Written by Thushari Perera
The recently published Wildlife Trusts’ Diversity Report 2023 reveals that only 2.9 % people of colour work for this major British nature conservation institution. The report also says that the Wildlife Trusts are not “pandering to the woke agenda” by wanting to create “an inclusive society where nature matters”. In this context, they explain that they publish this report to ensure future progress on workplace equity and enable stakeholders to hold them account. A closer reading of the Diversity report 2023 however reveals it significantly lacks in transparency to achieve these aims.
A Policy Exchange report in 2017 found that the green sector is the second least diverse sector after farming. Only 4.8% People of Colour (POC) work in the environmental sector according to the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. These funders quote none other than the chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts who describes the environmental sector as a “white middle class ghetto.”
This highly competitive sector does not yet lack of minoritised communities who want to get involved in the green sector. The Black Environmental Network (BEN), for instance, has been active since 1987. There are also many other coalitions and community organisations which include qualified Black, Asian and minority ethnic experts as “Climate Reframe”, “South Asians for Sustainability”, the “Hindu Climate Action” and “Sustainably Muslim”. Various hashtags as #BlackGirlsHike, #Black2Nature etc. keep on multiplying online. Questions need to be asked as to the reasons why so many Black, Asian and minority ethnic initiatives and organisations are created and growing. Is it because it is difficult to access jobs in the mainstream green sector?
In this context, readers will not be surprised to read in the Diversity Report 2023, that the Wildlife Trusts, one of the oldest conservation charity in the United Kingdom, consisting of a federation of 47 charities, 3600 staff, 600 trustees, 39000 volunteers and more than 900 members, only has 2.9 % People of Colour (POC) working for them. Almost 91 % of staff and trustees are of white ethnicity. Bizarrely, despite the significant number of volunteers, their ethnicity is not disclosed.
How to Muddy the Waters: Diversity Data without Strategic Diversity Action Planning
As there is no real progress in terms of racial diversity, the Wildlife Trusts resort to an old trick. They muddy the waters by delivering an alluring report with bits and pieces of diversity data instead of explaining the concrete steps they have taken to increase workplace equity. Thus, readers are presented with a short and over-produced “bullet-point report”. It includes definitions of “Equality”, “Diversity” and “Inclusion” (EDI) and their anti-racist pledge. The majority of the report is filled with judiciously selected “multicultural” photographs supplemented by colour-coded graphs across various demographics: age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion etc. The graphs are not detailed enough, as only some provide a clear detailed breakdown of the results in percentage. There are also child-like cartoons on staff networks.
As the Wildlife Trusts Diversity Report is in its third iteration, what would have been useful is a more detailed narrative explaining their strategic diversity action planning. How are they going to achieve change? What will it take? Do they have performance related targets for managers? Who will be responsible for coordinating efforts federation-wide? What kind of time-frame do they have in mind to deliver results?
Readers are only told of an ideal 2030 strategy where their vision will have reached maturation by miraculously achieving their target of 1 in 4 people of all abilities, identities, backgrounds working for nature’s recovery. What is not clearly stated are the barriers to workplace racial equity that the Wildlife Trusts are facing and how they are going to break them down.
Please don’t get me wrong, as a large conservation charity, the Wildlife Trusts diversity survey managed to reach 2,840 participants and have a 68 % disclosure rate. They even disclose an ethnicity pay gap of 5.1 %. It is however difficult to understand why an organisation active since 1912 claims “to be wild about inclusion” when their ethnic diversity score is so poor. Worse, they lack a sense of urgency, as they seem content to declare that EDI staff training is underway with “webinars”, “podcasts” and “bitesize videos.”
The Wildlife Trusts have yet been working for years with various diversity consultants and supported several equality reports and “diversity route maps” produced by the Wildlife and Countryside Link. They also take part in external diversity data monitoring exercises like the RACE Report (Racial Action for the Climate Emergency) and the Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion’s (ENEI) Talent Inclusion Diversity Evaluation (TIDE). However, they do not disclose the EDI achievement levels of all their 47 regional charities. Are they worried it would help build an accountability report? It would certainly help determine regional diversity “imbalances”. To add insult to injury, they boast that (only) their central charity, the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts (RSWT), has been awarded the Bronze TIDE award. Unfortunately, as ENEI is paywalled, it is difficult to know exactly on what EDI areas they have scored so well. Understandably, their biggest fear is (rightly) “tokenism”, but when so much equality data is missing, how can they simply declare that “if it is to endure”, meaningful inclusivity is “going to be delivered at pace and scale”?
Project Work Focus on Inclusive Working with Communities
Disturbingly, the Wildlife Trusts also report that inclusive working with communities focuses on project-based work; in other words, not on the development of long-term stable employment within diverse communities. Current work with communities is admittedly varied as it includes projects with the Bengali community in Tower Hamlets, projects with the Somali community in Bristol, garden projects with a Muslim centre, elders projects with the West Indian community, weeding projects with multicultural Cumbria and even nature walks projects for asylum-seekers in Herefordshire.
It is true that communities who do not usually have access to green spaces or even do not necessarily own a garden may need initial engagement and practical conservation work with nature. What the Diversity Report 2023 however fails to tackle is the thorny issue of “volunteer expenses”, especially “travel expenses” to access Wildlife Trusts areas. The excellent research report “Seeding Change” by the London Wildlife Trusts yet revealed that the reimbursement of expenses is crucial to engage poorer communities of colour with nature and climate action. This is a major shortcoming of the report, as volunteering can help gain experience in the sector and secure job interviews.
Strangely, the report does not tackle core issues like job creation initiatives, internships (especially paid internships) or even potential educational scholarships and bursaries. The Wildlife Trusts website however indicates that there is a “Keeping it Wild” programme, which aims to give people aged 11-25 the opportunity to become actively involved in the protection and promotion of London’s natural heritage. “Keeping it Wild” participants live in the top 20 % most deprived communities in England and are typically underrepresented in the environment sector. Seventy-six per cent come from a Black, Asian or minoritised ethnic heritage and 41 % from lower socio-economic communities. Unfortunately, the project impact report says that only a meagre 22 young people (out of over 1000) have gained employment in the conservation (or associated) sectors as a result of the traineeships, and only four trainees were employed by the London Wildlife Trust.
Diversity Metrics Exercises without Funding
Not a word is indeed given about a ringfenced budget in the Diversity Report 2023 to deliver race equity. They do not even reveal how much private funding was mobilised. The Wildlife Trusts’ website only indicates that they are “keen to work with organisations who aim to improve access to nature for diverse groups or are keen to improve equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in the conservation sector.”
The lack of detail on funding is problematic, as no matter how inspired People of Colour (POC) may be to work for the Wildlife Trust, structural barriers will remain firmly in place as long as there is no acknowledgement that the majority of Black, Asian an minority ethnic people live in urban and industrial areas – or twentieth-century labour shortages migration routes. Communities of colour in these areas are more likely to score high in the multi-deprivation index than the general population. Not only do they live in areas with less access to green spaces, but they are also more likely to live near toxic-waste incinerators causing lung disease and a reduction in life expectancy according to a report by Greenpeace and the Runnymede Trust.
These communities are also less likely to be able to afford higher education fees, have a driving licence, and own a car with insurance – these are all general requirements for Wildlife Trust jobs. Even when a degree in the environmental sector is not requested, access to public transport is chronically limited in more rural areas.
The London Wildlife Trusts’ blog post by Charlie N summarises well issues faced by People of Colour (POC) in this sector:
“We are asked to relive our trauma and bear our knowledge and souls to wealthy organisations for no renumeration, exploited for ideas on how to engage our communities. We are told we need specialist degrees and years of unpaid experience to secure unstable, low-paying jobs with no clear pathways for progression. We are made to experience microaggressions and bullying in those workplaces whilst shouldering the burden of making organisations more equitable, diverse, and inclusive. Then whilst watching people stroll into jobs who do not face the same barriers, we do through a system which facilitates their success through their word-of-mouth connections and the financial security to give years of their free time and energy to volunteering – we are lied to with claims that UK doesn’t have a problem with structural racism.”
Overall, no matter how many diversity metrics exercises are completed by the Wildlife Trusts, unless funding with tie-in to workplace racial equity is invested – that also takes into account structural barriers – career growth prospects for those without the cushioning of racial and/or socio-economic privilege will remain limited. Let’s hope for proper action on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) in future, with more sophisticated annual diversity reports that will enable readers to see annual progress on workplace racial equity. I personally would bet that adequate investment will be worth the return on social investment and will help the Wildlife Trusts meet their charitable purposes.
* * *
Subscribe to Blackeuroperesources.com / About & Contact / Follow on X/Twitter@Blackeresources / Black & Asian Heritage Mix’ / T&C & Privacy Policy
* * *
Black Europe Resources 