just verb for what. Because the third
area is the political one, and I think, you know,
just to mention Daniel Zeitner was here today that he's
(19:19):
got a very tough job primarily because again the money
is drying up. But I don't believe this is the
government that really thinks that farming the countryside, certainly shooting
and field sports. I are really any of its business.
It's lowbright. I don't think they've got it in for us,
as some people do, but I do think they just
(19:41):
don't really, you know. They they feel they've got much
bigger fish to fry elsewhere, and actually they'll leave us
to do it again. That actually creates opportunities for us
as well as challenges.
Speaker 5 (19:52):
So that thing is it worse to be unimportant for
somebody them to be their enemy, but you can be forgotten,
which is wor so.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
On that note then and then I think this is
something I've become increasing because I've relied upon for a
long while in my business on state funding. You know,
as one style by one of my very good friends
was a farming customer of mine, is that nah? He said,
You're not getting paid by farmers lay hedges. You're getting
paid by.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
The taxpayer, which is probably true. And you think about it,
just how I'm doing funded.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
So I've been trying to future proof my business by
looking at how the corporate world might.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
Be interested in the good news stories.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
And getting into with their corporate and social responsibility hat
on their human resources have by getting their own staff
on the land coming to help this idiot plants some hedges,
or indeed on their marketing is using it. I mean,
you've got pretty strong experience in the corporate world as well.
How interested is the world outside our little rural bubble,
(20:53):
How interested is the city?
Speaker 3 (20:56):
How interested are people in suits?
Speaker 1 (21:00):
How interested are they in nature? Is nature recovery even
on their radar?
Speaker 4 (21:04):
Do you think it's a really good question. I think
it goes up and down. I mean, I think if
you'd ask me this question maybe a year or two ago,
I probably said it was more interested than it is now.
I do think, sadly a lot of it is just
around their esg obligations, commitments, whatever they might be. And
(21:27):
you know, probably some of it down or quind a
lot of it down to the advent of Trump. That's
that's dropping off the radar a bit. And it's very
clear that certainly multinationals are maybe less interested in burnishing
their sort of environmental credentials as much as as they were.
And when money becomes tight, those things fall off the
radar quite quickly as well, you know, suddenly spending a
(21:49):
load of money on something that doesn't actually necessarily and
this is a separate point. Brief it doesn't necessarily give
them a financial return, you know, that can that can
be deeproprieties quite quickly and when economic times get tough.
But having said that, there clearly is an appetite amongst
some to create natural capital markets and for that to
(22:16):
be an investment opportunity for city, for versus or whoever.
And what I think is interesting about that is what
is the role of government there? Because my sense is
that and I having had conversations with people involved in
that world, but for a few years now, is there
(22:37):
maybe an unrealistic expectation that companies would just want to
do that because it's important to them, or it's important
to the CEOs, and they just want to you know,
they want to help restore biodiversity and restore nature, and
so they'll all just sort of plow into this just
because it's good. And I just don't think that any
realistic economic model actually allows that to happen. I think
(23:01):
you've got to have if you want, without getting too
sort of nerdy from Ethnos perspective, but these are public goods.
You know. Natural capital is basically a public good. And
if you want private actors to start paying for public goods,
you've got to find a way of of as attaching
(23:22):
a price to that, and it's difficult to do that
without government coming in and base And the really good
example of that, of course is by diversity net gain,
where basically the gunment comes in and says, right, you
can't build a house over there without getting a ten
percent by a diversity net gain step away, and suddenly
there's a market for that. You know that there's a
that public goods suddenly become privatized, that that house builder
(23:47):
has got to go off and buy either doing themselves
at a cost or find someone else to do it
for them at a price. And it's I think that's
you know, there's a lot of that I don't want
to get into BMG. Now there's whole a lot of
issues discussions, you know, interesting points there, But just as
a concept, I think that's interesting. So that's what I think.
There's an interesting discussion about how you actually intervene to
(24:10):
create those natural capital markets.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
How do you value a yellow hammer?
Speaker 4 (24:15):
Yeah, absolutely, And it's tricky, it's really tricky.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
I mean, yeah, so it was a jentle But this
is one of the things that I think where the
GWCT are very interesting because.
Speaker 4 (24:27):
Twofold.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
Firstly is obviously the data sets that you have.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
This is on farmed so much and so much of
the other environmental charities they've dealt in their own rarefied.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Reserves which aren't real well.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
So therefore ninety nine point nine percent of the data
that you've got is in real world farm and so
that's much more relevant. One of the other things I
asked Megan this question, I said, do you know when
I hear you talking, you're talking about the successes whereby
you have used this system, and then these are the
numbers of pairs that we now have compared with the
(25:05):
where we are. And I thought it only occurred to
me when I sat there in a chair at the
back of the stand here, is that this is a
rarity because most of the time the GWCT are selling well,
we've assessed this, we've seen the problem with them, put
these measures in place, and then this we're seeing an
up to every other conservation charity always seems to be oh, no,
(25:27):
it's all dead, everything's dead, everything's If it's not actually dead,
then it's very nearly dead.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
You know.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
So that's is this something where are they getting it wrong.
The doom and gloom is that almost scaring off supporters
because I mean, why would I put my money into
something if, however much money And you've only got to
look at the Charities Commission see how much the RSPB,
for example, get every single year. Well, if they're getting
that many hundreds of millions and they still can't save,
it's clearly a pretty poor investment, is it. Actually the
(25:57):
GWCT is on the right side, is saying, you give
us some money, we do someone of things and hey, presto,
we get an upturn.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
Is that? What more organizations? I'm glad you've boiled out.
I think it's it's, you know, great part of how
we operate, and we should. Of course, we've got to
sing about our successes as well as you know, talk
about the challenges and the issues that we're trying to
address and that we haven't addressed yet. And I think
(26:22):
that I think lots of us know and feel that
there are lots of organizations out there, particularly environmental NGOs,
who have a modus operandi, which is to flag the
problems and the issues because that is what raises money.
And the treat is it It seems to be effective
because clearly organisations do. They wouldn't do it if it
(26:43):
did if it wasn't effective. But I think we all
know once you you know, they will, they'll do that
that they're entitled to do that. The problem I have
more with it is I think it risks feeding into
bad policy. Yeah, you know, I think it's really come
on all of us. When you're talking to policy makers
(27:04):
in your your you're feeding whatever information you can. Then
it's the truth that it's you or any and that
that's trite because sometimes you don't know the truth, but
it's at least justifiable scientific evidence. You know, this is
what we know. Sometimes that won't be enough, it won't
be everything, but it's better than nothing. And I think
(27:26):
emphasizing the negative and downplaying the positive, which I think
is often the modus operandi of some of those organizations,
runs the risk of just creating bad poss and focusing
on the wrong issues and not recognizing maybe this is
the worst thing, well, not recognizing what works and how
you can actually deal with stuff and and get results.
(27:49):
If you're saying, well, there isn't any positive results when
there are and we know and why we've achieved those
positive results, then the risks that those those that kind
of activity gets overlooked.
Speaker 5 (27:59):
Ye with a GWCT is almost unique in that you
are a you're effectively a wildlife trust that isn't tied
to one area that work in a very set number
of species or a set type of habitats. But unlike
a wildlife trust, your funding is often tied to the
(28:19):
land or it's tied to membership, but it's not contingent
on giving public access to the places that you would
have with a wildlife trust reserve. Where I've seen this
for myself and I see this with some of the
work that Amy does that if you want to get
money for something, you have to show a public benefit
or community benefits. So it's not just we're going to
(28:40):
be this habitat project and we'll do it over here
where you can't see it, but it's good for the wildlife.
For a wildlife trust or an RSPB or someone like that,
to access that kind of funding, they have to say
we're going to do this, and we're going to run
all of these community sessions, and we'll be this community
engagement hub, and there's going to be an arts project
for local schools about drawing this animal, and a lot
(29:01):
of money has to go into that because those are
the outcomes that are required by the funding, whereas the
gw CT it seems like, yes, we are going to
do this in a hedgerow or a scribland five miles
from the nearest road and you will see it maybe
on the farm walk twice a year, yeah, or something
like that. It's you are taking someone like that public
(29:23):
activity out of conservation, which is.
Speaker 4 (29:27):
I think.
Speaker 5 (29:27):
I think it's how things should be done. But that
might be part of why those wildlife trusts have to
say everything is disastrous, because they have to say that
they are then the solution, they are the only people
who can save it.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Well, I'm more almost more crudely than that. They rely
very much on broad public support for donations, membership, et cetera.
It's it's and so they need to appeal to that audience,
which is fine, And you know, I do want to
be careful about criticizing organizations are often do some some
(30:05):
good work, but in rearrange the letters, people know which
ones could be about. But but I do think we
we are by a very special position actually because most
of the people who support us, whether as members or
whether through direct donations or and often through other ways
(30:25):
and activity and things like that that they do are
often the same people who this is directly affecting the
issues we cother. It's really important because they are gamekeepers, farmers,
land managers operating right and I think a that may
that gives us, as I say, quite a unique status.
It's also potentially really powerful because you know, if you
(30:50):
take seventy two percent of the UK land that's for
example under under is farmed, then that gives a potentially
an incredible reach you know, where we're you know, the
people we are directly interacting with as our members and
supporters are the people who are going to do this
as well. If if we're going to get what we
are required to do both legally and morally in terms
(31:13):
of nature restoration, then it's that law, you know. And
it's important my data have public support, by the way,
and there's just you know, amongst you know, the urban
masses as well. It's not just them who matter. I
think you've got to have sort of a social license
for for what you do. But the people are going
to deliver this are those people who are a fairly
(31:36):
small actually amount presentage of the population. But who are covering,
you know, the ones who are there on vast majority
of the UK labs.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
I gave a talk last year to the Norfolk.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
GWC team and it's quite funny. I looked around and
I saw they were either the specific landowners or the
employees of two thirds of the Norfolk land mass side
in front of it, and there's seventy five people in there.
That's a pretty telling thing, you know, really, is that
in Norfolk is quite nominally because they've still got the
(32:13):
grand old estates there, you know, and we're you know,
sometimes people almost go do I own that?
Speaker 3 (32:19):
I really wasn't quite aware, but that, I mean, it
is quite strange.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
Is he bizarre Southern becoming also the CEO of an
organization where you've got so many dukes.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
Earls, lords, I mean, the.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Peerage is it sometimes strange? It's that this is their
trust as well. Is you've got this eclectic bunch, is
you know sitting here, there's Charlie members sat over there,
so a great gamekeeper for the senior peer.
Speaker 4 (32:46):
Of the lad right, and when you've got.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
This, so you've got a gamekeeper who's relying upon you
but you've also got the Duke of Norfolk, right is
it sometimes.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
A bit weird, is it?
Speaker 1 (32:57):
God, You've got to wear some really weird hats. You've
got to appealed to Charlie and you've got to appear
to the senior pier of the land.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
It's a weird old job Yorks, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (33:05):
Yeah, it is quite but I quite like that, and
I think i'd a light to seek. That's probably one
of the skill sets that I bring to And you know, previously,
on the same day when I was working with the NFU,
you know, I'd be sitting in a meeting with Cabinet
minister talking sort of pretty serious policy stuff in the afternoon,
(33:27):
and then I'd be jumping on a train up to
a pub you know in Yorkshire to go and speak
to ten farmers you know, in a back room about
something or other. And you've got to do both in
the same you know. And and so I sort of
i'd like to think that, you know, that's one of
the things I can do relatively well that I quite
(33:48):
enjoyed doing a well, I think that's something. But you're right,
I mean it is, it's quite a specific that's not
the sort of thing. I guess that happens in lots
of though I can't think of many. No, yeah, no,
but I think it's it's.
Speaker 5 (33:59):
Quite fun said if the one part of the job
description for you as well, I'm guessing that wasn't quite
laid out exactly.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
Live to Lord's on laymen, who needs you?
Speaker 5 (34:11):
It's like a guess who name these faces that you'd
be uncomfortable talking to these people on these that's a
bank note?
Speaker 3 (34:17):
Yes, how about him?
Speaker 1 (34:20):
I mean, one of the wonderful things I love is
that the king one of the first organizations he agreed
to continue his pats.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
Job was the g JOP Misty too, which is fantastic.
Isn't that a great thing? I was, you know, and obviously.
Speaker 7 (34:35):
As a fellow hedge layer, we're just you know, like
that crossed his fingers for the viewers listeners. I'm I
think it's something that sometimes is having a little royal
tag to it.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
Does Does he ever bring you up and.
Speaker 4 (34:48):
Say, Nick, we're going to do about this? He hasn't.
Speaker 8 (34:51):
Yeah, I'm not, probably not, us says all right, So
now so Cabris, you're allowed to tell it to me,
because you know, I was looked after the club, I
looked after his mum, you know, when he was a boy.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
I think I think it's I think it's I think
it is important. I think it's as you say, it's
great to have. He was so quick continue patronage of
g w c T after his father died. And you know,
it's interesting increasingly you look at the king and all
(35:27):
of the issues that he's felt important, and he he
was very activist Prince of Wales that he campaigned on
and was was involved with a lot of those sort
of were at the times seen as a little bit
you know, tangential, marginal or whatever you want to call it.
Now you know, a much more mainstream, uh And the
(35:49):
environment and wildlife are absolutely critical to his way of
thinking and what he thinks are important priorities for us
as a country. And the fact that I would like
to think that his patrion of patronage of us demonstrates
that he sees us has been quite a critical part
(36:11):
of answering that that that challenge is.
Speaker 5 (36:13):
So that sort of scoop on this, but you can't.
I mean, this episode won't be going out for a
couple of weeks, so I can say it now fourteen
projects out of two hundred are funded this year. We
put in a bid from one of them and we
were rewarded twenty five pounds to teach hedge laying.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
If it's rare, you go. I had a word with
he had in the act. So that hasn't gone out
of public yet. This goes out, it will hopefully will
have done.
Speaker 6 (36:39):
But we know.
Speaker 5 (36:41):
That because we put conservation hedge laying in that we
focus it towards conservation rather than traditional skills.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
Was a key factory are And then curiously, I know
that my job, my business is largely thanks to research
that Roger did Jacob did some while about on just
the value of hedgerows and you know that QED moment
they had this, well why is all this wildlife are here?
(37:09):
But it's not in there in the hedgerows world because
they've been laid in the past. And that was that
filtered down research. And I think one of the things
you know you had today your ambassador's meeting, and you
said in there is that actually everybody is an ambassador
and I think sometimes well we should go and do.
Speaker 3 (37:28):
Here's my strategy for you.
Speaker 1 (37:30):
Is that I honestly believe that anybody who raises a
gun to a game bird before they do so should
have become a member of the gw CT, because the
only reason they can do so with any honesty they're
doing it right is Curtsey of your chives. The second
thing is that we should all be telling those little
micro stories. But the fact that my business, the fact
(37:52):
I can write a book best selling book now in
my iso, that that courtesy of some of the research
the GWCT did, which then became government policy, which was
able to then fund me to do that job. And
I think you said we are all ambassadors for it.
(38:14):
So most of the listeners to the Country Slide, we've
seen underds of them here today, they're they're your supporters.
And actual fact is that it's not just the cash,
because not everyone has cash. I do ten percent of
my scribe hound earnings every month goes to the GWCT.
Speaker 3 (38:32):
That's my choice.
Speaker 4 (38:33):
My wife doesn't know.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
I don't think she listens to this anymo because it's
too many rude words in it. But it's something where
I think there are levels of a bitch. It's that bit,
that that sort of JFK thing. You know, it's not
what you can do for us is what we can
do for you. And that's something I think that if
you reach out, like talking to us through in this podcast,
is you.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
Tell us what you need us to do.
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Because I think there's a lot of people who we
don't want to do something, but the always want to
be told what can we do? And they see people
with deep pockets going to big swankyds in London thinking well,
I can't really go to that thing. I'm high, you know,
And it's almost what what you want the layman to do?
Speaker 4 (39:10):
Well, I think, I mean it goes a bit back
to the conversation we were having a while ago about
the name and that side of things, and it's, you know,
actually it's not you know, the name can be a
little bit of a of a of a red herring.
It's actually how we present ourselves and and ensure that
people know us and understand us and what we do.
And actually I think sometimes we can be even a
(39:32):
bit complacent that within the shooting sector that people know
us and understand what we do. And if you know,
you're body and and and as you say, the fact
that they're able to carry on that you know, one
of their favorite pastimes is you know largely that the
eft that we provide because you're always yeah because of us,
(39:52):
And so I think there, you know, one of the
things we absolutely do want to do is is get
better at communicating what we do, publicizing ourselves, making sure
people understand the importance of us. Now, I don't know
what the best mechanism to do that, you know, how
people contribute to that. But if people know about us,
the more they know about us, hopefully that will build
(40:13):
build our support. So you know, actually, as I say,
it's not you can get kind of tied up in
what your name and the brand and all of that is.
Actually it's much more than that. It's really being clear.
Community eats into people who we are, what we do,
why that's of value to them. So I think that's
a great place to end it.
Speaker 5 (40:34):
That's my inspiration on there, which is normally normally just
you and I go, well, we're going to say something
silly now it's clear, but thinks that it all serious?
Speaker 4 (40:42):
This is terrible.
Speaker 3 (40:43):
Do you have lost our usp.
Speaker 4 (40:46):
Hellms are running with a stupid noise and a joke.
Anyway that later we'll try and do. Can we do
with AI? Can we can we do Nix's vice. Really,
I'm going to let you mix all sorts of terrible
career and Nick things.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
We are the power of chatting Chatty Kathy right well,
Nick von Westernholds from the g w C T thank
you very much for joining us on Country Slide.
Speaker 4 (41:09):
Thanks, thank you very much
Loyal listeners of Scribe Pound Scribe Pound, take that go.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Hello, Hello listeners of Country Slide. We are still at
the game fair, which might seem interminably long view, but
it's not.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
For us, because we're still enjoying ourselves.
Speaker 4 (00:18):
Now.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Richard and I are sat out in the back lawn and.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
Signed a GWCT stacked which has been a high of activity.
Speaker 4 (00:28):
Of proper types for thus far.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
And we most importantly have got the most important chat
in the whole organization. The new chief executive, knit one
Vesterner Holts, has very kindly agreed to come and talk
to us and end his career. Welcome to Country Slide, Nick,
thank you.
Speaker 4 (00:48):
Right, So Richard will have a killer question start off.
Speaker 5 (00:51):
With go, so in your how many months into the
post four and a half, four and a hair what's been.
Speaker 4 (00:57):
The biggest surprise. I don't mean there's been a surprise
actually because I that's a good answer, all right, It's
been nothing. Is nothing surprised me. I've been a member
of g w CT for a long time, so I
know the work that does. I know. I don't know
the organizing organization intimately or didn't, but I knew it,
(01:18):
and you know, having come from the NF you as
director of strategy there. It's fairly aware of the issues
that we're facing into politically publicly, even the issues that
are supporters and members are facing on the ground in
terms of the climate, the weather, et cetera. So so,
no no great surprises, but it has been sort of
(01:45):
four and a half months of learning.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
So what a four and a half months to have
joined me in the middle of it's been.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
It's an interesting year.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Let's bad timing, Nick, you know, let's let's be honest.
But perhaps is that the thing is that you're coming
into this job now, let's be honest. See, I've supported
the Game Conservacy as it was. I think I can
remember going to the Wessex Game Fare when I was
eleven years old and that was when I joined the
(02:17):
Game Conservacy was and I've had uninterrupted membership and support
the now the GWCT for therefore lots of years, you know,
over over forty six years. It's something where you are
wedded to this organization. Is it suddenly a bit weird
where all of a sudden it's something that you supported
(02:37):
and now not only are you employed by them, but
you're holding the can for all these people like me
who are so wholly wedded to this trust. Is that
sometimes you get to, oh my god, it's me. The
buck stops with Nick. Yeah, that sounds that rings true.
Speaker 4 (02:55):
It's a big responsibility, I think, And you're right, it's
some people are really passionate about it. It really means
an awful lot. And actually, I mean, you know, to
the b's the original question. Actually probably I wouldn't say
it's a big surprise, but but someddly maybe I didn't
really appreciate is how much it does mean to some people,
(03:19):
because as I said, I've been a member, a supporter,
and have thought that one of the most important organizations
operating in the in our area, in our sector, whatever
you want to call it. But for some people that absolutely,
you know, they feel really passionate about it, and they
feel really passionate about the work it does. But also
it's it's viability, and it's it's ongoing health and and
(03:44):
they're real advocates for it as well with other people.
You know, they really think everybody, which is great, Beau. Absolutely,
when I'm sitting out I agree with them, But everybody
should be supporting that the gw CT in then in
any way that they can. And that's that's definitely been
something really and so you're right, yeah, I mean that
that that does mean, you know, quite a big responsibility
(04:05):
on my show.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
There's a sense of ownership possibly I think the deeble
feel this organization, which is which is quite quite strange
really that that of how it happens. One of the
interesting things we did a podcast as well with two
of your team and I discovered the sixty percent of
your team that you've got a female women. Now, is
(04:31):
that if you ever run an organization with such a
female heavy thing, and is this going to be a.
Speaker 4 (04:36):
Great opportunity If not not in that way, Nick, I'm
on about.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
To go and have a different dynamicisations your career.
Speaker 4 (04:46):
I'm not particularly surprised or find that unusual. I mean,
I've worked, as I said at the beginning, I was
at the NFU for a long time that had you know,
a fairly even balanced so I think gender wise, and
actually the teams that I ran there were often more
women than men, And say, I've always been pretty comfortable
(05:10):
working in that environment. And I think, yeah, it's you know,
I'm all I really want is good people working on
their areas on merit, but is there good at their jobs?
That's you know, the be all and end or really
for me?
Speaker 1 (05:25):
So the reason I asked that question isn't just for
a cheap lot, although I do usually make most things
for a cheap lot, is that we're talking about how
you get that cut through with farmers and land owners
of saying you know that your priorities here are not
just the growing crops you're a farming yourself, but also
that that custodianship.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Over wildlife is also your role.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Excuse me, I slightly get the impression that they were
able to get that side over slightly easier than from
when Roger Drake it was saying when he first started
with the Trust that everybody looked exactly the same and
they all wore the same tweed, They are the same tie,
they are the same comfortable brogues. Is all of a sudden,
you've got this slightly different mindset that is cutting through
(06:11):
with farmers to get them to embrace this idea that
custodian ship of their farmland for wildlife is an integral thing.
Do you think is that a challenge that you see
still getting that message across the farmers that then they are.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
They are they.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Are the place where nature recovery will happen. Is that
a challenge for you?
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Yeah, I mean there's a there's a bit to unpack.
I think what the layers breaking down? Well, I mean
I think the diversity point is is actually about because
I think, yes, if everybody looks the same, we're all
you know, as you say, wearing tweed, you know, pale, male, stale, whatever,
then there's nothing wrong with that on an individual basis,
(06:55):
but clearly on an organizational basis, then yeah, you're you're
liable to fall into green think or you just don't
have that diversity of thought and approach that my work.
So a diverse staff, diverse diversity in in the work
we do and who's doing that work is important. You
know that that actually helps us deliver I think much
(07:18):
better if we've if we've got that. So, so that's
important in terms of actually whether farmers will not understand.
I mean, firstly, there's an interesting point there because you know,
obviously many people see us because of our history where
we've come gone from as all about game management. Game
management runs pretty crucial to what we do. It's fundamental
and it's our history, and we've got amazing data sets
(07:40):
in relating to that. But actually, you know, conservation goes
much broader, and what the way I like to look
at it is actually, if you're managing, if you're doing
the you know, if you're doing what's right and what
works for nature, then maybe it's because you're running a shoe. Well,
maybe it's because you're running a farm. Well, maybe it
(08:00):
is because you're doing all sorts of things.
Speaker 5 (08:02):
Well, sorry, just listeners to interrupt this. That is becoming
traditional throughout the game Fare recordings. My colleague Ridge Andigus
has been asked to sign a book. He has got
a book out.
Speaker 4 (08:13):
You know, he's been very quiet about it.
Speaker 5 (08:16):
Yeah, there's there's occasional bits of evidence that there might
be a book somewhere around.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
But I'm just I'm just on so I can't it
was for you if you want they get more rare.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
Sorry, So the game aspect that you were talking, yes,
I mean it's just that that.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
Actually, it's it's got to be about more than that
as well. It's what you do on the land, the
works to help nature, to help the environment, et cetera.
And clearly, very often we can we can use our
assertion answer to so how you can do that if
you're running for suit, if you're running whether that's uplands,
(09:00):
whether that's lowland release burst, whatever it might be, you
can do that in a certain way. And we are
absolutely there to provide the evidence that Shawsy has to
do that properly. But equally we should also be working
with farmers and other land managers showing them how what
they're doing, whether it's producing food or something else, works
(09:21):
in a way that is complimentary to nature as well.
Speaker 6 (09:26):
So in trying to describe the organization, in trying to
describe the GWCT or game a Wildlife Conservation Trust, are
you primarily then an ecological organization? What's because it's we're
here at the game fair and just over there is
bask and the Countryside Alliance are down there.
Speaker 5 (09:45):
And it'll be easy for someone to look at this
and think, oh, well, they're a shooting organization, but that
doesn't say to be true.
Speaker 4 (09:51):
Well, there's no doubt we have a very strong link
to shooting because, as I said, you know, a lot
of the work we do demonstrates how you can run
a well managed to shoot for the benefit of wildlife
and and actually if your running street isn't for the
benefit of the world of wildlife, we're not interested. Yeah,
that's that's the important bit. So we are broader than that,
(10:11):
and we should be Borderman in that. And you just
it's in a way we've got a cheat as as
you know, I have a cheat. A CEO of g
w ctu's got some you know, working with the trustees
and guiding them in what we do because we're charity
and we've got charitable objectives and it's written there. You know,
it's about the conservation of game and associated fauna and flora.
(10:33):
It's it's the whole picture. And that that, you know,
actually is really helpful because that's what we can fall back.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
It's the word game ever a hindrance too.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Do you think when it comes to parracxiciating yourself in
front of we've got current government who cures seem ambivalent
of best really about shooting we've got possibly when you
come to.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Funding, is that that perception of game?
Speaker 4 (10:59):
The tweet the top the very first letter, isn't it
the G?
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Does the G sometimes?
Speaker 1 (11:04):
Do you think that's possibly a millstone or is it
not an issue either?
Speaker 4 (11:09):
It is an issue. I think it's a more nuanced
issue than probably you set out there. There is no
doubt that sometimes G the G game is a hindrance.
I've got no doubts about that. As someone who's a
long background and working in public affairs and lobbying and
talking to politicians, it's quite clear to me that at
(11:31):
the moment, you know, we we struggle to get as
attentive an audience with policymakers and politicians as we ought
to given the as we've already talked about the strength
of the science and the research that we do. However,
there are others I think, you know, certainly supporters, members
(11:51):
and others for who it's very important and who because
it is our history, it's where we came from, and
as I've said already, it's a really crucial and critical
part of the work we do. You know, we are
never going to not have game game management as a
fundamental part of what we do going forward. But I
(12:13):
do think we have to think very carefully about how
we present ourselves, how we talk about ourselves, to make
sure that we have the best chance possible getting a
fair hearing and people listening to us getting off through
it or whatever you want to call it, and that
I think can be can be a problem. So it's
not I don't think there's an easy answer, I guess,
(12:34):
is what I'm saying. But I think I certainly think
that it's something we need to think very hard about.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
So you wouldn't necessarily go and rush to change saying, right, okay,
well that's been a stumbling Potentially let's change the name
because they're not make everything fine now, well, I.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Mean you then you could change the name. It would
need to be a very careful decision, but it is
something that that may one day happen. But equally, you know,
as I say, you need to think very carefully about
why and what you're shanging it to and make sure
you did it properly. So I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
(13:13):
But in a way also, I think there has been
a lot of discussion about this recently, and to some
it's important. The name is clearly important, but but it's
I think it's almost given too much important. Sometimes the
really important thing is that people understand who we are
and what we do. Now the name can kind of
(13:33):
help that, but actually the name really is about the
recognition and people, something familiar, familiar with yourself. You don't
really have to have a name that explains every single
thing you do for us. If we did, it would
be twenty words long because we did absolutely an awful
life lots of things.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Did have a suggestion there, it's just free of charge,
right is double is Wildlife Conservation? But then I thought
of the title that had been initials of supporting WC.
Now it's just it's just doesn't quite got the ring
all of a standing man. Now I'm not hold on,
hold on my wife's back again with another book to sign.
Speaker 4 (14:08):
While he's signing this book.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
My next question when you came on them, when you
had your your week running up to your start as
chief exec, did you have a list that you have
some ideas about things you wanted to try and achieve
in your your tenure here or something you wanted to
move forward with or to focus.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
On, not explicitly know. And the reason why is because
I mean, I think maybe some people would have taken
that approach, It's not really my style or my approach.
What I want to do is to really get to
know something and understand it before suddenly coming up with
a vision of where it's got to go and and
(14:49):
what the challenges are, but it needs to rise to
in the next whatever your time frame is, months, years,
decades now. I obviously was pretty aware of what the
challenges facing the sector are facing shoesing, facing fields, words,
facing the countryside more broadly and farming. But you know,
I think to me it's it would be presumptive just
(15:13):
to come in and say, right, this is how we've
got to do. These are all the things. So the
last four and a half months had been really used
in just kind of absorbing information both internally how we work,
what our processes are, what our structures are, who our
supporters are, all of that, but also what are the
batch of big issues that we need to be to
be What I would say is I hope quite soon
(15:34):
now to be able to probably do that bit that
that that you talked about, so actually really start start
developing a clear picture and vision of what our you know,
main objectives also be over the next few years, and
then how we're best structured positioned to do that.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
So not to preempt that too much, then, but is
there an issue or is there something either happening or
on the horizon for the countryside of the English countryside,
for the British countryside in this world, as I say,
a sort of gesture broadly over at the Marquee that
maybe hasn't got the public attention that it needs, or
that we aren't as aware as we could be. Is
(16:18):
there something that you're not necessarily privy to, but you
can see because you're living and breathing this day in
day out, that the general public might not well.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
I do think we've got big challenges, and I would
put those into three main pots, and they all interconnect
to a degree. We've got the climactic what climatic challenges,
you know, for whatever reason people can argue over that
with the climate's changing. We've seen it this year again,
(16:49):
you know, the incredibly dry spring that we've just had.
Farmers and land managers are right at the forefront of that.
They can see it really matters to them, Marvive does
any other parts of society have to deal with the
impact of that every day And they are doing that
right now. They're supposed to be out there harvesting having
seen their drop crops, you know, drying off in the
(17:10):
field for weeks and weeks and something. Now that we've
gone black brain in for you know that, and that's
so when it comes to the world that we do,
we've then got to think about it again, well, what
does that mean in terms of where we focus our research?
What are the questions we need to be starting to
look at an answer now because they're going to be
(17:30):
useful and relevant two years, three years, five years, ten years,
or whatever it is. So that's a big challenge. The
challenge out there in the field bes also challenge for us.
Second area is the economic one. You know, times are
tougher than they have been for a long time, but
in particular public funds are drying up. You know, farmers
and land managers have been reliant for a long time
(17:52):
in one way or another on public support for what
they do in terms of financial support that is, and
we know that that is kenny smaller and smaller each year.
We also don't really know what and even what form
it's going to be delivered in, with the SFI having
been canceled at the beginning to new applicants at the
beginning of the year, and we're all still waiting for
(18:14):
Daniel Zeitchner wasn't really any more illuminating today on what's
what's coming down the track on that and that probably
won't emerge until next next year is an option, so
that I think that's quite interesting too because that brings
into start reality the fact that land managers are going
to have to find alternative sources of income, and that
(18:37):
actually again brings into play an organization like us, where
we can help with the evidence work out what works,
what doesn't work, what sort of actions on the ground
are going to help restore nature. Government has targets for that,
but they're not willing to pay for it. So what
are they going to do in terms of providing or
(18:58):
boosting some of those private markets, voluntary markets, etcetera that
can come in and actually start paying farmers for those
public goods in the way that the market currently doesn't
say quite a lot there, But again a challenge because
money is not going to be what it was in
the future, and just verb for what. Because the third
area is the political one, and I think, you know,
just to mention Daniel Zeitner was here today that he's
(19:19):
got a very tough job primarily because again the money
is drying up. But I don't believe this is the
government that really thinks that farming the countryside, certainly shooting
and field sports. I are really any of its business.
It's lowbright. I don't think they've got it in for us,
as some people do, but I do think they just
(19:41):
don't really, you know. They they feel they've got much
bigger fish to fry elsewhere, and actually they'll leave us
to do it again. That actually creates opportunities for us
as well as challenges.
Speaker 5 (19:52):
So that thing is it worse to be unimportant for
somebody them to be their enemy, but you can be forgotten,
which is wor so.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
On that note then and then I think this is
something I've become increasing because I've relied upon for a
long while in my business on state funding. You know,
as one style by one of my very good friends
was a farming customer of mine, is that nah? He said,
You're not getting paid by farmers lay hedges. You're getting
paid by.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
The taxpayer, which is probably true. And you think about it,
just how I'm doing funded.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
So I've been trying to future proof my business by
looking at how the corporate world might.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
Be interested in the good news stories.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
And getting into with their corporate and social responsibility hat
on their human resources have by getting their own staff
on the land coming to help this idiot plants some hedges,
or indeed on their marketing is using it. I mean,
you've got pretty strong experience in the corporate world as well.
How interested is the world outside our little rural bubble,
(20:53):
How interested is the city?
Speaker 3 (20:56):
How interested are people in suits?
Speaker 1 (21:00):
How interested are they in nature? Is nature recovery even
on their radar?
Speaker 4 (21:04):
Do you think it's a really good question. I think
it goes up and down. I mean, I think if
you'd ask me this question maybe a year or two ago,
I probably said it was more interested than it is now.
I do think, sadly a lot of it is just
around their esg obligations, commitments, whatever they might be. And
(21:27):
you know, probably some of it down or quind a
lot of it down to the advent of Trump. That's
that's dropping off the radar a bit. And it's very
clear that certainly multinationals are maybe less interested in burnishing
their sort of environmental credentials as much as as they were.
And when money becomes tight, those things fall off the
radar quite quickly as well, you know, suddenly spending a
(21:49):
load of money on something that doesn't actually necessarily and
this is a separate point. Brief it doesn't necessarily give
them a financial return, you know, that can that can
be deeproprieties quite quickly and when economic times get tough.
But having said that, there clearly is an appetite amongst
some to create natural capital markets and for that to
(22:16):
be an investment opportunity for city, for versus or whoever.
And what I think is interesting about that is what
is the role of government there? Because my sense is
that and I having had conversations with people involved in
that world, but for a few years now, is there
(22:37):
maybe an unrealistic expectation that companies would just want to
do that because it's important to them, or it's important
to the CEOs, and they just want to you know,
they want to help restore biodiversity and restore nature, and
so they'll all just sort of plow into this just
because it's good. And I just don't think that any
realistic economic model actually allows that to happen. I think
(23:01):
you've got to have if you want, without getting too
sort of nerdy from Ethnos perspective, but these are public goods.
You know. Natural capital is basically a public good. And
if you want private actors to start paying for public goods,
you've got to find a way of of as attaching
(23:22):
a price to that, and it's difficult to do that
without government coming in and base And the really good
example of that, of course is by diversity net gain,
where basically the gunment comes in and says, right, you
can't build a house over there without getting a ten
percent by a diversity net gain step away, and suddenly
there's a market for that. You know that there's a
that public goods suddenly become privatized, that that house builder
(23:47):
has got to go off and buy either doing themselves
at a cost or find someone else to do it
for them at a price. And it's I think that's
you know, there's a lot of that I don't want
to get into BMG. Now there's whole a lot of
issues discussions, you know, interesting points there, But just as
a concept, I think that's interesting. So that's what I think.
There's an interesting discussion about how you actually intervene to
(24:10):
create those natural capital markets.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
How do you value a yellow hammer?
Speaker 4 (24:15):
Yeah, absolutely, And it's tricky, it's really tricky.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
I mean, yeah, so it was a jentle But this
is one of the things that I think where the
GWCT are very interesting because.
Speaker 4 (24:27):
Twofold.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
Firstly is obviously the data sets that you have.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
This is on farmed so much and so much of
the other environmental charities they've dealt in their own rarefied.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Reserves which aren't real well.
Speaker 1 (24:42):
So therefore ninety nine point nine percent of the data
that you've got is in real world farm and so
that's much more relevant. One of the other things I
asked Megan this question, I said, do you know when
I hear you talking, you're talking about the successes whereby
you have used this system, and then these are the
numbers of pairs that we now have compared with the
(25:05):
where we are. And I thought it only occurred to
me when I sat there in a chair at the
back of the stand here, is that this is a
rarity because most of the time the GWCT are selling well,
we've assessed this, we've seen the problem with them, put
these measures in place, and then this we're seeing an
up to every other conservation charity always seems to be oh, no,
(25:27):
it's all dead, everything's dead, everything's If it's not actually dead,
then it's very nearly dead.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
You know.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
So that's is this something where are they getting it wrong.
The doom and gloom is that almost scaring off supporters
because I mean, why would I put my money into
something if, however much money And you've only got to
look at the Charities Commission see how much the RSPB,
for example, get every single year. Well, if they're getting
that many hundreds of millions and they still can't save,
it's clearly a pretty poor investment, is it. Actually the
(25:57):
GWCT is on the right side, is saying, you give
us some money, we do someone of things and hey, presto,
we get an upturn.
Speaker 4 (26:02):
Is that? What more organizations? I'm glad you've boiled out.
I think it's it's, you know, great part of how
we operate, and we should. Of course, we've got to
sing about our successes as well as you know, talk
about the challenges and the issues that we're trying to
address and that we haven't addressed yet. And I think
(26:22):
that I think lots of us know and feel that
there are lots of organizations out there, particularly environmental NGOs,
who have a modus operandi, which is to flag the
problems and the issues because that is what raises money.
And the treat is it It seems to be effective
because clearly organisations do. They wouldn't do it if it
(26:43):
did if it wasn't effective. But I think we all
know once you you know, they will, they'll do that
that they're entitled to do that. The problem I have
more with it is I think it risks feeding into
bad policy. Yeah, you know, I think it's really come
on all of us. When you're talking to policy makers
(27:04):
in your your you're feeding whatever information you can. Then
it's the truth that it's you or any and that
that's trite because sometimes you don't know the truth, but
it's at least justifiable scientific evidence. You know, this is
what we know. Sometimes that won't be enough, it won't
be everything, but it's better than nothing. And I think
(27:26):
emphasizing the negative and downplaying the positive, which I think
is often the modus operandi of some of those organizations,
runs the risk of just creating bad poss and focusing
on the wrong issues and not recognizing maybe this is
the worst thing, well, not recognizing what works and how
you can actually deal with stuff and and get results.
(27:49):
If you're saying, well, there isn't any positive results when
there are and we know and why we've achieved those
positive results, then the risks that those those that kind
of activity gets overlooked.
Speaker 5 (27:59):
Ye with a GWCT is almost unique in that you
are a you're effectively a wildlife trust that isn't tied
to one area that work in a very set number
of species or a set type of habitats. But unlike
a wildlife trust, your funding is often tied to the
(28:19):
land or it's tied to membership, but it's not contingent
on giving public access to the places that you would
have with a wildlife trust reserve. Where I've seen this
for myself and I see this with some of the
work that Amy does that if you want to get
money for something, you have to show a public benefit
or community benefits. So it's not just we're going to
(28:40):
be this habitat project and we'll do it over here
where you can't see it, but it's good for the wildlife.
For a wildlife trust or an RSPB or someone like that,
to access that kind of funding, they have to say
we're going to do this, and we're going to run
all of these community sessions, and we'll be this community
engagement hub, and there's going to be an arts project
for local schools about drawing this animal, and a lot
(29:01):
of money has to go into that because those are
the outcomes that are required by the funding, whereas the
gw CT it seems like, yes, we are going to
do this in a hedgerow or a scribland five miles
from the nearest road and you will see it maybe
on the farm walk twice a year, yeah, or something
like that. It's you are taking someone like that public
(29:23):
activity out of conservation, which is.
Speaker 4 (29:27):
I think.
Speaker 5 (29:27):
I think it's how things should be done. But that
might be part of why those wildlife trusts have to
say everything is disastrous, because they have to say that
they are then the solution, they are the only people
who can save it.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
Well, I'm more almost more crudely than that. They rely
very much on broad public support for donations, membership, et cetera.
It's it's and so they need to appeal to that audience,
which is fine, And you know, I do want to
be careful about criticizing organizations are often do some some
(30:05):
good work, but in rearrange the letters, people know which
ones could be about. But but I do think we
we are by a very special position actually because most
of the people who support us, whether as members or
whether through direct donations or and often through other ways
(30:25):
and activity and things like that that they do are
often the same people who this is directly affecting the
issues we cother. It's really important because they are gamekeepers, farmers,
land managers operating right and I think a that may
that gives us, as I say, quite a unique status.
It's also potentially really powerful because you know, if you
(30:50):
take seventy two percent of the UK land that's for
example under under is farmed, then that gives a potentially
an incredible reach you know, where we're you know, the
people we are directly interacting with as our members and
supporters are the people who are going to do this
as well. If if we're going to get what we
are required to do both legally and morally in terms
(31:13):
of nature restoration, then it's that law, you know. And
it's important my data have public support, by the way,
and there's just you know, amongst you know, the urban
masses as well. It's not just them who matter. I
think you've got to have sort of a social license
for for what you do. But the people are going
to deliver this are those people who are a fairly
(31:36):
small actually amount presentage of the population. But who are covering,
you know, the ones who are there on vast majority
of the UK labs.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
I gave a talk last year to the Norfolk.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
GWC team and it's quite funny. I looked around and
I saw they were either the specific landowners or the
employees of two thirds of the Norfolk land mass side
in front of it, and there's seventy five people in there.
That's a pretty telling thing, you know, really, is that
in Norfolk is quite nominally because they've still got the
(32:13):
grand old estates there, you know, and we're you know,
sometimes people almost go do I own that?
Speaker 3 (32:19):
I really wasn't quite aware, but that, I mean, it
is quite strange.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
Is he bizarre Southern becoming also the CEO of an
organization where you've got so many dukes.
Speaker 4 (32:31):
Earls, lords, I mean, the.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Peerage is it sometimes strange? It's that this is their
trust as well. Is you've got this eclectic bunch, is
you know sitting here, there's Charlie members sat over there,
so a great gamekeeper for the senior peer.
Speaker 4 (32:46):
Of the lad right, and when you've got.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
This, so you've got a gamekeeper who's relying upon you
but you've also got the Duke of Norfolk, right is
it sometimes.
Speaker 4 (32:56):
A bit weird, is it?
Speaker 1 (32:57):
God, You've got to wear some really weird hats. You've
got to appealed to Charlie and you've got to appear
to the senior pier of the land.
Speaker 3 (33:03):
It's a weird old job Yorks, isn't it.
Speaker 4 (33:05):
Yeah, it is quite but I quite like that, and
I think i'd a light to seek. That's probably one
of the skill sets that I bring to And you know, previously,
on the same day when I was working with the NFU,
you know, I'd be sitting in a meeting with Cabinet
minister talking sort of pretty serious policy stuff in the afternoon,
(33:27):
and then I'd be jumping on a train up to
a pub you know in Yorkshire to go and speak
to ten farmers you know, in a back room about
something or other. And you've got to do both in
the same you know. And and so I sort of
i'd like to think that, you know, that's one of
the things I can do relatively well that I quite
(33:48):
enjoyed doing a well, I think that's something. But you're right,
I mean it is, it's quite a specific that's not
the sort of thing. I guess that happens in lots
of though I can't think of many. No, yeah, no,
but I think it's it's.
Speaker 5 (33:59):
Quite fun said if the one part of the job
description for you as well, I'm guessing that wasn't quite
laid out exactly.
Speaker 4 (34:05):
Live to Lord's on laymen, who needs you?
Speaker 5 (34:11):
It's like a guess who name these faces that you'd
be uncomfortable talking to these people on these that's a
bank note?
Speaker 3 (34:17):
Yes, how about him?
Speaker 1 (34:20):
I mean, one of the wonderful things I love is
that the king one of the first organizations he agreed
to continue his pats.
Speaker 4 (34:28):
Job was the g JOP Misty too, which is fantastic.
Isn't that a great thing? I was, you know, and obviously.
Speaker 7 (34:35):
As a fellow hedge layer, we're just you know, like
that crossed his fingers for the viewers listeners. I'm I
think it's something that sometimes is having a little royal
tag to it.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
Does Does he ever bring you up and.
Speaker 4 (34:48):
Say, Nick, we're going to do about this? He hasn't.
Speaker 8 (34:51):
Yeah, I'm not, probably not, us says all right, So
now so Cabris, you're allowed to tell it to me,
because you know, I was looked after the club, I
looked after his mum, you know, when he was a boy.
Speaker 4 (35:04):
I think I think it's I think it's I think
it is important. I think it's as you say, it's
great to have. He was so quick continue patronage of
g w c T after his father died. And you know,
it's interesting increasingly you look at the king and all
(35:27):
of the issues that he's felt important, and he he
was very activist Prince of Wales that he campaigned on
and was was involved with a lot of those sort
of were at the times seen as a little bit
you know, tangential, marginal or whatever you want to call it.
Now you know, a much more mainstream, uh And the
(35:49):
environment and wildlife are absolutely critical to his way of
thinking and what he thinks are important priorities for us
as a country. And the fact that I would like
to think that his patrion of patronage of us demonstrates
that he sees us has been quite a critical part
(36:11):
of answering that that that challenge is.
Speaker 5 (36:13):
So that sort of scoop on this, but you can't.
I mean, this episode won't be going out for a
couple of weeks, so I can say it now fourteen
projects out of two hundred are funded this year. We
put in a bid from one of them and we
were rewarded twenty five pounds to teach hedge laying.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
If it's rare, you go. I had a word with
he had in the act. So that hasn't gone out
of public yet. This goes out, it will hopefully will
have done.
Speaker 6 (36:39):
But we know.
Speaker 5 (36:41):
That because we put conservation hedge laying in that we
focus it towards conservation rather than traditional skills.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
Was a key factory are And then curiously, I know
that my job, my business is largely thanks to research
that Roger did Jacob did some while about on just
the value of hedgerows and you know that QED moment
they had this, well why is all this wildlife are here?
(37:09):
But it's not in there in the hedgerows world because
they've been laid in the past. And that was that
filtered down research. And I think one of the things
you know you had today your ambassador's meeting, and you
said in there is that actually everybody is an ambassador
and I think sometimes well we should go and do.
Speaker 3 (37:28):
Here's my strategy for you.
Speaker 1 (37:30):
Is that I honestly believe that anybody who raises a
gun to a game bird before they do so should
have become a member of the gw CT, because the
only reason they can do so with any honesty they're
doing it right is Curtsey of your chives. The second
thing is that we should all be telling those little
micro stories. But the fact that my business, the fact
(37:52):
I can write a book best selling book now in
my iso, that that courtesy of some of the research
the GWCT did, which then became government policy, which was
able to then fund me to do that job. And
I think you said we are all ambassadors for it.
(38:14):
So most of the listeners to the Country Slide, we've
seen underds of them here today, they're they're your supporters.
And actual fact is that it's not just the cash,
because not everyone has cash. I do ten percent of
my scribe hound earnings every month goes to the GWCT.
Speaker 3 (38:32):
That's my choice.
Speaker 4 (38:33):
My wife doesn't know.
Speaker 1 (38:34):
I don't think she listens to this anymo because it's
too many rude words in it. But it's something where
I think there are levels of a bitch. It's that bit,
that that sort of JFK thing. You know, it's not
what you can do for us is what we can
do for you. And that's something I think that if
you reach out, like talking to us through in this podcast,
is you.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
Tell us what you need us to do.
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Because I think there's a lot of people who we
don't want to do something, but the always want to
be told what can we do? And they see people
with deep pockets going to big swankyds in London thinking well,
I can't really go to that thing. I'm high, you know,
And it's almost what what you want the layman to do?
Speaker 4 (39:10):
Well, I think, I mean it goes a bit back
to the conversation we were having a while ago about
the name and that side of things, and it's, you know,
actually it's not you know, the name can be a
little bit of a of a of a red herring.
It's actually how we present ourselves and and ensure that
people know us and understand us and what we do.
And actually I think sometimes we can be even a
(39:32):
bit complacent that within the shooting sector that people know
us and understand what we do. And if you know,
you're body and and and as you say, the fact
that they're able to carry on that you know, one
of their favorite pastimes is you know largely that the
eft that we provide because you're always yeah because of us,
(39:52):
And so I think there, you know, one of the
things we absolutely do want to do is is get
better at communicating what we do, publicizing ourselves, making sure
people understand the importance of us. Now, I don't know
what the best mechanism to do that, you know, how
people contribute to that. But if people know about us,
the more they know about us, hopefully that will build
(40:13):
build our support. So you know, actually, as I say,
it's not you can get kind of tied up in
what your name and the brand and all of that is.
Actually it's much more than that. It's really being clear.
Community eats into people who we are, what we do,
why that's of value to them. So I think that's
a great place to end it.
Speaker 5 (40:34):
That's my inspiration on there, which is normally normally just
you and I go, well, we're going to say something
silly now it's clear, but thinks that it all serious?
Speaker 4 (40:42):
This is terrible.
Speaker 3 (40:43):
Do you have lost our usp.
Speaker 4 (40:46):
Hellms are running with a stupid noise and a joke.
Anyway that later we'll try and do. Can we do
with AI? Can we can we do Nix's vice. Really,
I'm going to let you mix all sorts of terrible
career and Nick things.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
We are the power of chatting Chatty Kathy right well,
Nick von Westernholds from the g w C T thank
you very much for joining us on Country Slide.
Speaker 4 (41:09):
Thanks, thank you very much
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!