UKH

The British Mountaineering Council has announced the appointment of a new CEO. Paul Ratcliffe, a former performance director at British Canoeing, Olympic silver medallist and keen climber, will begin his new role in February 2024. 

Read more

The last thing the BMC needs is another comp-climbing oriented sod. Focus should be on crag ownership and not building motorways up mountains like we now see on the Ben. 

The same British Canoeing that is only interested in competition kayaking and OC1.

That's done very little for grass roots and seen open canoesist leave in droves.... With most o those that remain only for the cheap British Waterways license 

Is no one concerned that he is a performance director at Onyx Commodities, the number one liquidity provider for oil derivatives in the world. So much for green credentials

All the best to Paul Ratcliffe in his new role. Great CV. I hope that new CEO's olympic past will not draw focus away from core mission of making sure that we can access our climbs. Personally, I think that it would be best if BMC spun-off Climb Britain in the same way as UIAA let go IFSC. I am big fun of olympic sport climbing, but it is very different activity from what BMC has been doing for our community for so many years.

It would be appropriate if he gave his first press conference on top of a seldom-visited hill that can only be reached after several hours trudging through peat, in the sort of weather that inspires older climbers and walkers to spend the day in the pub.

I might then be inclined to believe that he's committed.  The first mention of 'athletes' though and I'll think he's someone who's more interested in climbing the greasy pole of success in public sporting bodies than what the average climber, walker or hill-goer wants.

T.

Imagine getting this job, then reading this thread. The guys got no chance if you grumpy sods don;'t give him a chance.

I don’t understand this ‘the guy’s got no chance’ thing, it’s similar to the criticism you hear about remainers not believing in Brexit enough. Everyone who can make a difference to his success in the job (volunteers, other staff, the board) will be four square behind him as well as those critical of the choice, because it may be the last such appointment if he doesn’t succeed. 
If what people on here thought had the power to change anything then I suspect someone more inured climbing would have been appointed. 
The counter to your point might be; imagine reading the report which eviscerated every aspect of the CCGP and thinking the person in charge of that is the person to run the entire organisation.

I’m disappointed the CEO isn’t an out and out climber but to be fair to Paul Ratcliffe he was appointed in September 2022 and the CCPG report related to matters prior to that. Whilst things have not subsequently improved I gather he has gained respect from the comps community and a recognition that the CCPG lacks sufficient authority to exert control over GB Climbing to make reform and changes.
 

As much as anything else it's just basic politeness. I confess to being exasperated by posts such as that from"Dawes is Time", whose bio professes to love talking about the 80s; therin lies the problem! The less said about the idea that working for a company connected to oil companies disqualifies you from future jobs the better.

I did wonder whether that might be the case but as the CCGP has not reported since early 2021 it was hard to know when he started. That is something that was in his gift to fix but not something to dwell on. I agree this is less about individuals than the direction of travel the BMC seems to be following.

Actually I think it *is* really important to call this out. The BMC exists "to protect the freedoms and promote the interests of climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers," and those interests undoubtedly include the preservation and restoration of the UK's outdoor environment, as well as numerous other environmental causes. That the BMC have now appointed the  a director from an oil commodities firm (according to their website, "the number 1 liquidity provider for oil derivatives in the world") is bound to raise a lot of concern. I see nothing in the BMC's article to try and address that issue up-front. In fact, I see an attempt to disguise it by referring to it as "energy trading", even though Onyx's marketing explicitly focuses on oil.

I couldn’t even work out what Dawes in Time’s point was and, yes, it’s only fair to give PR time to make his mark.

Regardless of what people say on here the new CEO will get his chance to prove the naysayers wrong. Being as the guy isn’t a climber, I doubt he comes on here, and he’s probably best advised to best keep it that way!

I also don’t see any reason why people here shouldn’t be honest and forthright with their opinions, that’s kind of what internet forums are for. 

I do think an association with oil company is a conflict of interest for a CEO of an organisation with conservation at its heart. 

My other half has worked for a number of charities and NGOs, all of those that were concerned with conservation had an absolute rule that they wouldn’t work with extractives. Doesn’t matter how much money they were offering, for how little in return, they wouldn’t take a red cent, not even as a donation. 

Not sure if the BMC has the same rule, but it seems odd that they should not see that their CEO having a role in an oil and gas company is  a problem.

Although I’m underwhelmed by this appointment, just as I said when Paul Davies was appointed, I want him to prove me wrong, and wish him all the best of luck in doing so.

Yes. Given the parallels with Paul Davies in terms of background and introduction to the BMC he has an image issue from the get go to prove he is foremost on the side of climbers rather than elite sport, Sport England and UKSport. However, his statement that he wants to put members first is a good start.

Absolutely. Indeed anyone who’s owned a petrol or diesel car, or heats their home with gas shouldn’t be allowed within a 100 miles of the BMC

Let's inject a bit of realism. Were Paul becoming CEO of Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth then his involvement in the oil industry would be relevant.

As BMC CEO, his job is to represent climbers and climbing. I dont see any conflict of interest there. Let's not misuse our representative body to push forward personal politics. There are organisations better suited to that, see above.

Let's hope he can do that relatively evenly, and support and develop one very important and valuable minor aspect of climbing, without that being at the expense of the other greater parts

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-ratcliffe-oly-a918bb12

So what do you want me to do about the Specialist Committee chair who works on an oil rig?  Should they be told their services are not wanted?

Onyx is a trading company with less than 50 employees buying and selling stuff made from oil over the internet. Spending 15 months with them, presumably to help their buying and selling performance is hardly a commitment to Big Oil. But no need to let a bit of basic research get in the way of some empty tokenism eh?

Hilarious. Nice put down and well said.  

Yes I went on their website and had a look at what they do. I don’t think you need to be actually extracting the stuff out of the ground to be considered to have an association with the oil industry.

Specialist committee chair and the CEO are slightly different though aren’t they Andy.

Is that even a paid position? Will that person be making major policy decisions? Will they have ultimate responsibility for shaping the future direction of the organisation.

What is the BMCs policy on extractives? Do they even have one? 

So what other backgrounds do you want excluding.  Anybody  from Aberdeen because of oil. South Wales because of steel? Forget Andy Cave , he worked down in a coal mine and is therefore tainted. 
 

Members can do what they want, they pay the BMC to be a member, they’ve got to earn their keep somehow.

People who the BMC pays a significant salary and whom make policy decisions should of course have a higher level of responsibility and accountability.

If you want to be in an organisation that puts all its energy into ranting about oil, join something other than the BMC. This is the British mountaineering council. They do mountaineering and mountaineering related things. Not world peace, cures for cancer, ending poverty, solving all the problems of the world. If someone who works there once had a summer job in a petrol station it doesn't make the organisation immoral.

Thread drift alert. I think this attitude is ridiculous. In my view charities should be perfectly happy to take money from 'big extractive'. In my opinion they should take it and then do a statement along the lines of, "We have received a donation from X. Note that we do not agree with X on x,y,z and think they should stop doing whatever it is that they do." If there are terms and conditions that prevent that kind of negative publicity associated with the donation then obviously it's different. Maybe I'm missing the bigger picture here, but money is money and charities want money, as long as it doesn't buy the donating organisation good publicity I don't see the problem. Not a charity, but if BP offered the BMC the money to buy Mason Lees I'd be annoyed if the BMC turned it down!

More on topic for the thread. It would be fun to see the new CEO do a reddit style ama (ask me anything), but on UKC.

I'd agree but in the end background is less important than current views. A significant number of current BMC senior volunteers have a background in or still work in the petrochemical sector but none have criticised or tried to water down the BMC policies on the environment or sustainability.

If some think we absolutely needed a well known climber as CEO (bloody insulting to most climbers and mountaineers and all hillwalkers) and others think past involvement in any industry that had damaged our environment shouldn't be considered (and whatever other conditions others might have) we just reduce the pool of suitable candidates who share the organisational values. Above all else we need a capable CEO who can quickly work on improving things in some significant problem areas (most notably BMC finances and stakeholder engagement under GB Climbing), motivate staff and volunteers in that, and do this work on behalf of members and our wider community.

Being on Council I'm more concerned our diversity seems to be in decline, and I'd like to see that reversed, just like I'd like to see a more diverse input to these forums. Older white men's views on the BMC dominate. I'm also more concerned our proportion of participants in BMC activities in membership is dropping (as participation has risen significantly while our membership has grown much more slowly) as it reduces our positive influences as an organisation.

Agreed that this is thread drift somewhat! Appreciate your points and agree that the position you take makes some sense just as the “no extractives” rule does. After all, if we can do good things with big oil money then it’s worthwhile right?

But deciding which of these positions the organisation takes, and it’s not an easy decision to make as there are pros and cons to both, is something that needs to done at a senior level… And that’s why it’s probably best if the CEO doesn’t have a dog in the race.

Surely not that radical a suggestion?

The only 'dog' of our CEO is running the BMC as mandated in its governance context democratically determined by the membership on behalf of the wider community.

I agree with you that there are pros and cons to both stances. I also agree that I'd prefer a CEO with no links to the oil industry, but I'd also prefer a CEO who was a passionate life long mountaineer, long time BMC member, previous BMC volunteer, who had some experience in comp climbing management/organisation, had the relevant experience in running a similar size/style of organisation. Unfortunately you realistically can't tick all those boxes and for me the oil thing is relatively low down the list.

Edit to add. I think the time engaged with the oil stuff is pretty relevant as well. It's not like the guy is the former 15 year serving CEO of BP, he spent 15 months with an oil related company, not ideal but not the end of the world, especially if he's supportive of the BMCs current stance on oil related matters.

It is an interesting one though, I had to spend some time (9 months ish) working for BP because I had little choice in the matter, besides the option of leaving my job, which maybe I would have done eventually. I was eventually able to negotiate an internal move into the nuclear sector, which satisfied my personal concerns. Probably didn't really make any difference in a global sense though, just someone less fussy replacing me in the BP work. In the unlikely event I try and become BMC CEO in 20 years time I hope it doesn't come back to bite me

That's a good quip but unfortunately it doesn't hold merit.

A committee chair is not the same thing as a CEO.

An oil rig worker is (presumably) not the same as a director-level position. 

Dismissing someone is not the same as being transparent about someone's background and priorities.

I don’t think a past association with the oil and gas industry should be viewed as a conflict of interest with this role (indirectly I have the same).

An ongoing relationship, with financial reward, I feel is a fair game to question, but shouldn’t debar the applicant from the role if they are stronger on the whole than the next best applicant.

Give him 6 months. See what his actions are rather than words then judge if the appointment was wise or not.

Money is on him drinking the Kool-Aid pretty quickly as the BMC is a professionals graveyard.

Yes, in the context of what they do when employed by the BMC, but not what they did for some other employer in the past (work which we actually have no detailed information about).

He's in a no-win situation. This post is inevitably going to be subject to a lot of scrutiny, especially in the current circumstances. 

It is perhaps a little surprising that the BMC hasn't appointed someone with a more obvious commitment to walking and climbing, but this is a managerial role and the skills he brings to that are more important than what he's done on grit.  Being a climber wouldn't have avoided criticism - someone with an involvement in competitions would immediately be suspect to some, while someone from a trad background might be thought to be not sufficiently interested in competitions.  There's so much suspicion around at the moment that someone could find something to criticise about any appointee.

We have to give the man a chance. The scrutiny isn't going to let up, and he'll soon discover that if he puts a foot wrong then it's going to get pounced on pretty quickly.

Next you will want anybody with banking or finance experience being excluded as well. It’s hilarious. 

I literally said this shouldn’t debar him.  Try to read the posts first eh?

Yeah, but...  What's he done on grit?

I mean a company that provides liquidity to the oil derivatives market basically is a finance company. I don't know from the posts whether some of the other posters understand what the company actually is and does.

Maybe reread your first post. Crikey the guy has spent just over a year there and you are putting him to the swords by his association . It’s ridiculous. 

I haven’t read through the full post history but the non extractive thing is a load of bollocks, and climbing just acts as a perfect example.

Krabs, nuts, ice axes, crampons and cams; all made from extractives.

Ropes, slings, tat, harnesses, cord, extender dog bones, helmets; all made from extractives.

Stickies; made from recycled extractives.

Goretex made from; extractives

Decide not to take the car to the crag and get on your push bike for environmental cudos; made from extractives.

Extractives underpin the whole of modern life and death from agricultural base productivity to ensure effective biological development , to your crematorium visit. The challenge is not to remove extractives but to do them smarter and completely offset their negative impacts.

Thanks 😊

Not sure I agree, but your opinion is as valid as mine.

No but they also represent the BMC at a senior level.

No but a Director of Performance is different to a trader.  They are however all in the oil industry which was declared as wrong by the posters.

Who did I dismiss?  I made a semi serious quip.  And given we state Paul is currently working for Onyx in the statement i'm not sure how that isn't being transparent?

I just did. I wrote at length about organisations dealings with oil co’s / extractives, all of which I stand by, and other than saying i don’t think he comes on here as he doesn’t climb, and that I’m underwhelmed by his appointment, I’ve said very little about the guy at all. Certainly haven’t “put him to the swords” (sic)

In fact I specifically said he would be given every chance, and that I wished him the best of luck.

More than you’ve done, in all honesty, you’ve not said a single word of positivity towards the fella on this thread.

Your contributions seem to be limited to misrepresentations and mock amusement rather than constructive discussion of the issues. 

Is British Canoeing the same as the BCU,?

If so this is  a *€&(ing tragedy. The BCU are somewhere down with Cairngorm Railways and HIE in organisations that do good stuff for their sport 

And I think it is important to *call out* your magical thinking and hypocrisy. 

Where do you think the electricity that powers your EV and heat pump comes from on windless winter nights? Unicorns farting at windmills?

Are your ropes made of hemp and your waterproofs cotton covered in beeswax?

The high standard of living you and your loved ones enjoy come from energy from fossil fuels. You might not like it, but it’s true. Want to move away from fossil fuels, you need to find a cave and live in it whilst being cold and hungry.

Your quip was to ask if your colleague from the oil rig should be told his services are no longer required, that was what I meant by dismissal. 

I never said or implied that Paul should be dismissed or barred. Just that it would be good to be transparent about previous and current industry associations.

Now I'm confused. The article says: "He also held a recent position as Performance Director at Onyx Commodities, a London-based energy-trading firm," but now you're telling me he is currently working for them. Is it held or holds?

I didn't think you had. 

I think we are being.

He has resigned from his current job but is working his notice.  As of today he still works for them.  On 5 Feb he will be working for the BMC.

Might there be some shared opposition with the BMC to wind farms?

I hope not. Of course many BMC members oppose wind farms, others including myself support them as we recognise the overall benefit in reducing climate change outweighs changing the view of or from some mountains. This isn’t the BMC’s job

And what's this new bloke ever done on grit?

Wonder what would happen if it was Jim Ratcliffe instead?

Wonderful!! 

I think that you have to accept that many people feel that the BMC has had issues with transparency in the recent past, and not being clear if he holds or held is important - just how part time does he intend to be? Also Energy trading is different from selling oil commodities and choosing phraseology that the company itself doesn't use seems like you are trying to disguise something. Of course this may not be the case, but it still doesn't look great to an already sceptical audience.

I would also be very concerned that the direction of the BMC still seems to be heavily skewed towards competition climbing and performance climbing, as clearly evidenced by the recent members survey. At some point just expanding numbers like a profitable business is not the best course if members start to feel that it is coming at the expense of achieving some of the core purpose of the organisation.

All this being said I agree with what many others have said in this thread, any position at the BMC appears to be a poisoned chalice at the moment, and the only way of moving past that is to give any new appointee a fair start. Judging someone on the back of a 200 word bio is certainly not doing that. I wish him all the best, he is clearly a talented, driven and successful man and hopefully his vision for the future of the BMC will be as nuanced as that of the membership.      

I see you have since answered my part time question Andy - thank you for the clarity.

In reply to jezb1:

I'm genuinely confused by this and what people think I've said that is different from the announcement?  

If it is just the fact he is working his notice at his old job then I'm glad to have cleared it up, but as few people going for any management role don't have notice periods I don't see I've revealed anything that wasn't clear.

I think there was perhaps a little bit of confusion arising from by the wording on the original release. 

“He also held a recent position as Performance Director at Onyx Commodities, a London-based energy-trading firm.” makes it sound like this is something he did in the past, whereas in actual fact, that’s what he does presently, until his notice is up.

And the description Onyx as an “energy trading firm” is unclear at best, downright misleading at worst.

Shame, I’m sure he’s a good bloke but this announcement has been a bit of a fumble, and that’s only goi g to make things harder for him.

Amusingly we were told that his predecessor departed due to the challenges of long-distance commuting and time away from his family (not the real reason of course).  It would appear that Paul R will be doing an even longer commute from Theydon Bois to Didsbury, at least 4 to 5 hours each way on a good day no doubt paid for from members subs.

Have to admit my heart sank a little when I read “Performance Director . Sank a little further when I saw elite too.  Don't get me wrong love the  idea people should improve get better train etc. But climbing can be ones life ones passion one pleasure ones career in so many ways. I also kayak, exactly the same issue just access to water and clean water at that. 
Also sank a little further when you see corporate. 
To me BMC should engage people in the outdoors, defend access, take on the Dartmoor wealthy, help solve educate people so they don’t trash farmers land, fight for the right to roam, help local clubs not stifle them, encourage travel to and from UK all over the world. 
The BMC has some corporate issues now and this is maybe where he might excel at sorting out, but my feeling is that it’s all about grass routes of the varied climbing world and the environment in which we partake of this passion. 
I think the competition side should be hived off to a different body. British Canoeing lost its way in a similar way to. 
Support grass routes of this game,  help access to this world both in a geographical sense and a social sense, help build knowledge and skills of this game, and that’s way bigger than winning climbing competitions, be of device to this community and our environment. 
Whatever it will be hard work, be like herding cats but good luck and hope you choose the right directions and prove my hearts initial reaction wrong.🤘🤘🤘🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️

He is wearing a suit!!! Enough said. 

Anyone with the skills for the role is likely going to have worked in a corporate environment at some point in their career (simply because you don't build up those skills in academic or self employed environments usually).

The BMC has done all of the things you cite in the last year (some with good effect, some less effectively) barring the encouragement to travel (unsurprising given that they are trying to encourage members to consider their own activities' impact on the climate). The most obvious example being that Cath Flitcroft (BMC Access person who deals with legislation etc) played a role in the appeal process against the Dartmoor decision.

Or better still, Paula Radcliffe!

Her knowledge of anything to do with athletics that isn't marathon running is - to be polite - "somewhat limited".

Unfortunately we are getting far too many former elite athletes - in whatever sport - who become pundits, managers, coaches, executives etc. afterwards based on their "name". But their actual personal history is of everything being done for them by others, and their true involvement in their sport, apart from actually competing, is pretty well zero. This means that their abilities  - or rather inabilities - mean that they are the very last people who should be employed afterwards.

And here we have it --- if they've been an athlete someone doesn't like it, but if they haven't been an athlete someone else doesn't like it.

Someone doesn't like them if they have a suit, but if they've got no experience of management and finance then others don't think they're competent.

Going to be a tough job pleasing everyone...

Tough crowd, climbers. Good luck to him.

That’s how I first read the title and thought interesting choice! 

It's not just the corporate sphere in which you build those skills.

I really hope that Paul Radcliffe is successful in his new role because the BMC really needs good leadership to sort itself out.

What concerns me though is the BMC's apparent obsession with elite competition. This is only a very small part of what British mountaineering is all about and yet it's seems to have taken over at the BMC. The appointment of a has been olympian is an interesting reflection on the BMC's CEO selection criteria

At least she would have sympathy of the need for decent toilet facilities.