Posted by Jamie in Green Articles, Green Leaders | 0 Comments
WWF: A Compromise
Warning: strip_tags() expects parameter 1 to be string, array given in /home/propelea/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 631
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has been a hotbed of controversy – even when one discounts the whole World Wrestling Federation naming issue sometime in 2002. Originally known as the World Wildlife Fund, it was established in September 11, 1961 with Netherlands’ H.R.H. Prince Bernhard as the institution’s first president. The context for which this particular group was created involved the lack of funds for the conservation efforts of environmental organizations such as The Conservation Foundation and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Thus, a prominent group of European naturalists, scientists, political figures, and business leaders took it upon themselves to change the course of environmental advocacy history.
Today, it is also referred to as the “panda organization” for its internationally recognized logo of a panda. Indeed, in more than four decades of evolution, the group has grown as one of the most respected authorities when it comes to creating a living future. Having considerable influence across five continents and over 90 countries and close to 5 million supporters, WWF has provided US$1 billion in financial aid to conservation projects for the welfare of the planet.
As with considerable force, WWF has been met with quite a number of criticisms and conspiracy theories over the years. A recurring accusation is that in its willingness to compromise at such lengths, it has revealed itself to be a “sell-out”. Just as the terms “corporate social responsibility,” “going green,” “eco revolutionized corporate governance,” etc. are being adopted as buzzwords by some corporations, WWF has been judged by a number of groups as a fence-sitter (or worse, wolf in sheep’s clothing).
This was the case with the Tasmania dispute a few years ago. WWF proposed a forestry blueprint that allowed the continued logging and wood-chipping activities in the northwest region, albeit in a restricted area. Several conservationists argued that this provision goes against its goals of preserving wildlife and nature. One of the most vocal groups, The Wilderness Society, points out that this was a form of submission when clearly WWF states that its purpose is to halt and reverse the injudicious destruction of natural resources.
However, it must be noted that WWF was able to save hundreds of thousands of public and private land hectares in the name of conservation. The organization doesn’t strictly impose its rules on others, but rather, works towards a compromise. The Tasmanian Conservation Trust recognizes this as an opportunity to reach a win-win in the forestry debate. Even the Forest Industries Association is willing to concede at these terms rather than exacerbating the problem.
After all, at the end of the day it is more valuable for us to realize that we can advance human development, as long as we are more conscientious about these decisions. Naivety does not serve any side well; whether the conservationists demand that forestry be eradicated, or the loggers demand they be given the right to cut down everything as a means of income. Compromise ensures that we work toward finding sustainable solutions together.
Related Posts
