The World Wildlife Fund: Protecting Nature at the Cost of Human Rights
Background
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), founded in 1961, is an international nonprofit organization created to conserve nature. It operates in nearly 100 countries, aiming to sustain the natural world by partnering with local communities and governments. In working with over one million international supporters, the organization seeks vast donor support alongside internal project advice from partners and experts who have a deep understanding of the most pressing threats facing the environment.
To achieve its goals, WWF has outlined three science-based targets: zero loss of natural habitats, zero extinction of species, and the halving of the consumption and production footprint. Furthermore, WWF is calling on world leaders to help halt nature loss and support global action on climate change.
Since WWF advocates on a global scale, its organizational structure is designed to include local community members and major corporations. Its CEO is Carter Roberts, who also chairs the Board of Directors alongside the former CEO of The Coco-Cola Company, Neville Isdell.
Besides partnering with Coca-Cola, WWF also partners with USAID and Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Even though these companies have large sources of capital, WWF only receives $15 million (or 4%) in operating revenues from corporations. $15 million may not seem like a large amount, however, these companies have significant lobbying power in determining how this money is spent, such as on questionable weapons trading and anti-poaching efforts.
Controversies Surrounding WWF
In 2020, WWF was accused of funding and working with anti-poaching “paramilitary” guards who allegedly tortured and killed people in national parks across Africa and Asia. Indigenous people and villagers have been most vulnerable to these attacks. For example, according to eyewitnesses, one farmer was waterboarded and beaten by guards for poaching. After hearing of this, WWF lobbied for the charges that were filed against the rangers in question to be dropped.
In other places, such as Nepal and Cameroon, reports have revealed that indigenous people were shot, sexually assaulted, and whipped by armed guards. The voices of the indigenous people who have suffered these abuses are rarely heard.
Beyond being associated with human rights abuses, WWF has also been accused of acting as a “global spymaster,” funding networks of informants to provide park officials with intelligence. to buy assault rifles and make other weapons purchases, which are against its own policies.
Despite WWF being exonerated by an independent investigation, serious gaps and shortcomings still exist in structural oversight. For example, WWF’s policies prohibit the provision of arms to rangers, yet the organization is suspected of lobbying environmental ministries to ensure the rangers are well-equipped to discourage poachers.
As a result of these allegations, WWF has been accused of an inconsistent approach to social policies and human rights issues. The organization has claimed that it desires to do more to make the voices of indigenous peoplescommunit heard, to have communities’ indigenous rights respected, and to consistently advocate for governments to uphold its human rights obligations. However, corporate statements should not excuse WWF from turning a blind eye when human rights are violated for the sake of preserving the natural world.
Reform
Environmental conservation should not come at the sacrifice of human rights. WWF must provide clear guidance to participating program offices on how they should implement human rights commitments. Rangers and other law enforcement officers wield tremendous power over indigenous populations and have the authority to carry out extreme military-style, anti-poaching methods to curb poaching activities. If WWF were to install network-wide policies and norms surrounding these practices, rangers will would no longer have the power to pursue deadly measures when dealing with offenders.
WWF must also center its attention on the power dynamics between its wealthy organization and the local communities with whom it conducts businesspartners. Human rights are claimed to be at the forefront of everything the WWF does, yet partnering with large corporations such as Coca-Cola and Royal Caribbean, as well as public industrialists, philanthropists, and “upper-class naturalists,” creates spheres of influence that go beyond the preservation of the Earth, leading many to doubt the organization’s dedication to both environmental and human rights.
WWF must be held accountable when its members do harm. Despite being a non-governmental organization, it must allow external auditing companies and regulatory bodies to observe its financial and operational practices. Independent investigations have revealed gross human rights abuses. Right now, WWF answers only to its own views on how to best protect the environment and the species in which it inhabits. The organization can no longer rely on its own expertise and operations if it desires to avoid future atrocities.
In the past, WWF has added new safeguarding measures to prevent human rights abuses from happening again. In the absence of any true accountability, it will continue to turn a blind eye where it can.
