The political birder: Mark Avery
At their best, international conservation partnerships can transcend politics and borders. Maybe that’s something we should all aspire to more.
At their best, international conservation partnerships can transcend politics and borders. Maybe that’s something we should all aspire to.
The notion that nature conservation is somehow outside of the world of politics is not so much wishful thinking as wilful blindness. Politics gets everywhere, and the idea that our votes have no impact on how many Hen Harriers, European Turtle Doves and Little Egrets we see while birding is palpably false. But I guess what people mean is that they hope that in some way a love of nature brings people of various different religions, political views and cultural backgrounds together in a common cause which overcomes ideology.
It certainly works very much like that with international partnerships such as BirdLife International. One of the joys I can recall of working with BirdLife partners in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Asia was being alongside people with very different beliefs and backgrounds, but whose focus was on the same nature conservation goal. Often – almost always in fact – when the work was done, perhaps in some office with government officials, we would emerge and someone would ask: “Do we have time to see some birds?” If there was, then we would.
So it was with interest that I saw speculation recently that BirdLife International had expelled its partner in Taiwan (officially the Republic of China) because of pressure from China (officially the People’s Republic of China). Having talked to many people, this interpretation of events seems to me to be entirely false, but there certainly is politics mixed up in the reasons behind the Taiwan Wild Bird Federation leaving BirdLife International.
Crossing the line
BirdLife International’s Council unanimously agreed that their former Taiwanese partner had stepped over a line when it came to political engagement, although unsurprisingly the ex-partner has a different take on things (see www.bird.org.tw/news/602).
No one doubts the conservation credentials of the former Taiwan BirdLife partner, which has a great record of achievement for species including Chinese Crested Tern (previously thought extinct but rediscovered on Taiwan’s Matsu Islands in 2000), Black-faced Spoonbill (half of the world population winters in Taiwan) and for seabirds threatened by long-lining. I’m sure that much of the existing co-operation will continue – it’s just that you can’t remain a member of a club unless you abide by the rules. In a way it’s surprising global politics doesn’t affect international conservation co-operation more often. The UK and Argentina went to war over some islands called the Malvinas/Falklands and yet the BirdLife partners work closely on the Albatross Task Force. There is a centuries-old dispute between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and yet the BirdLife partners have worked closely together for decades. Next year will see the centenary of the Anglo-Irish Treaty which led in 1922 to the establishment of the Irish Free State and yet BirdWatch Ireland and the RSPB (a provocative name to many) get on swimmingly. Cyprus and Turkey have BirdLife partners, as do Israel and Palestine.
We tend to work through national bodies, that’s a fact of life, and when those national bodies work together internationally then the world of big politics sometimes intervenes. I think we should be grateful that it doesn’t happen far more often. ■
❝ There is the centuriesold dispute between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and yet the BirdLife partners have worked closely together for ❞ decades