Why Oliver Letwin's words on charity campaigning reveal an insidious hidden agenda

First published in Third Sector Magazine 15th February 2010

Oliver Letwin's comments at the NCVO's campaigning conference last month reminded me never to underestimate the power of language, particularly of words that slip quietly into your subconscious and then sit there, affecting your views.

Letwin spoke mainly about the Conservatives' vision for the voluntary sector, but he also shared his personal view that some organisations in the sector spend too much time campaigning.

Of several things that struck me about his comments, the most insidious was his application of the term "vast and powerful" to the sector. That was just slipped in there to seed the idea that anything so big and with so much unelected power should be managed and regulated tightly.

It is critically important to the sector that it is always perceived as David to its opponent Goliath - whether that opponent is a campaign adversary or a crisis a charity is seeking to address. And however large or wealthy individual charities might become, the basic truth of the matter remains that we are working against the odds and without the resources of those elected into power who are actually in a position to do something about the problem. If people ever lose sight of that basic truth and begin to think that the sector is too vast or too powerful, our support will be eroded and our impact lost.

Letwin's opening premise was that the sector is exactly that, so it needs to remember its place and accept whatever role his party or any other political party might choose to allot to it. One can assume from his further comments that this role would not include having a voice, for Letwin does not value a sector that does much campaigning. We are, he said, supposed to "change things and solve problems", but without campaigning; yet change is actually what campaigning helps to produce.

Instead he envisages the sector as one of the "cornerstones" of the Conservative vision. Cornerstone - another important word that slips into the subconscious. Cornerstones are solid and reliable, stable, part of the foundations, part of the establishment - so they can't disagree, criticise or go their own way.

What I value about the sector is that it is not part of Letwin's world. This is the third sector, not a cornerstone for the first sector, and although any power should be controlled, it should not allow itself to be co-opted or coerced. Above all, it should not allow its voice to be muted. Election or no election, the business of "changing things and solving problems" goes on, and we need a strong voice to do it.

Mirella von Lindenfels is director of Communications Inc

Fact file: Letwin on campaigning

• Oliver Letwin is Conservative MP for West Dorset. He is a former shadow Home Secretary and shadow Chancellor.
• Speaking at the NCVO's campaigning conference last month, he said he regretted that "so much of the effort of some parties in the voluntary sector is devoted to campaigning".
• He added: "They are free to do it, but what I treasure about the sector isn't its campaigning role. Its special contribution is to do something to change things and solve problems."
• He described the voluntary sector as "one of the cornerstones" of what the Conservatives wanted to achieve and said that a "vast and powerful" sector was necessary to deal with problems that the private sector was unwilling and the state unable to address.
• Letwin will write the Tories' election manifesto this year. The election must take place by 3 June.

The End of the Line Screens at the UN and Rapid Development on Bluefin

http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2010/02/12/the_end_of_the_line_screens_at_the_un_an

By Charles Clover, award winning Environment Editor of the Daily Telegraph and author of several books, including The End of the Line, now a feature documentary film.

From the Seafood Summit in Paris last week, where we were all agog for news of a shift in the French position on bluefin which only happened after we left, I flew to New York for a screening of The End of the Line at the UN General Assembly, organised by the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. This screening was arranged to co-incide with a UN working group reviewing the effectiveness of UN resolution 61/105 passed four years ago that called on states and regional fisheries managers to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems such as sea mounts from deep-sea trawling.

The screening of a 25-minute version of the film was well attended, with some 80 or so diplomats and experts filling the delegates dining room for the screening, Q&A and reception hosted by DSCC. As you can imagine, there were some searching questions, for instance “What can the UN do about over-fishing?” and “What is the attitude to sustainability in Japan?” I attempted an answer and about 50 people departed with a copy of the book on which the film is based.

The audience was greatly fascinated by the announcement, at last, by two French ministers that day, of the French position on bluefin tuna – support for an Appendix 1 listing, a full international trade ban, but with an 18-month delay.

It seemed timely for us, the film-makers, Oceana and Greenpeace to put out a release relevant to the United States, so we pointed out, what few US consumers seem to know, which is that imports of endangered bluefin tuna into the United States for the sushi trade are contributing to the collapse of the population in the Mediterranean and Eastern Atlantic. The bluefin that finds its way on to the menus of the New York and LA restaurants that have such poor ratings for sustainability on www.fish2fork.com is more likely to have come from the Med than the US. Official export figures from the European Union, compiled by Roberto Mielgo, one of the major players in our film, show that up to 3,341 tons of bluefin was exported from the EU to the United States between 1998 and June last year. In 2008 the US was a net importer of bluefin, importing 360 metric tons from around the world, notably the Mediterranean, compared with the 266 metric tons that were caught domestically. Such is the value of bluefin - nearly $9 a pound on average - that the total trade in the United States is worth nearly $100 million a year.

I returned to England to hear that frenzied briefings were going on in Strasbourg ahead of a crucial vote in the European Parliament on whether the EU should support Cites Appendix 1 for the bluefin. MEPs came under heavy lobbying pressure from DG Fish which told them that an Appendix 1 listing was an incredibly dangerous precedent to set and might one day be applied to the cod. What disgraceful nonsense. MEPs also had their ears ringing with briefings from the European fisheries inspectorate saying they had the fishery screwed down and could police an 8,000 tons a year sustainable quota imposed under Cites Appendix II, which regulates but does not stop trade. There was a rocky moment for our campaign to save the bluefin when it looked as though this advice would prevail. Then, MEPs realized that the EU was not the only player in the bluefin game and that Turkey, Libya, Croatia, Algeria and the Japanese long-liners in the Atlantic were quite capable of wiping out the bluefin on their own if the Japanese market was not closed. Wise counsel prevailed and a majority of MEPs voted to place the bluefin on Cites Appendix 1, without the 18-month delay called for by France. This will make it difficult for DG Fish, or the Commission, to resist pressure to do the same. The same day as the vote, Italy finally declared for Appendix 1, making it inessential that the conditions imposed by France should apply. The fishing lobby was furious. It is looking more and more as though the EU’s 27 member states might actually go to Doha supporting Appendix 1 for the bluefin. Fingers crossed!

Clover Charles Clover is the award winning Environment Editor of the Daily Telegraph. He is author of several books, including The End of the Line, now a feature documentary film.

DSCC Members Attend UN Meeting on Biodiversity 5 February 2010

DSCC members attended the third ad hoc informal working group meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (known as BBNJ ), at the United Nations 1st - 5th February 2010. The meeting was convened to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction.


"There were a lot of constructive suggestions made on the need to establish marine protected areas in the high seas, on the need for environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments or activities on the high seas and for the need to address the potential impact of new and emerging activities on the high seas, such as ocean fertilization, geo-engineering and bioprospecting for marine genetic resources," said DSCC political and policy adviser Matthew Gianni.


"While it was disappointing that more progress to operationalize these essential steps was not made at this meeting, we are encouraged that there is to be another meeting on this next year, instead of in two years time, and DSCC will be encouraging discussion and facilitating the development of ideas in the coming year," said DSCC co-ordinator Duncan Currie.


Earlier in the week, DSCC members made an intervention to the group and held a side event where leading scientists gave presentations on the mapping of VMEs, high seas areas closed to bottom fishing, biogeographic classifications of deep-sea and open ocean ecosystems and options for conservation of biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions.


In the evening of 3rd February, over 70 UN delegates attended a DSCC organized cocktail reception with journalist and author Charles Clover, where a UN premiere (25 minute version) of his film, "The End of The Line", the first major film documentary on the devastating effects of overfishing, was screened and a discussion followed.


The next BBNJ meeting is expected to be held next year.