WWF’s Surprising Stance on the Polar Bear Fur Trade
It has come to light that the wildlife organization WWF has been promoting the polar bear fur trade while simultaneously utilizing pictures of the bears to generate funds. The melting of Arctic sea ice has a significant impact on polar bears, making it more difficult for them to find prey and requiring them to expend more energy. Polar bears are becoming less healthy, giving birth to fewer cubs, and passing away earlier in some areas. Canada is the only nation that currently permits commercial polar bear hunting, even though it is illegal in Russia, Greenland, the US, and Norway.
An average of 300 to 400 skins are transported each year, mostly to China, where a complete pelt fetches an average price of $60,000 (£48,000) and is frequently used for rugs or high-end apparel.
The Declining Polar Bear Population Amid Climate Change
Between 22,000 and 31,000 polar bears are thought to remain in the world, with about two-thirds of them living in Canada. According to a two-year inquiry, WWF has supported the sustainable use strategy by assisting in the international commercial trade in polar bear furs. It is believed that the status of the species as a whole will be improved by permitting the commercial exploitation of a limited number of animals, such as for fur or trophy hunting. The World Wildlife Fund has made it clear where it stands on trophy hunting and the ivory trade.
“I am not against hunting programs that pose no threat to the survival of threatened species and, where such species are involved, are part of a proven conservation and management strategy that is scientifically based, properly managed, and strictly enforced, with revenues and benefits going back into conservation and local communities,” the statement reads. WWF has continuously advocated for the continuance of the commercial Canadian polar bear fur trade at the Convention of the International Trade in Endangered Animals (Cites), the international organization that oversees the trade in endangered animals.
Although it stated in its position statement that commerce “is not a significant threat to the species [though there are a] number of polar bear populations in Canada where harvest may be unsustainable,” it noted that the polar bear population may fall significantly over the next few decades. In 2010 and 2013, when the US, backed by Russia, proposed a ban on the worldwide commercial traffic of polar bear skins, WWF argued against giving polar bears complete protection at Cites meetings.
On both occasions, WWF suggested that parties avoid voting for a complete ban, claiming that polar bears had not yet fulfilled the needs for such a prohibition. This opinion goes on. Colman O’Criodain, WWF International’s policy manager for wildlife and consultant to WWF’s Arctic program, responded that he “[did not] think so in terms of the numeric criteria” when asked at the 2022 Cites meeting in Panama if WWF would suggest improved protection in the upcoming ten years.
In a 2013 statement, WWF stated: “We would want to revisit the Cites listing issue if, at some point in the future, polar bear populations become so diminished by climate change and habitat loss, and/or if international trade presents a greater threat.” However, we aren’t there yet.
WWF’s Endorsement of Sustainable Use Sparks Debate
A prohibition on the global commercial trade, according to WWF, would harm Indigenous groups’ means of subsistence. But this is open to question. We didn’t have a commercial demand for these animals for 10,000 years, which is why they are still here, according to Robert Thompson, an Iñupiat native and polar bear guide from Kaktovik, Alaska. As stated by Thompson, there is a way to earn more money without killing polar bears. “Taking people to see the animals can generate a good income, and that is sustainable,” he stated. “I believe that if we simply killed the bears to make money, we would soon run out of bears and that would be the end of it.”
Polar Bear Fur Trade: WWF’s Influence on Other Wildlife Protections Under Cites
The proposal fell short of the two-thirds vote needed to ban the trade at both Cites meetings. Former WWF director Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud, who spent 27 years with the organization, stated: “The WWF name, certainly from my experience, had a lot of clout.” People wanted to hear what I had to say if I went up to them. WWF has had and continues to have an impact. The public, in my opinion, will be even more astonished—perhaps even shocked. I am aware that it is the kind of thing that I find hard to understand. Additionally, WWF has advocated against giving other creatures, such as giraffes, rhinos, hippos, and elephants, complete protection under Cites.
Global Wildlife Organizations Challenging WWF’s Policies
WWF successfully lobbied to move Namibia’s white rhino population from full protection under Appendix I to the less restricted Appendix II, which was especially clear at the 2022 Cites meeting. A coalition of over 80 NGOs opposed WWF’s recommendations at the last four Cites sessions, and the majority of wildlife preservation organizations do not agree with WWF’s stance. Trophy hunting would not have been stopped by an Appendix I designation of polar bears, WWF told the Guardian. The Inuit in Canada take advantage of the commercial trade in skins, for instance, which is permitted under Appendix II.
As a result, Inuit representatives were assertively opposed to the Appendix I listing on both occasions when it was put forward. The International Union for Conservation of Nature, [the NGO] Traffic, the Pew Environment Group, and the Cites secretariat also hinted at rejecting the idea. “Canada submitted its case to the following meeting in 2015 and the committee concluded, by consensus, that the trade was sustainable,” the official said, referring to the Cites committee’s examination of the trade’s sustainability following the 2013 debate.
This article is based on a report by Adam Cruise, published in The Guardian on Saturday, 15 February 2025. Credit to Adam Cruise and WWF for the coverage.