The wildlife charity WWF has been maintaining policies that work to support the trade in polar bear fur at the same time as using images of the bears to raise money, it can be revealed.<\/p>\n
Polar bears are severely affected by the loss of Arctic sea ice, which makes seeking prey harder and forces the bears to use more energy. In some regions, polar bears are showing signs of declining physical condition, having fewer cubs, and dying younger.<\/p>\n
Despite their endangered status, polar bears are hunted commercially in Canada, the only country that still allows the practice after it was banned by Russia, Greenland, the US and Norway. An annual average of 300\u2013400 skins are exported, primarily to China, where a full pelt sells for an average of $60,000 (\u00a348,000) and is often used for luxury clothing or as a rug.<\/p>\n
It is estimated that there are between 22,000 and 31,000 polar bears left globally, of which around two thirds are in Canada.<\/p>\n
A two-year investigation has found that WWF has helped facilitate the international commercial trade in polar bear furs as part of its support for the policy of sustainable utilisation. The idea is that by licensing the exploitation of a small number of animals for economic purposes \u2013 such as for fur or trophy-hunting \u2013 the status of the species overall will be improved.<\/p>\n
WWF has made clear statements about its position regarding trophy-hunting and the trade in elephant ivory. It has said it is \u201cnot opposed to hunting programmes that present no threat to the survival of threatened species and, where such species are involved, are part of a demonstrated conservation and management strategy that is scientifically based, properly managed, and strictly enforced, with revenues and benefits going back into conservation and local communities\u201d.<\/p>\n
At the Convention of the International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), the global organisation that regulates the trade in endangered species, WWF has lobbied consistently from a position that allows the continuation of the commercial Canadian polar bear fur trade. In its position statement, it acknowledged there may be a significant decline in the polar bear population in the coming decades, but said trade \u201cis not a significant threat to the species [though there are a] number of polar bear populations in Canada where harvest may be unsustainable\u201d.<\/p>\n
WWF lobbied against granting full protection to polar bears in 2010 and 2013 at Cites meetings when the US, supported by Russia, proposed a ban on the international commercial trade of polar bear skins.<\/p>\n
Both times WWF recommended that parties should not vote for a full ban, arguing that polar bears had not yet met the criteria for this.<\/p>\n
This view persists. When asked at the Cites meeting in Panama in 2022 whether WWF would recommend better protection in the forthcoming decade, Colman O\u2019Criodain, WWF International\u2019s policy manager for wildlife and adviser to WWF\u2019s Arctic programme, said he \u201c[did not] think so in terms of the numeric criteria\u201d.<\/p>\n
WWF said in a 2013 statement: \u201cIf, at some stage in the future, polar bear populations become so diminished by climate change and habitat loss, and\/or if international trade presents a greater threat, we would want to revisit the Cites listing issue. But we\u2019re not at that point.\u201d<\/p>\n
WWF has also claimed a ban on the international commercial trade would damage the livelihoods of Indigenous communities.<\/p>\n
However, this is contentious. Robert Thompson, an I\u00f1upiat resident and polar bear guide from Kaktovik, Alaska, said: \u201cWe didn\u2019t sell these animals for 10,000 years and that\u2019s why they are still here \u2013 we didn\u2019t have a commercial need.\u201d<\/p>\n
Thompson said a better income could be made without killing polar bears. \u201cThere can be a good income by taking people to view the animals \u2013 and that is sustainable,\u201d he said. \u201cI think if we just shot the bears to have money, pretty soon we wouldn\u2019t have any more bears and then that\u2019s the end of it.\u201d<\/p>\n
At both Cites meetings the proposal failed to reach the two-thirds majority required for a ban on the trade.<\/p>\n
Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud, a former director of WWF who worked for the charity for 27 years, said: \u201cThe WWF name, certainly from my experience, had a lot of leverage. If I approached people, they wanted to hear what I had to say \u2026 WWF has an influence, and it still has an influence.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think the public will be even more than surprised, perhaps shocked. I know that it\u2019s the sort of thing that I have difficulty getting my head around.\u201d<\/p>\n
WWF has also lobbied against granting full protection under Cites to other animals including elephants, hippos, giraffes and rhinos. This was particularly evident at the 2022 Cites meeting, where WWF lobbied successfully for changing the listing of Namibia\u2019s white rhino population from full protection under appendix I to the less restrictive appendix II.<\/p>\n
The majority of wildlife protection organisations do not support WWF\u2019s position, and at the past four Cites meetings a coalition of about 80 NGOs opposed WWF\u2019s recommendations.<\/p>\n
WWF told the Guardian that an appendix I listing of polar bears would not have prevented trophy hunting. \u201cUnder appendix II \u2026 commercial trade, in skins for example, is also allowed and the Inuit in Canada avail of this. For this reason, on both occasions when the appendix I listing was proposed, Inuit representatives spoke passionately against it. Rejection of the proposal was also recommended by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, [the NGO] Traffic, the Pew Environment Group and the Cites secretariat.\u201d<\/p>\n
The spokesperson said that after the 2013 debate the Cites committee had looked at the sustainability of the trade: \u201cCanada submitted its case to the following meeting in 2015 and the committee concluded, by consensus, that the trade was sustainable.\u201d<\/p>\n
WWF added in a further response that it \u201cdoes not lobby for or work to support or promote the polar bear fur trade\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cHunting is a complex issue, often linked to the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and as such we don\u2019t oppose it in all cases,\u201d said a spokesperson. \u201cThis is not the same as supporting, lobbying, facilitating or promoting the trade in polar bear furs.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe oppose all unsustainable hunting and illegal hunting, including in the Arctic. By far the biggest threats to polar bears are habitat loss and climate change, and we continue to work on conservation and campaigning on these vital issues.\u201d<\/p>\n
This article<\/a> by Adam Cruise was first published by The Guardian on 15 February 2025. Lead Image: A polar bear with its cubs in Alaska. WWF has lobbied consistently from a position that allows the continuation of the commercial trade of furs out of Canada. Photograph: Reuters.<\/i><\/p>\n Help to protect wildlife by making a monthly donation of as little as $1.<\/p>\n Your donation will support vital conservation projects<\/a>.<\/p>\nWhat you can do<\/h2>\n