|
|
| (25 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | The '''World Wildlife Fund''' (WWF) is a major wildlife conservation body. The US branch, WWF-US, was founded in 1961 by [[Russell Train]],<ref>Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc., Lyons Press, 2008, p. 7</ref> who was the second US [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) administrator from 1973-77. Train was the president of WWF from 1978 to 1995.
| + | ''See main article'': [[WWF]] |
| − | | |
| − | In the same year that the US branch of WWF was founded, the organization was established in Europe with [[Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands]] as its international president and Prince Philip, the [[Duke of Edinburgh]] as head of the UK branch.<ref>Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc., Lyons Press, 2008, p. 7</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Corporate ties==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Writing in 1997, Brian Tokar observed in his book, ''Earth for Sale'', that the World Wildlife Fund was
| |
| − | | |
| − | :associated with nineteen corporations cited in the National Wildlife Federation's recent survey of the 500 worst industrial polluters. These companies included such recognized environmental offenders as [[Union Carbide]], [[Exxon]], [[Monsanto]], [[Weyerhaeuser]], [[Du Pont]], and [[Waste Management]].<ref>Brian Tokar, ''Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash'', South End Press, 1997, pp. 20, 25, cited by Michael Barker in "[http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker07.html#49 The Philanthropic Roots Of Corporate Environmentalism]", Swans Commentary, 3 November 2008, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In her book ''Green, Inc.'', journalist and former employee of [[Conservation International]] Christine MacDonald lays bare the corporate ties of WWF-US, the US branch of WWF-International:
| |
| − | :Its partners include mining, logging, consumer goods, financial services, high-tech, and large retailers.<ref>Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc., Lyons Press, 2008, p. xiv</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | WWF's corporate partners are perhaps not surprising in the light of its board of directors, which includes [[Pamela Ebsworth]], the wife of retired cruise ship baron Barney Ebsworth; [[General Electric]] executive [[Pamela Daley]], and [[S. Curtis Johnson]], the [[Johnson & Johnson]] heir.<ref>Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc., Lyons Press, 2008, p. 24</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | According to Christine MacDonald, [[Citigroup]] and [[JP Morgan Chase & Co.]] are WWF partners. WWF also has ties (relationships include donations, partnerships, programmes, projects, joint councils, and advisory boards) to [[Alcoa]], [[Home Depot]], [[Johnson & Johnson]], [[PG & E]], [[Royal Caribbean Cruises]], and [[Starbucks]].<ref>Christine MacDonald, Green, Inc., Lyons Press, 2008, p. 28</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St. Clair accuses WWF of backing nearly every trade bill to come down the pike, from [[NAFTA]] (North American Free Trade Ageement) to [[GATT]] (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and of sidling up to some unsavoury government agencies advancing the same neoliberal agenda across the Third World.<ref>Jeffrey St. Clair, [http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/StClair_PandaPorn.htm Panda Porn: The Marriage of WWF and Weyerhaeuser]", Dissident Voice, 5 December 2002, accessed January 2009</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Profile of World Wildlife Fund by Candida Hadley==
| |
| − | | |
| − | [EXTRACTS ONLY]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Operating in over one hundred countries, employing 4,000 people globally, and boasting five million supporters on five continents, the World Wildlife Fund, or WWF, is one of the world's largest environmental organizations...
| |
| − | | |
| − | :WWF is a "global conservation organization" that works to "stop and eventually reverse environmental degradation and… build a future where people live in harmony with nature" (www.panda.org). Among their guiding principles WWF has pledged to "be global, multicultural and non party political," and to "involve local communities and indigenous peoples in the planning and execution of its field programmes, respecting their cultural as well as economic needs" (www.panda.org).
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Despite its international success there are some animal welfare organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, that oppose some of WWF's policies.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :In addition to this issue of animal welfare, there is also a great deal of controversy surrounding WWF's relations with Indigenous and traditional peoples. Although WWF claims to maintain partnerships with Indigenous peoples who live in ecologically-sensitive areas, complaints about WWF's treatment of Indigenous peoples have emerged all over the world. One complaint is that the establishment of Protected Areas and National Parks has often led to the eviction of Indigenous and traditional peoples from their lands and has cut short the land claims being made by these peoples.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :There are also concerns about the conflicts of interest that arise from the funding relationships that WWF has with governments, multilateral agencies, and private corporations. Corporations such as [[Shell]], [[ExxonMobil]] and [[Monsanto]] are major funders of WWF, meaning that WWF is allying "with forces that are destroying the world's remaining ecosystems"<ref>Chapin, Mac. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch 17: 6.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :This funding has several consequences. For example, WWF cannot ally itself with Indigenous peoples who are fighting these corporation's activities without endangering their funding, and their government and corporate ties mean that they may not oppose the government corruption and inaction that is often responsible for environmental degradation. WWF excuses its lack of action in "national matters" with the suggestion that they wish to remain apolitical, but critics believe that WWF is more concerned with the science of biodiversity than social realities.<ref>Candida Hadley, McMaster University, "[http://www.globalautonomy.ca/global1/glossary_entry.jsp?id=OR.0048 World Wildlife Fund]", Globalization and Autonomy website, accessed February 2008</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Ex President now working for Ford Foundation and Alcoa==
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Kathryn Fuller]], WWF President and Chief Executive from 1989-2005, left the organisation to chair the [[Ford Foundation]] and sit on the Executive board of aluminium company [[Alcoa]], who have been accused of multiple environmental and human rights abuses<ref>Jaap Krater and Miriam Rose, [http://savingiceland.puscii.nl/?tag=climate-change&language=en 'Development of Iceland’s geothermal energy potential for aluminium production– a critical analysis'],In: Abrahamsky, K. (ed) (2009). Sparking a World-wide Energy Revolution: Social Struggles in the Transition to a Post-Petrol World. AK Press, Edinburgh.</ref>.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS)==
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 2008 and 2009 the WWF came under heavy criticism for its ongoing involvement in the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) forum.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Background to the RTRS===
| |
| − | | |
| − | The social and environmental problems with soy cultivation in South America are many and serious. They include deforestation of the Amazon rainforest for the planting of soy monocultures, soil erosion and depletion, destruction of biodiversity, and rural depopulation and poverty. Most controversially, most of the soy grown in South America is genetically modified Roundup Ready soy, which brings all the risks associated with [[Genetically Modified (GM) Foods - Renewed Threat to Europe|GM foods]] in general. Added to these risks are the problems caused by the aerial spraying of Roundup (glyphosate) and other herbicides, which cause health problems in rural people and their livestock and animals, and poison water supplies and soil.<ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In recognition of these problems, in 2004 WWF Switzerland and the Swiss retailer Coop developed "the Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production", through the medium of the consultancy ProForest.<ref>"[http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/latin_america_and_caribbean/country/brazil/news/?16872 The Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production]", WWF website, 22 September 2004, accessed February 2009.</ref> The Basel Criteria had strict protections for the rainforest and also required that Basel-Certified soy be non-GM.<ref>"The Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production", downloadable as a pdf from [http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/latin_america_and_caribbean/country/brazil/news/?16872 The Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production], August 2004, Vers. 2005-02-16, p. 5, WWF website, accessed February 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===RTRS launched===
| |
| − | | |
| − | WWF subsequently abandoned that part of the Basel Criteria that specified non-GM soy. It initiated the RTRS in 2005, quickly bringing in [[Archer Daniels Midland]] (ADM), [[Cargill]], [[Bunge]], and other corporations.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The stated aim of the RTRS was to help the industry move towards more sustainable practice.<ref>"[http://www.responsiblesoy.org/ Who We Are]", Round Table on Responsible Soy Association website, accessed January 2009.</ref><ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, p. 8, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The 1st Conference of the Roundtable on Sustainable Soy took place on 17 and 18 March 2005 in a 5-star hotel in Foz do Iguazú, Brazil. During these two days around 200 people debated about soy production. Among the participants were representatives of transnationals involved in soy production, manufacture and trade like [[Unilever]], [[Monsanto]], [[Bunge]], [[Carrefour]] as well as conservation NGOs such as [[Conservation International]], [[International Union for Conservation of Nature]] (IUCN) and the [[Nature Conservancy]].<ref>"[http://alotauenvironment.blogspot.com/2005/06/roundtable-on-sustainable-soy-some.html Roundtable On Sustainable Soy: some familiar faces]", Alotau Environment website, June 17, 2005, accessed February 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | During the conference, civil society organizations held a counter-conference in Foz de Iguazú to discuss the problems caused by soy production. They concluded that “sustainability and monoculture are fundamentally irreconcilable, as are the interests of peasant societies and agribusiness.”<ref>"[http://www.grr.org.ar/iguazu/docfinal-en.html Final Document of the Iguazú Counter Conference on the Impacts of Soya and Monocultures]", ITEPA (Technological and Educational Institute for Agrarian Reform), San Miguel de Iguazú, Brazil, 16-18 March 2005, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==="Responsible soy"===
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 2007, the Dutch NGO Solidaridad was invited to be a member of RTRS and took a seat on the board. Solidaridad says:
| |
| − | :The ultimate aim [of RTRS] is to increase the proportion of verifiably responsible soy on the market (it is now one percent). In 2007, a special committee was appointed by the Round Table to determine the international criteria for responsible soy.<ref>"[http://www.solidaridad.nl/files/jaarverslagEN2007.pdf Solidaridad Annual report 2007]", Solidaridad, March 2008, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | The idea of the project is that soy approved by the RTRS would carry a label reassuring consumers that the product was sustainably and ethically produced.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Also in 2007 the RTRS established a “responsibility standard” that could also be applied to GM soy, stating:
| |
| − | :The principles, criteria and indicators will be developed with the potential to be implemented by committed stakeholders in the soy value chain regardless of size of operation or geographical location, and with the intention to be used within a verification system. They will not prescribe a particular technology or patented item.<ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, p. 17, accessed February 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Legitimizing unsustainability?===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Critics of the RTRS have pointed out that it is not possible for the forum to achieve responsibility standards when it is heavily funded by corporations with a poor environmental record. What is more, the RTRS will actively militate against sustainability by giving its rubber-stamp of approval to destructive soy production. ASEED, an NGO and critic of the RTRS, says:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :organisations and movements from across Latin America have criticised the very existence of the Round Table saying it merely seeks to legitimise the irresponsible and unsustainable practice of industrial soy production and justify even greater expansion, regardless of the human and environmental costs.<ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ASEED says the RTRS criteria will not benefit growers or consumers, but only the industry:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :Evidence from so-called "responsible soy" projects in Paraguay suggests that the Round Table will make little difference to the day-to-day activities of soy producers. The criteria being put forward are too weak, too superficial and to narrow focused on technical issues to make a real difference to the social and environmental damage being done by soy. In addition, the economical impunity of the agribusiness in the producing countries makes it unlikely that even these weak "sustainable" measures are to be enforced.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :But the criteria, which incomprehensibly have the backing of some conservation NGOs, will be hugely beneficial to the soy producers seeking to provide reassurance to European governments and consumers who are concerned by the damage being done. The Round Table‘s criteria will provide a valuable coat of greenwash, legitimising the damaging practice on the ground.<ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, p. 3, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Don't mention the GM word===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Increasingly, critics of the RTRS believe that the participants are attempting to obscure the GM issue by turning up the volume on issues around climate change and so-called sustainability. They hope that people will lose sight of the GM issue behind the green smokescreen of "sustainable soy".
| |
| − | | |
| − | The RTRS's omission of GM soy from its "responsibility criteria" has angered some farmer and civil society organizations in soy-growing countries. This is because most of the soy grown in South America is GM and the massive expansion of GM soy planting in the region has directly caused many of the problems claimed to be addressed by the RTRS. FETRAF, a Brazilian family farmers‘ organisation, pulled out of the RTRS because it was not sufficiently addressing its concerns, including the production of GM soy.<ref>"[http://www.lasojamata.org/files/RTbriefing%202008_6.pdf The Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy: Certifying Soy Expansion, GM Soy and Agrofuels]" ASEED Europe, April 2008, p. 9, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===GM soy not sustainable===
| |
| − | | |
| − | WWF defends its discussion of GM at the RTRS by saying that "GM soy is already present in the environment".<ref>[http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/palm_oil/news/?152801/WWF-Statement-on-the-quotGM-Soy-Debatequot WWF Statement on the "GM Soy Debate"], WWF website, 12 Dec 08, acc 17 May 2010</ref> But as angry former supporters of WWF told GMWatch<ref>Emails sent to GMWatch.</ref>, WWF could use the same justification to start discussions of sustainable nuclear power plants, deforestation, human trafficking or child labour.
| |
| − | | |
| − | WWF also says, "the key question ... is how to reduce the major environmental and social impacts of soy cultivation, including impacts of GM soy".<ref>[http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/palm_oil/news/?152801/WWF-Statement-on-the-quotGM-Soy-Debatequot WWF Statement on the "GM Soy Debate"], WWF website, 12 Dec 08, acc 17 May 2010</ref> But this is total sophistry. GM soy is fundamentally NOT sustainable. As the Argentinian agronomist Walter Pengue and the Berkeley agro-ecologist Miguel Altieri note:
| |
| − | | |
| − | :The production of herbicide-resistant soybean leads to environmental problems such as deforestation, soil degradation, pesticide and genetic contamination. Socio-economic consequences include severe concentration of land and income, the expulsion of rural populations to the Amazonian frontier and to urban areas, compounding the concentration of the poor in cities. Soybean expansion also diverts government funds otherwise usable in education, health, and alternative, far more sustainable agroecological methods.<ref>Miguel Altieri and Walter Pengue, "[http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=421 GM Soybean: Latin America's New Coloniser]", GRAIN, January 2006, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Monsanto, Syngenta: Out from the shadows at last===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Subsequent to the RTRS's first meeting, GM firms Monsanto and Syngenta seem not to have been openly involved and as of January 2009 they were not listed among the RTRS's corporate partners. In the light of this, some observers thought that getting GM soy (as opposed to soy in general) accepted as sustainable was not part of the RTRS's agenda. After all, the declared corporate members of the RTRS, ADM, Bunge, and Cargill, trade in all soy, be it GM or non-GM.
| |
| − | | |
| − | However, as commodity processors and traders, ADM, Bunge and Cargill do not want to have to segregate GM from non-GM soy, as European markets require. In addition, these companies have significant biotechnology interests, with regard to research and development of biofuels crops and other agricultural products.<ref>See, for example, "[http://www.biospace.com/news_story.aspx?NewsEntityId=122563 IGENE Biotechnology and ADM Form Joint Venture]", BioSpace website, 12 January 2009, accessed February 2009.</ref> So for these several reasons, it could be seen as in their interests to have GM soy made more acceptable to European consumers via the RTRS "sustainable soy" label.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Certainly, when it came to the RTRS, ADM, Bunge and Cargill were moving as if in lock-step with the interests of the big GM firms. Monsanto and Syngenta were like the invisible ghosts at the feast: perhaps there but hidden, perhaps not there at all.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Then in early February 2009, Christopher Wells, president of the RTRS, suddenly announced that Monsanto and Syngenta had joined its executive board.<ref>"RTRS accepts Syngenta and Monsanto, and ASA from India as members", Email from Christopher Wells, President, Executive Board, Round Table on Responsible Soy Association (RTRS), received by GMWatch 7 February 2009.</ref> Announcing this move on the GMWatch listserv, GMWatch editor Jonathan Matthews commented, "Out from the shadows at last ..."<ref>Email bulletin, "Out from the shadows at last", GMWatch listserv, 7 February 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Lack of transparency===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Participants at the 1st Conference of the RTRS in 2005 "agreed on an open, transparent, multi-sectoral and participatory process".<ref>"[http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/agriculture_environment/news/?19199 Agreement reached on finding solutions for responsible soy production]", WWF website, 18 March 2005, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | But this is belied by what happened to an attempted protest around the 3rd Round Table on Responsible Soy in Beunos Aires in May 2008. It was caught on camera and the resulting video (in 2 parts) shows clearly that the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) is neither transparent nor inclusive of the people most directly affected by GM soy.<ref>"[http://www.grain.org/videos/?id=174 Protests around the 3rd Round Table on Responsible Soy - May 2008]", GRAIN, accessed January 2009.</ref>Civil society groups and farmers who traveled from Paraguay to the event were denied access to the hotel conference hall where the forum was taking place. They were told that they had to register in advance and pay $400 to get in – a sum, as one protestor pointed out, that many of them had never seen in their lives. Finally, they were ejected from the building by police.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Corporate members of the RTRS===
| |
| − | | |
| − | As of January 2009 the RTRS had 32 members from industry, banks and supermarkets, including the major crushers ADM, Bunge and Cargill, and 9 large-scale producers. All have interests in keeping up the expansion of soy monocultures in South America. Here is a partial list of corporate members:
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[ACSOJA]] | [[Aprosoya]] (subsequently left in 2009) | [[Archer Daniels Midland]] (ADM) | [[Biofuels Corporation Trading Ltd.]] | [[BioPetrol Trading Zug AG]] | [[BP]] International | [[Bunge]] | [[Campina]] | [[Cargill]] | [[Carrefour]] | [[Danisco]] | [[EOP Biodiesel AG]] | [[Greenergy International]] | [[Marks & Spencer]] | [[Rabobank]] | [[Shell]] International | [[Somerfield Stores]] | [[Swedish Dairy Association]] | [[TM Chemicals LP]] | [[Wageningen University and Research Centre]] (Plant Sciences Group) | [[Unilever]] | <ref>"[http://www.responsiblesoy.org/members.php RTRS members]", RTRS website, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In February 2009, [[Monsanto]] and [[Syngenta]] were added to the list of corporate members.<ref>"RTRS accepts Syngenta and Monsanto, and ASA from India as members", Email from Christopher Wells, President, Executive Board, Round Table on Responsible Soy Association (RTRS), received by GMWatch 7 February 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | From January to May 2010 the RTRS added 11 new members: [[EWOS]] (Norway), [[Centre for Environmental Policy]] Imperial College London (UK), [[Vrutti]] (India), [[Dutch Food Retail Association]] (The Netherlands), [[AB Agri]] (UK), [[Wilmar International]] (Singapore), [[ForFarmers]] (The Netherlands), [[ASDA]] (UK), [[Waitrose]] (UK), [[Migros]] (Switzerland), [[Riasio]] (Finland).<ref>[http://www.responsiblesoy.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103&Itemid=72&lang=en Did you know that the RTRS…], RTRS website, acc 17 May 2010</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Members leave RTRS===
| |
| − | In April 2010 the RTRS lost one of its key members when the [[Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries]] (ABIOVE) disappeared from the RTRS membership list. According to TraceConsult, “ABIOVE will not go public with this information as they do not intend to discredit the RTRS.”<ref>Corporate Europe Observatory, [http://www.corporateeurope.org/agribusiness/blog/nina/2010/04/08/setbacks-round-table-responsible-soy Round Table on Responsible Soy suffers setbacks, soy industry steps up lobbying], 8 Apr 2010, acc 17 May 2010</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Another important RTRS member, [[APROSOJA]], representing large Brazilian soy producers, left in 2009 because of the "deforestation clause" included in the RTRS's basic set of Principles and Criteria.<ref>Corporate Europe Observatory, [http://www.corporateeurope.org/agribusiness/blog/nina/2010/04/08/setbacks-round-table-responsible-soy Round Table on Responsible Soy suffers setbacks, soy industry steps up lobbying], 8 Apr 2010, acc 17 May 2010</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Civil society organization members of the RTRS===
| |
| − | As of January 2009 civil society organization members of the RTRS include the WWF, [[Conservation International]], [[The Nature Conservancy]], and [[Solidaridad]].<ref>"[http://www.responsiblesoy.org/members.php RTRS members]", RTRS website, accessed January 2009.</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | As of February 2009, [[Action for Social Advancement]] (ASA) has joined the list of civil society organization members.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Open letter calls for the RTRS to be abandoned===
| |
| − | | |
| − | In May 2009 over 90 organizations from across the world signed an open letter<ref>"[http://www.bangmfood.org/take-action/23-take-action/36-letter-of-critical-opposition-to-the-round-table-on-responsible-soy Letter of critical opposition to the “Round Table on Responsible Soy”]", bangmfood.org website, accessed 16 May 2009</ref> to the participants of the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) calling for it to be abandoned. They took this action because criteria to be launched by the Round Table in late May 2009 encourage soy monocultures, seek to include GM soy as sustainable and are too weak to protect vital ecosystems such as Amazon, Cerrado, and Chaco.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The open letter is very critical of the RTRS proposals for allowing:
| |
| − | | |
| − | *GM soy to be included and continue unchecked
| |
| − | *Expansion of soy monocultures
| |
| − | *Continuing damage to major forest and other ecosystems
| |
| − | *Major social, health and human rights issues to go unchallenged
| |
| − | | |
| − | Signatories of the letter include Friends of the Earth International, Global Forest Coalition, the Scottish Green Party, Soya Alliance, the Soil Association, and Via Campesina European Coordination, as well as GM Freeze and GMWatch.
| |
| − | | |
| − | RTRS corporate members include [[Marks and Spencer]], [[Unilever]], [[Somerfield]] (now owned by the [[Co-op]]), [[Danisco]], [[Carrefour]] (a French supermarket chain), [[Ahold]] (a Dutch supermarket chain), [[BP]] International and [[Shell]] International. Major companies driving soy expansion and GM crops are also members, including [[Cargill]], [[Bunge]], [[Monsanto]] and [[Syngenta]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Worldwide protest at WWF launch of Aquaculture Stewardship Council==
| |
| − | | |
| − | On 14 May 2009 over 70 human rights and environmental groups from around the world signed an open letter expressing outrage at the planned launch of the World Wildlife Fund's [[Aquaculture Stewardship Council]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | In a letter sent to leading members of WWF,<ref>"[http://shrimpsuck.blogspot.com/2009/05/worldwide-protest-against-wwfs-plans-to.html Letter to WWF from 70 International NGO Networks, Organizations and Individuals Opposing the Formation of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council]", 14 May 2009, accessed 16 May 2009</ref> campaigners claimed that the organisation's plans to certify the industrial production of shrimp and salmon are influenced by the vested interests of the aquaculture industry, and do not reflect or take into account the wishes of local communities and indigenous peoples who live alongside shrimp and salmon farms. They say that WWF continues to reject invitations to meet with representatives of affected communities in six different aquaculture regions across the world.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Campaigners also argue that the planned certification process is inherently flawed in favour of the aquaculture industry. They point to the fact that the certification body run by WWF is part-funded by the food industry, and that the individual employed by WWF to run the process, was previously employed as a regional vice-president for a controversial aquaculture multinational, that has been widely accused of labour violations and environmental destruction.
| |
| − | | |
| − | "WWF needs to explain why they are happy to engage with industry, but have repeatedly rejected calls for meetings from over 70 groups, representing tens of thousands of marginalised people from around the world?" asks Juan Jose Lopez, Coordinator of RedMangar in Latin America.
| |
| − | | |
| − | "How can any process be regarded as legitimate when a large Western NGO and its financial backers in the food industry are able to dictate what is best for the livelihoods of people in other countries around the world?" asks Alfredo Quarto, of Mangrove Action Project.
| |
| − | | |
| − | "The proposed certification by WWF promises to legitimise environmentally and socially damaging forms of aquaculture in the name of cheap prawns and salmon. It's high time that WWF stops 'Pandering' to the interests of big business, and instead begins to listen to the voices of real people that rely on the oceans and forests to survive." says Natasha Ahmad, ASIA secretariat.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Resources==
| |
| − | | |
| − | [http://www.WickedWildlifeFund.com Wicked Wildlife Fund] | |
| − | | |
| − | [http://www.gmwatch.eu/archives/47-WWF-still-accomplice-to-greenwashing.html WWF still accomplice to greenwashing: GMWatch] | |
| − | | |
| − | ==Contact==
| |
| − | | |
| − | World Wildlife Fund [www.panda.org|website]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Notes==
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:GM]][[Category:GM]][[Category:Biofuels]][[Category:Biofuels Lobby Groups]][[Category:Water: NGOs]]
| |
| − | '''[http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal Back to GMWatch Portal]'''
| |
