Swapping spectacles

WWT is once again proud to support Communicate, the UK’s leading conference for environmental communicators.

This year’s theme is ‘swapping spectacles’. A reference to, when communicating anything, that it is wise to bear in mind how other people view the world.

This is especially important for environmental communications. Its messaging is often based on impartial, rational research. But the message that comes from that research is often that the environment is suffering and it’s your fault. That’s when things start to get a bit delicate.

Farmland birds

Take for example the recent State of Nature 2016 report, to which WWT contributed. An online infographic says 20% of all impacts on species populations were down to “intensive management of agricultural land”. That is factually correct. Many farmland birds species numbers are plummeting.

But if you’re a farmer, or imagine you’re a farmer, how does that make you feel? The National Farmers Union felt compelled to defend farmers, pointing out that two thirds are engaged in agri-environment schemes and 30,000km of farming hedgerows have been restored or created. In other words, farmers are doing a very great deal for the environment.

Should the State of Nature report have donned NFU’s spectacles in advance and seen things from their point of view before framing their report? Would a more gracious tone have helped both sides to work together?

Lead poisoning

On the other hand, let’s take another example where a more conciliatory approach was attempted. WWT found a quarter of migratory swans it post mortemed had been poisoned to death by ingesting toxic lead shot pellets, left on the ground by shooting.

Rather than ask anyone to stop live quarry shooting, we appealed to shooters’ common interest in our countryside. We asked them to use alternative non-toxic shot which is already available.

Our thinking was that no shooter wants to cause suffering by crippling a bird, so they wouldn’t want to slowly poison one either?

The reaction was interesting. Some anti-shooters took the issue up as a reason to ban shooting, and our scientists received a little criticism for not using it to attack the shooting industry.

Ironically at the same time, shooting organisations accused our scientists of the opposite - of attacking shooting - and said the evidence must then be made up. This likely discouraged shooters to switch to non-toxic shot. Over the years, we saw a steady polarisation (if voluntary measures fail, the fallback is regulation) rather than coming together.

WWT ended up as piggy-in-the-middle. Although I've also heard it said that if both sides criticise you equally, then you're probably in about the right place.

Would a more 'fighting talk' approach have been more effective, with WWT starting by taking sides and adopting a polarised negotiating position, then working back towards a compromise?

Shared fuzziness!

In reality of course, conservationists, farmers and shooters all work together and many people are two or three of those groups at the same time. It's just the semantics that cause conflict.

Both these examples show that ‘swapping spectacles’ and seeing the other’s point of view isn’t always as simple as it seems. Especially in environmental communications, where the outcome is often asking someone to change something to improve the environment (and even the word “improve” can mean opposing things depending on your spectacles).Tactics often involve working out the right mix of sugar or vinegar.

That’s why talking about viewpoints, and why ourselves and others adopt them, is good. It clarifies the fuzziness of our shared reality without anyone actually having to choose to wear a pair of spectacles. That’s why events like the Communicate Conference are worthwhile.

I hope that representatives from farming, shooting, energy, water, transport and all types of business, charity and public service are able to attend the Communicate Conference. The environment affects us all, and we all affect the environment (or countryside, nature, urbanscape - whichever word you identify with most). It will be fun to stumble about together (philosophically) with our spectacles off!

If you want to attend, you can find all the details and booking information at the Communicate Conference website.

PS: The photo shows some lovely spectacled eiders...see what we did there?

  • Share this article