WWF in the wildernessBy RAELENE MOREYWhen Geoff Law picked up the WWF's recent blueprint for Tasmania, he was nervous. As campaign coordinator for The Wilderness Society (TWS) in Tasmania, Law hoped that WWF, a fellow conservation group would push the same ideals that TWS had struggled so hard to achieve over the past 25 years. In the lead-up to the election, he hoped that WWF could add to a campaign which had been picking up momentum for so many years. But when Law finished reading he was sickened. "Horror," Law says was his first reaction after reading the blueprint. "We were absolutely shocked that a conservation organisation would push for logging of the old-growth forests... We thought it was disgusting." Law was not the only one who was outraged. Soon after the publication of the blueprint, 13 Tasmanian conservation groups, including The Wilderness Society and the Tarkine National Coalition, penned a letter to WWF expressing their distress and disappointment. In fact, this is not the first time that WWF, formerly known as World Wildlife Fund, has upset environmental groups. In 1999 the environmental movement was split over the Federal Government's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. While WWF claimed the new laws would be an advantage to the environment, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Wilderness Society, along with the Labor Party and the Greens, were furious that the laws were passed. And WWF are still stepping on environmentalists' toes. Tasmanian conservation groups have asked WWF to stay out of the Tasmanian forest campaign. But does WWF have credibility intruding into the forestry debate? In July this year, WWF released "A Blueprint for the Forest Industry and Vegetation Management in Tasmania". The blueprint examined the Tasmanian wilderness from the point of view of saving biodiversity. Ralph Ashton, Landscape Conservation Manager for WWF, says saving biodiversity is WWF's mission. "The blueprint is about more than forests, it's about biodiversity," says Ashton. "Our blueprint, if adopted, would protect biodiversity in Tasmania." The blueprint consists of four parts: ending land clearing, improving forest management, creating one of the world's best reserve systems, and improving governance in the forest industry. The report also suggests new forms of logging be implemented. "It means taking a sophisticated look at the landscape and the coupes and saying, 'What's the most appropriate way of harvesting this coupe?'" says Ashton. "In some cases we can clear-fell, but on an appropriate scale, not on a huge scale." Continued logging is what conservation groups are outraged by. The report suggests an expansion of plantations in Tasmania whereas most environmental groups oppose this, believing there are already enough plantations to meet timber needs; and the current management of plantations is unsustainable. Law says that while WWF claim to have worked in conjunction with Tasmanian conservation groups, they interacted with TWS "in a patronising and duplicitous fashion". "They never at any stage told us - even when they said they might not push for as many areas to be protected as we wanted - they never informed us that they would be pushing an agenda of modified clear-felling of Tasmania's old-growth forests," says Law. Law says WWF ignore the fact that conservation groups wrote a letter calling for WWF to withdraw from the Tasmanian forest campaign. The Mercury newspaper tried to scandalise TWS, implying it was against free speech when they tried to lobby WWF to amend the blueprint prior to its release. TWS wanted the WWF to adopt better policies to avoid a split in the environmental movement. While conservation groups have expressed their disappointed about the report, so too have scientists. Dr Peter McQuillan from the School of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Tasmania says that the blueprint did not take advantage of the knowledge base of environmental researchers and scientists in Tasmania. "It struck me, really, that it was fairly superficial," says McQuillan who has studied the Tasmanian environment for nearly 25 years. "You could tell that it had been written at a distance." The WWF Australia website states that the blueprint "provides a practical solution based on the best scientific judgements." Yet, no-one at the University of Tasmania was consulted during the compilation of the blueprint. McQuillan says that different outcomes may have been reached if local scientists, instead of scientists employed by WWF, were consulted. WWF has a scientific advisory committee, comprising of senior scientists from academic institutions and government agencies that are consulted when forming environmental policies. Unlike other conservation organisations, WWF claim their credibility comes from their use of science. "WWF uses science as a way to test and develop policy," says Ashton. Law dismisses this. "Strangely enough for an organisation of WWF's very name, they seem to have a very, very narrow, limited definition of biodiversity, which is dictated to them by a couple of botanists," says Law. McQuillan also dismisses that WWF has fully addressed biodiversity. He also says that aggregated retention logging, endorsed by WWF in the blueprint, does not mimic bushfiresasthey claim. Timber Communities Australia (TCA) is also not satisfied by the blueprint. Tasmanian State Coordinator, Barry Chipman, speaking on behalf of TCA said that not only does the report fail to acknowledge that the existing RFA creates a world class reserve system, but also if the blueprint was implemented timber jobs would be lost. Corinna Timbers would be closed down, making redundant 10 workers, said Mr Chipman. In a report released by the Australian Institute in August, Clive Hamilton and Andrew Macintosh argue that the WWF's blueprint was an attempt by the Federal government to gain "green cover" in the lead up to the election. Their report, "Taming the Panda", reveals that the Howard government has increased funding by 500 per cent, handing over more than $10 million in funding over the past ten years to the previously broke WWF. The report also reveals that while funding to WWF has increased in recent years, funding to other groups, such as ACF and TWS who have not supported Federal government policies, has decreased. The report says, "There are strong grounds for questioning whether WWF Australia can legitimately continue to describe itself as independent." The report states that the Howard Government has frequently used WWF Australia's name and public statements to promote its environmental policies. In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald, Cam Walker, national liaison officer for Friends of the Earth, says WWF risks being seen as a "shield" for the government. "[The public] would assume there are no political links, and polling shows people trust NGOs [Non-Government Organisations] more than political parties," says Walker. "So there's value for a party to link themselves to an NGO." WWF has always been recognised as an independent group but if it loses its independence it would undermine its role in public debates about Government policy. It would also raise questions about whether WWF has deceived the Australian public. But right now TWS is just trying to ignore WWF and continue fighting for old-growth forests. "Yeah, very disappointing," says Law about the WWF's blueprint. "To come in at the last minute and try to cut a deal which would undermine what so many people in Tasmania are trying to achieve... very disappointing."
The WWF blueprint "A Blueprint for the Forest Industry and
Vegetation Management in Tasmania" is available to read at:
"Taming
the Panda", by Clive Hamilton and Andrew Macintosh from the Australian Institute, is available to read at: Raelene Morey is a 3rd Year Journalism student at the University of Tasmania.
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think? Monday, November 15, 2004 |