The WWF and the industry-What role for environmental organisations in the age of multinationals and biofuels?

On Wednesday the German public broadcaster ARD showed the  documentary 'The pact with the Panda-What the WWF is not telling us' on the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and its close links to international companies, especially in the areas of biofuels (soy beans and palm oil). The documentary focused on Indonesia and Argentina, but there was also a critical case study from India about tiger conservation efforts and eco-tourism. The documentary is in German, of course, and there are no subtitles. There have been heated discussions on both the German and Swiss WWF websites - again, in German. More than 600 comments are quite unusual for the German Internet-sphere and it really shows that the documentary hit a nerve. This has the potential of a German/European version of the 'Three Cups for Tea' story.
I can't really provide a detailed summary here, but there are a couple of interesting points with reference to the WWF, but more importantly the rather depressing documentary raised very important points about environmental efforts, the helplessness of NGOs and the power of multinational companies and markets. The WWF worldwide is a $500 million annual operation, mainly funded through individual donations. Traditionally, they have been arguing for a 'constructive dialogue' with the industries and the documentary is a powerful visualisation of how little this approach has achieved. The limitations of eco-tourism in India with ever shrinking numbers of tigers and emotional text-message fundraising clips on YouTube should come as no surprise for anybody who works in development. It's not the WWF's 'fault' if tigers get hunted illegally for whatever reason, but if its aim was to stabilise or even increase their numbers they have been failing. The stories from Indonesia and Argentina were even more depressing. Large parts of the rainforest keep disappearing for biofuels such as palm oil and soy beans and WWF's involvement hardly seems to make a difference (one of the few recent critical articles I could find was one on GMWatch from 2010 on 'WWF-Loyal ally to agribusiness and globalisation'). One of the lowlights of the documentary is when the author (not exactly a Michael Moore, but also an award-winning journalist) asked a WWF staff member at a conference about successful projects between the biofuel industry and the WWF and she couldn't mention any one. When the author explained that in one area 99.5% of the rainforest were gone and a tiny patch was left to fulfill 'conservation' demands her only comments was 'Without the WWF 100% of the forest would have gone'. The WWF's head in Argentina who explained that his prior involvement in the genetic crop research business was a perfect preparation for his job 'to understand both sides' was an unpleasant example of patronising modernity when he explained that soy beans, Monsanto and its herbicide RoundUp were part of 'scientific progress'. These are only a few vignettes I remember.

The documentary obviously wanted to make the statement that WWF's relationship with the industry is too close to comfort, but I think WWF-bashing is only part of the story. What made me angry and sad was the notion that multinationals like Cargill and Wilmar from Singapore or Monsanto aided with financial backing from HSBC for example (who runs a partnership program with WWF and other organisations) basically get away with everything, probably aided by weak governance structures (to put it diplomatically) in countries like Indonesia and strong elite buy-in in places like Argentina. This is not exactly breaking news, but it made me think long and hard about the 'development industry's' involvement and role in the future. Round-tables, voluntary agreements, conferences, Public Private Partnerships or Corporate Social Responsibility once again look extremely weak not to say useless in the face of the destructive power of such industries that simply go about their business when the WWF puts out statements explaining the in and outs of their certification/endorsement/discussion culture with the industry. Who cares?!
The story of the WWF is not just the usual tale of a large NGO that has difficulties facing the realities of its environment (pun not really intended...), although tough questions about transparency, use of donations and governance are likely to be asked, but really about the environmental movement of the future. In an age of land-grabbing, biofuels and food price volatility with real impact on poor people how can traditional organisations make a difference, especially in the agriculture and natural resource business?

P.S.: I'll update the blog should more information in English become available-but you are also most welcome to leave a comment below if you find additional resources. 

Update I (24 June):
On his website, the author announced that an English version of the documentary will be available, but probably not for free on the Internet...

Addendum 25 July:
In today's GUARDIAN, John Vidal has two interesting pieces on the WWF and its Global Forest Trade Network: 'WWF accused of failing to regulate sustainable timber scheme' describes how 

WWF let timber companies use its panda brand logo while they were razing some of the world's most biologically rich rainforests or trading in potentially illegally sourced timber, according to the investigative group Global Witness.

In his second piece, Vidal recalls 'How WWF works with the logging companies' in Africa, based on his visit in 2007, but his conclusion seems still very valid:

I have seen WWF working in the forests of Gabon, Cameroon, Indonesia and Congo, and the fact is it is mostly outwitted by the companies who use it cynically, buying the use of using the panda to promote a green image, or in Safbois's case, even going into partnership.

Comments

  1. Tobias Denskus24 June 2011 at 17:29

    The problematic use of Monsanto's RoundUp was briefly mentioned in the documentary as well and the current article confirms observations the authorn made in Argentina:

    'Roundup: Birth Defects Caused By World's Top-Selling Weedkiller, Scientists Say
    (...)
    Farmers and others in Argentina used the weedkiller primarily on genetically modified Roundup Ready soy, which covers nearly 50 million acres, or half of the country's cultivated land area. In 2009 farmers sprayed that acreage with an estimated 200 million liters of glyphosate.
    The Argentine government helped pull the country out of a recession in the 1990s in part by promoting genetically modified soy. Though it was something of a miracle for poor farmers, several years after the first big harvests residents near where the soy cop grew began reporting health problems, including high rates of birth defects and cancers, as well as the losses of crops and livestock as the herbicide spray drifted across the countryside.
    (...)
    The study, published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology in 2010, found that glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying. It also found that malformations caused in frog and chicken embryos by Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate were similar to human birth defects found in genetically modified soy-producing regions'.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html?ir=Canada

    ReplyDelete
  2. Göran26 June 2011 at 18:55

    English version coming soon
    http://www.united-docs.com/dokumentationen/2011/silence_of_pandas.phtml

    ReplyDelete
  3. woundup5 December 2013 at 22:28

    The English version is here.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should I consider a PhD in International Development Studies?

After the Economist’s piece on the (non-)value of doing a PhD and some comments later (e.g. Prometheus doesn't read the Economist (I like the slightly cynical dichotomy between ‘civilians’ and the ‘academic insiders) or the ' 100 Reasons NOT to Go to Graduate School ' (they are only halfway through so check it out regularly in the future...) I had an interesting conversation with a prospective PhD student a few days ago. This was not the first time that I had been approached about doing a PhD and I always try to be as frank as possible, even playing the ‘devil’s advocate’ when it comes to the complicated ‘should I or shouldn’t I?’ decision-making process. At the end of our conversation I sat down and tried to summarize a few important and generic points from the point of view of doing a PhD in Development Studies and in the UK . I understand that every case is different and involves a range of motives, options and rationales, but there a few important questions and t
Read more

John Marsh: Why Education Is Not an Economic Panacea-insights for development?

John Marsh just published an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on ' Why Education is not an Economic Panacea '. The article is long and a bit confusing to read. It is based on the author's experience in an education project for poor members of the community: The idea was simple. Faculty from the University of Illinois would offer night classes in their areas of expertise [...] for anyone in the community who was between the ages of 18 and 45 and lived at 150 percent of the poverty level of income or lower. [...] Students who completed the nine-month course would receive six hours of college credit, which they could then transfer to other institutions of higher learning. Everything would be free: tuition, books, even child care at a nearby community center. We named it after a similar program in Chicago, the Odyssey Project. In short, the programme was based on the well-known dicussion that  education pays, and pays more than ever. If so, it
Read more

What if MrBeast really is one of the futures of philanthropy-and what does that mean for communicating development?

Image
“ I feel good seeing myself dancing after receiving the money. It makes me appreciate the moment my life changed and reminds me of when I was able to send my son to school .” (Resident of Nakapiripirit, Uganda) “ It might seem strange to carp over a few good deeds filmed for YouTube clicks. After all, even if this Gen Z mode of philanthropy is brash and narcissistic, some lives are being changed for the better. Yet at the same time, Donaldson is exploiting less fortunate people’s problems to shape his image of decency, while reinforcing the aid illusion that has blown so much money and achieved so little over the past half century .” (Ian Birrell, UnHerd ) “ As people have noted, if you watch the video in total isolation, it's maybe not that bad? Mr Beast is good at this. And he's not obviously mocking or manipulating these people. Then again, the TV commentators in the Hunger Games fawned over Katniss. That wasn't the issue .” (Justin Sandefur, Center for Global Developmen
Read more

Dear white middle class British women: Please don't send used bras (or anything, really) to Africa

Image
I am supposed to be on my summer blogging break , but the world of bad development does not seem to take a vacation... The first time I came across the #SWEDOW (Stuff We Don't Want) debate about what to do with unwanted stuff and whether to send it to 'Africa' was in 2010; in fact, I wrote about a shoe donation project on the blog in 2012. Fast forward to July 2019 and a local British Women's Institute Facebook page with about 500 page likes is posting a picture of two innocent-looking parcels that has been shared very widely. The vast majority of the 500+ comments under the post are positive and I am sure that both charities will receive quite a few parcels in the next few days. It seems almost futile and pointing out bad examples of charity and development is not always the best way to communicate, but I anonymize the post as much as possible to avoid simply shaming a particular Women's Institute chapter. 'Rapey men here are the same as rapey men t
Read more

Handbook on Humanitarianism and Inequality - Chapter 04 - Humanitarianism and the new wars: humanitarianism, security, and securitisation

Image
Every two weeks I am going to feature one of the chapters of our Handbook on Humanitarianism and Inequality which was published in spring 2024. This week we are taking a closer look at Chapter 04 - Humanitarianism and the new wars: humanitarianism, security, and securitisation - contributed by Michael Magcamit and Anastassiya Mahon. From the introduction This chapter demonstrates and probes the idea of ‘humanitarian securitisation’ propelled by humanitarianism amidst the emergence of new wars linked to inequality. Humanitarian securitisation is defined here as the process of securitising the humanitarian crises brought about by the new wars – specifically, internal conflicts and terrorism – to justify the use and implementation of humanitarian intervention in the target states. As the foremost authority on ‘new wars’, Mary Kaldor ( 2016: 147 ), describes these phenomena as the ‘combination of political violence, organised crime and massive violations of human rights’ happening in di
Read more