Because the RGS-IBG can be extremely important as a lobbying force when we
are fighting for better resource for geography in UK HE, decisions to
join/not to join should not be taken lightly; where people do have reasons
not to join they should do as Gerry says: let Catherine Souch know, as well
as members of Council. The connection between the Heads of Geography group
and the RGS is a little ambiguous, but if HODs petitioned RGS as a unified
about sponsorship then that might have some material impact - so you could
always inform your HOD about your decision too.

I would remind all that you can join IBG Research groups without joining the
 RGS (though often a small charge is made for newsletters etc) which enables
you to remain 'in the loop' and participate in affiliated events. As Duncan
points out, it is perfectly possible to contribute to debates about the
future trajectory and ethical stance taken by the RGS without being a
fellow (e.g. I left the RGS-IBG in 1993 and have remained active as study
group member, serving on committees and am currently Chairing the Social
and Cultural Group).

BTW: the debate isn't just about Shell: some of us have anxieties about
being associated with Land Rover (part of Ford Group), Ordinance Survey
(tries to sell back data that taxpayers paid for), Trailblazers (promotes
luxury travel and has no environmental policy or carbon off-setting as far
as I am aware) and Rolex (can't afford one!) The formation of the
crit-geog-forum was partly a response to such anxieties and a concern that
the concerns of IBG members would be overwhelmed upon merger within the
RGS. It is good that there is still debate about the type of organisation
we want to represent us publicly, and that some still take principled
stands.

Quoting "Dr G. Kearns" <[log in to unmask]>:

> I looked into the RGS/IBG position a few years ago when I was confronted
> with my continued non-membership. It seemed to me then that the RGS/IBG
> had
> strong enough sentiments in its mission statement etc. but that there was
> no mechanism to convert those sentiments into any rigorous form of
> accountability. So deciding that the sentiments were mere window dressing
> I
> did not rejoin although I did explain why to a few people on the RGS
> Council. A simple set of demands would be: a. that the RGS/IBG review how
> other learned societies have implemented an ethical
> investments/sponsorship
> policy that has teeth. b. The RGS/IBG should set up a mechanism whereby
> unethical associations can be identified and terminated.
>
> Gerry Kearns
>
> On Nov 27 2007, Duncan Fuller wrote:
>
> >Hi Kelvin
> >
> >
> >
> >Well, a basic response...:
> >
> >
> >
> >*         who is coordinating it?  This goes back a number of years.
> >The session at the last IBG originally entitled Shell and the RGS was
> >convened (I believe) by Paul Chatterton and Larch Maxey; subsequently a
> >number of people expressed interest in taking any actions further...
> >
> >*         do we have a proposal?  There were a range of 'proposals' for
> >action discussed after that session - some are, I believe, in hand,
> >others still to be coordinated...
> >
> >*         an agreed response?  Not as such; if anything was learnt from
> >the Elsevier 'victory' its probably that a range of responses need to be
> >undertaken...
> >
> >*         an alternative to Shell? Erm, any ethically sound company
> >that's not apparently involved in environmental damage, gas flaring, oil
> >spills, wrecking local inhabitant's lives etc etc etc etc etc...
> >
> >*         Where do we access campaign information - in fact, what's the
> >campaign even called? I'm not sure, but I'm also not sure it needs a
> >name...
> >
> >
> >
> >From where I'm at the details aren't really that important - it just
> >seems incredibly inappropriate and ironic for the RGS to be taking money
> >from an oil company, especially (if especially is needed) one that has
> >such an apparently questionable record in the Niger Delta.
> >
> >
> >
> >Hopefully others with a little more knowledge than me will add in the
> >details!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: Discussion list on participatory geographies
> >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kelvin Mason
> >Sent: 26 November 2007 12:23
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: RGS/IBG MEMBERSHIP
> >
> >
> >
> >I have just received my RGS/IBG membership renewal - so I'm guessing
> >others have too?
> >
> >
> >
> >From last year's conference sessions I understand we have a campaign to
> >boycott membership because of RGS/IBG accepting funding fro Shell.
> >
> >
> >
> >Before I let RGS/IBG know that I'm not renewing my membership, however,
> >I'd like to be a bit clearer about the campaign: who is coordinating it,
> >do we have a proposal, an agreed response, an alternative to Shell?
> >Where do we access campaign information - in fact, what's the campaign
> >even called? (I'm sure its prime-movers will respond)
> >
> >
> >
> >Let me know if you have more information than me and whether or not you
> >are renewing.
> >
> >
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >
> >
> >Kelvin Mason
> >
> >
> >
> >Aberystwyth University PLC (formally University of Wales Aberystwyth)
> >
> >
> >
>


-- 
Dr Phil Hubbard
Professor of Urban Social Geography
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leicestershire
LE11 3TU

(01509) 222747