Cracks in the Panda logo: "WWF is not accountable to anyone"

The once so trusted Panda logo is beginning to show signs of serious cracks. The way the WWF (which once was called the World Wildlife Foundation) today operates is more and more beginning to resemble the "business model" used by another type of wellknown organisations. "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse" is in reality the the starting point in many of the discussions between the WWF and various businesses. 


The way a representative of the Cattle Council of Australia describes the situation is telling: 


“By not engaging with NGO's (like WWF and RSPCA, which are the more moderate), we as an industry run the risk of becoming irrelevant within the environmental and welfare policy development area and we would project an image of apathy for the environment and animal welfare.”

The Cattle Council of Australia seems to engage in discussions with the WWF, cleary because they are afraid of losing market share without the Panda logo. 


Dale Stiller, spokesperson for Property Rights Australia, asks the right question: "Who then are WWF accountable to?"

In an opinion article earlier this year in the Washington TimesAndrew Langer wrote.

“Even “partners” of the organization have been burned by its fundamental opposition to economic activity. In 2010, WWF unilaterally downgraded Vietnamese pangasius, a staple fish, in its “sustainability scorecard” despite a partnership with the industry and cooperation from producers to implement its practices.”

If WWF is not accountable to its partners in the business world surely they would respect the authority of democratically elected governments. But no, Langer also writes in his opinion article.
WWF recently has moved into the business space, convincing governments and institutions that it can be trusted with managing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. One nation that fell for WWF’s sales pitch was Norway, which recently granted WWF responsibility to oversee two environmental aid projects in Tanzania worth a combined $7 million. Last week, amid accusations of embezzlement, the Norwegian government announced that it was suspending the project.”

In June 2011 a German documentary was released called Silence of the Pandas. This documentary demonstrates that WWF aren’t accountable for their activities in third world countries toward indigenous peoples and very surprisingly for an organisation with the image of the protector of the endangered and the environment; it isn’t accountable to these values as well.

(In drawing attention to these youtube links to the Silence of the Pandas and the quote from Rainforest Rescue, Property Rights Australia wishes to advise that it is not comfortable with all material contained within; they do however provide a perspective on WWF’s activities.)

Click here for link to Silence of the Pandas part 1 

Click here for link to Silence of the Pandas part 2

A smaller more idealistic environment group, Forest Rescue, indicates its contempt of WWF on its web site when writing about the Silence of the Pandas documentary.

“The WWF is the largest environmental protection organisation in the world. Trust in its green projects is almost boundless. With rousing campaigns, the WWF directly targets the conscience of its donors - everyone should do their part to save endangered species, the climate and the rainforest. The WWF was founded on September 11, 1961. Today it is the most influential lobby for the environment in the world. Thanks largely to its excellent contacts in both the political and industrial spheres. Behind this eco-facade, the film uncovered explosive stories from all around the world. Stories of displaced peoples, cleared rainforests and the huge money-making industry that is the WWF's green seal of approval”

Not only does this material across the world indicate that WWF is not accountable to anyone but also given this information age that it is only a matter of time and WWF’s image will suffer.  WWF is developing an unsavoury reputation that will ultimately devalue its panda brand name among the affluent westerners who can afford a green conscience. Then the large players in the international beef trade will remove all association with WWF.

Property Rights Australia holds the view that unelected and unaccountable people have no right to interfere in the industry where their knowledge is non-existent or tenuous. Grass roots beef producers were neither consulted nor did they approve of this adventure with big business and the ENGO’s.

Surely as a developed nation we have the capacity to define sustainability in a partnership between landowners and rangeland scientists; we may not have a brand name but at least we will have integrity.