So it got me thinking: what are the real benefits (if there are) of ecotourism for birds conservation?
The main benefit I can think of, is habitat protection.
So I'd want to hear from you, if you can share real world examples of habitat protection through ecotourism, but also, examples of habitat once sustained by ecotourism that has been destroyed by the lack of ecotourism.
An organization trying to be scientific might recognize that climate change threatens much fewer bird species compared to habitat destruction or persecution. Many species are about to disappear now, before any climate change may threaten them. An organization trying to be scientific should also recognize that Britain's contribution to global Co2 emissions is minor, and contribution of aviation is smaller than eg. agriculture. And an organization trying to be scientific should be able to access many hard economic reports about the ecotourism, because many countries and regions would economically collapse without it, so they closely study it.
Directly answering your question - national parks in Africa exist because of ecotourism, for example. Reserves in Rio Grande Valley in the USA make money from bird tourism specifically. Some years ago the region realized that birdwatchers are a major contribution to economy, which was not well visible otherwise.
The vision of the world without air travel was tested during the COVID and turned to be nightmare for conservation. Many national parks and travel companies in the tropics struggled and only managed to survive because of asking for emergency short-term donations. That blackbirds in British towns started singing more because of lower traffic was not a serious compensation.
Just some further points. First, don't confuse ecotourism with general tourism. The latter does not necessary results in protection of wildlife. I know of regions where masses visit mountain peaks etc., but locals have no interest in bird protection and poaching of carnivores goes on, because animals are not the reason why tourists come.
Second, ecotourism is an easy target for criticism because it is so visible and rather unusual. So tabloid news easily pick photos of ecotourists, but much more serious habitat destruction and poaching are neither photogenic nor unusual. I recently watched a wildlife program where the cameraman complained about pesky ecotourists photographing snow leopards. It is these ecotourists who pay money that snow leopards are tolerated, then generated interest that cats are tracked, so that the BBC could easily film stalked cats, but what BBC contributed to this?
Third, ecotourism, like any business, has diverse influence. Sometimes big money was paid to create ecotourism in villages, but this did not help protection of forests, because forest cutters were completely different group of people. Sometimes effect of the money goes elsewhere - from tourist bureaus to airports, which are not immediately associated with ecotourism.
Fourth, ecotourism is often in places which have no alternative realistic option to generate profit without destroying wildlife. The alternative is usually converting habitat to production. So even if it is small, there are no better options.
And a photo of the Smew is ironic. Smew population in Europe grows. Smews also benefit from warmer climate, together with most European waterbirds, because they can winter further north and have smaller losses during migration. That fewer Smew visit Britain only matters from the point of view of a birdwatcher - but wait, far more southern species become more numerous and watchable in Britain than northern ones become rarer...
