A network for all who care about the conservation of our world and who want to see it achieved with justice, compassion, dignity and honesty.

Guest Post by Survival International:

“If the indigenous people haven’t given their consent, then WWF has no business being there”

For decades, alarm bells have been ringing over the human rights abuses that WWF is contributing to in the Congo Basin. In its attempt to defend itself (14 October), WWF shows that it is still deaf to these concerns, and prepared to mislead the public.

This might sound inconsequential but, to put it in perspective: for every one hectare of the Baka’s land that has been recognized as a Baka “community forest,” more than 60 hectares have been stolen – with the connivance of WWF – to make a national park or wildlife reserve from which the Baka are being illegally evicted.

Not only this: for every one hectare of Baka “community forest,” more than 60 hectares have been dished out to the logging companies that WWF is partnered with and over 150 hectares have been stolen to create trophy-hunting zones.

We could point out the other inaccuracies in WWF’s response but it all boils down to one simple question: will WWF make sure that the logging and conservation projects it supports in the Congo Basin have received the proper consent of the indigenous landowners?

In 1997, WWF committed to doing exactly this with the adoption of a new indigenous rights policy, after it was roundly condemned for publishing a racist, anti-indigenous advert.

This policy is in keeping with basic standards of corporate responsibility, like the OECD Guidelines, and international laws like the African Charter.

Ten years later, WWF commissioned an independent review which found that the policy wasn’t being followed. WWF published extra guidance, explaining that consent was a “core requirement” that couldn’t be ignored.

Today WWF is still ignoring this basic requirement, over 20 years after adopting its policy. It attempts to dodge the question by claiming that it’s the government’s job to obtain consent. That cuts no ice: if the indigenous people haven’t given their consent, then WWF has no business being there.

WWF then claims that it needs more information, which Survival isn’t providing. Yet as our recent report shows, these abuses have been documented dozens of times: they are widespread and systematic. Independent investigations commissioned by WWF have corroborated our findings. In any case, how much information does WWF need before complying with a “core safeguard requirement” of its own human rights policy?

Vague talk of WWF’s “efforts to extend and formalize” consent counts for very little. Until it actually walks the walk, WWF will keep contributing to these grave human rights violations, and to the needless suffering of thousands of people.

Courtesy of Conservation Watch