• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Chinese Wild Bird Federation statement on removal from BirdLife International (1 Viewer)

Why isn't the best option to try to maintain a partnership with an established Non-Governmental Organisation (not "backed by a government"), while building capacity for smaller NGOs to develop and funding on-the-ground conservation actions where they are most needed?

So is the demand from BLI on CWBF coming directly from HKBWS?

Would this have been possible if CWBF had agreed to sign the document requested by BLI that they would not participate in activities promoting Taiwan independence or use the BLI logo on documents funded by organisations supporting independence?
This is a genuine question, I don't know the answer. From the CWBF statement, it seems that it is their refusal to commit to this document that has precipitated the change, not pressure from anyone in PRC.

It's a political document. Why should a birding conservation association ever have to swear political allegiances? Could you imagine Bird Life Malta being sworn to supporting a govt that supports shooting of passerines?

Despite your comment, there is no suggestion that BLI have been trying to engage a partner in mainland China. As far as I am aware, there is no organisation there that qualifies for BLI partnership.

Isn't that part of the equation? You give up something for nothing in the hopes that something, which will inevitably be government appointed, pans out.


It's a shame that you are so dismissive (or unaware?) of the work that HKBWS and BLI have been doing in China. They have been working with small, regional NGOs to carry out survey work for waterbirds (especially Spoon-billed Sandpiper); to search for, remove and report illegal mist nets, and pressure local officials to take action on illegal trapping; to identify and protect sites for threatened species such as Jankowski's Bunting, Blue-crowned Laughingthrush, Chinese Grassbird and Scaly-sided Merganser, etc. This work has paid off in some areas, for example with a reported reduction in illegal hunting along the Guangdong coast. With no funding and no support, there is a risk that these fledgling regional NGOs will be unable to continue this work. These small NGOs and the work that they have done may not currently be high-profile on the global stage, but that is no reason to assume that they are not important or that they will not achieve more in the future.

Mostly unaware, but I still think there are ways to fund and support fledgling PRC regional conservation NGOs that don't require BLI dismissal of CWBF from BLI or even political oaths. I just wonder if the demand for BLI credit for funding trumps getting essential conservation work done. If so, let me know and let me know if the groups across the border are willing to accept individual donations on major PRC payment apps.

Trying to change attitude and policies of PRC on conservation, as you are calling for, might take a very long time, but it will only be achieved if you are in a position to engage with them directly, not watching from the sidelines.

And that is the fundamental debate in engaging with the PRC. Will backroom deals produce results that couldn't have been produced by major global PR critiques from the outside while acting on info provdided by small mobile groups on the inside? We'll see in 5 years, but I'm not hopeful for the East Asian Flyway.
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Poland
This discussion simply underlines that Taiwan has no chance of surviving in international bodies, China is determined to extirpate them from international presence.
That suggests that Taiwan urgently needs to find a better way to be considered.

A tie in with another island nation such as Madagascar might be one option, but of course seems incompatible with the Taiwan claim to be the legitimate rulers of China.

They actually have a pretty nice strategy: be good people.

During the corona crisis, PRC made shady deals with our (Czech) politicians, extorting money and selling overpriced crap PPE, while Taiwan simply sent help. Our government and president are still deep in PRCs pockets, but the head of the Senate made a state visit to Taiwan with an entourage of businessmen. Taiwan investments in the Czech Republic already outshine those of PRC, despite the huge disparity in sizes. PRC threw a huge temper tantrum afterwards and cancelled some trade, but it's so minor that it doesn't matter.

If more people around the world begin to understand this huge difference between PRC and Taiwan - and if their citizens properly identify which of their politicians are on PRC's payroll and sent them away swiftly - then Taiwan has a chance to become the partner of choice, simply because they actually are a partner, unlike the PRC.
 

mjh73

Well-known member
"Dear [mjh73]

I understand from [X] that you were concerned about the news stories that have been circulating about the departure of the Chinese Wild Bird Federation from the BirdLife family. I wanted to take this opportunity to address some of the misconceptions that have entered into this discussion, while also remembering how our policies at the root of this allow us to be as effective as we are around the globe.

And, let me reassure you. These difficulties do not distract us from keeping our eyes on the ball. In the next weeks alone, we are sponsoring and promoting events around the world, including World Migratory Bird Day (WMBD) on the 10th October and the Global Bird Weekend (GBW) on the 17th - 18th October and the very successful BirdLife Partner Eurobirdwatch weekend (EBW) of the 3rd - 4th October share the joy and wonder of birding and demonstrate the global reach of our partners.

And, of course, our key science and policy work underpins global interventions; the Red List, the seminal State of the World’s Birds report, due at the end of September, aligning with the UN Summit on Biodiversity and our CEO’s participation in some important colloquies at the UNDP/UNEP Nature for Life Hub in the next weeks.

It is critical to remember that it is these events and our science based work, which make us effective and reflect who, we and our Partners, are. Our conservation work is possible because we remain apolitical. The Global Council’s obligation under UK charities law is to avoid any risk which could prevent BirdLife from achieving its aims or carrying out its strategies. In addition, as a UK charity, we are required to guard our independence, and ensure that we remain independent. It is not permissible for us to support any political party or government.

The Partnership has patiently engaged for years on this issue, and recently for many, many months to ask CWBF to leave these global politics at the door as part of its participation in BirdLife International. Our Global Council felt they had no choice but to arrive at this unanimous decision, with pain and sadness, and ask the CWBF to leave the BirdLife Partnership.

The decision was based on the long-established, democratically voted and unanimously approved -by all the Partners- Operational Procedures of the Global Partnership. BirdLife International has voted to follow the United Nations policies with regard to national sovereignty, nomenclature and related issues. This was chosen as the most neutral way for BirdLife to avoid wading into the arena of geopolitical pressures and conflicts. Diverging from these UN policies and promotion of such divergence by a Partner subjects BirdLife to the real risk of failing to achieve our aims and strategies. The Operational Procedures further make clear that a Partner cannot use the BirdLife name, logo, brand and/or symbols in conjunction with those of any political movement, political party, government, territory or other political unit which promotes secession from a UN recognised country. Our charitable mission and passion is about conservation. To act otherwise would negatively impact our capacity to work locally, and globally, to protect birds and biodiversity.

The record of CWBF in conservation is one we recognize and which we salute but the Partnership must maintain its independence from political agendas of this kind, if it is to maintain its capacity to work around the globe in diverse states, free as much as possible from interference and threats from political agendas. Through our work on global treaties around biodiversity, species and habitat protections, climate change, etc. we engage and we make a difference: often because we are perceived as having no other agenda than conservation and saving birds.

There remains urgent and pressing work to do to save the planet. This work must be done through a range of collaborations and partnerships and BirdLife always stands ready to find collaborative ways to achieve this with all conservationists of good faith, both within and outside, her formal structures.

I hope this gives you the fuller context and the facts about the issue and will help us return to the genuine fray we are so passionate about - saving birds and biodiversity for nature and for people.

Please let me know if I can provide any more information or resolve any additional questions. I do hope that this reassures you that no pressure of any kind from any country or partner led to this decision. It was our interest to protect BirdLife and ensure we can be seen independent and neutral in Asia and around the world.

Warm regards,

Sarah

Sarah Proud
Fundraising Manager"
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
Interesting ..... in Birdlife's desire to be independent of political agendas it seems to have succumbed to one ....... (despite the very reasonable adherence to UN defined Sovereignty ....)






Chosun :gh:
 

johnallcock

Well-known member
"Dear [mjh73]

I understand from [X] that you were concerned about the news stories that have been circulating about the departure of the Chinese Wild Bird Federation from the BirdLife family...

mjh73, thank you for posting this. It is useful to see both sides of the argument, not only the statement from CWBF. I'm surprised that BirdLife International still seem not to have issued an official statement.

I really hope that CWBF will be able to find a way to work with BLI again in future. Their experience and knowledge are of great benefit to BLI partners in Asia.
 

James Eaton

Trent Valley Crew
I'm surprised that BirdLife International still seem not to have issued an official statement.

I really hope that CWBF will be able to find a way to work with BLI again in future. Their experience and knowledge are of great benefit to BLI partners in Asia.

Judging by the correspondence released in the below link, it doesn't appear that BirdLife International are overly keen on working with CWBT again...

https://www.bird.org.tw/news/602?fb...3zaPOgqo3XoNVyQ3M3NxtaVZnVQtVHRDYGFuAm8pGawYQ

James
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Poland
That is an awful statement. So many words, so little substance. Why do people nowadays feel that this is the "politically correct" way to talk? To me it seems like the text accuses CWBF of using Birdlife for political agenda. Did that happen? What are the examples of that?

Judging by the correspondence released in the below link, it doesn't appear that BirdLife International are overly keen on working with CWBT again...

https://www.bird.org.tw/news/602?fb...3zaPOgqo3XoNVyQ3M3NxtaVZnVQtVHRDYGFuAm8pGawYQ

James


Ah, reading this makes it much clearer. Apparently the sole existence of the organization within RoC and their unwillingness to make a political statement against independence is, according to Birdlife, a political statement. What a fantastic twist of logic.

I used have almost a mythical regard for Birdlife. No more.
 
Last edited:

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
That is an awful statement. So many words, so little substance. Why do people nowadays feel that this is the "politically correct" way to talk? To me it seems like the text accuses CWBF of using Birdlife for political agenda. Did that happen? What are the examples of that?




Ah, reading this makes it much clearer. Apparently the sole existence of the organization within RoC and their unwillingness to make a political statement against independence is, according to Birdlife, a political statement. What a fantastic twist of logic.

I used have almost a mythical regard for Birdlife. No more.

Sadly there are no apolitical organizations.
An entity that is international has to navigate the political waters as best it can, but a determined government can always force a decision.
That decision will be determined by the priorities of the organization involved and Birdlife prioritized its stated mission.
Of course, someone much wiser than I asked 'what does it profit a man to gain the world if he loses his soul?' Presumably the Birdlife leadership has a ready answer.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top