WWF and Arctic environmentalism: Conservationism and the ENGO in the Circumpolar North 9781526153838

Table of contents :
Front matter
Contents
List of figures and tables
Acknowledgements
List of abbreviations
Introduction
NGOs in the North: concerns, challenges and audiences
Legacy: the burdens and benefits of the WWF brand
Networks: roots for success or reputational liability?
Leading with science: WWF and scientific engagement
Getting your point across: the WWF communication style
Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic
Conclusion
Appendix A: Data collection
Appendix B: WWF Global Arctic Programme personnel
References
Index

Citation preview

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

WWF and Arctic environmentalism Conservationism and the ENGO in the Circumpolar North Danita Catherine Burke

Manchester University Press

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Copyright © Danita Catherine Burke 2022 The right of Danita Catherine Burke to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Published by Manchester University Press Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN  978 1 5261 5382 1  hardback First published 2022 The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Cover image: Polar bear with cub on the ice in the Arctic Ocean north of western Russia. Published by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Photo Mike Dunn. Cover design: Abbey Akanbi, Manchester University Press Typeset by New Best-set Typesetters Ltd

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Contents

List of figures and tables page vi Acknowledgements vii List of abbreviations x Introduction 1 1 NGOs in the North: concerns, challenges and audiences 8 2 Legacy: the burdens and benefits of the WWF brand 27 3 Networks: roots for success or reputational liability? 56 4 Leading with science: WWF and scientific engagement 83 5 Getting your point across: the WWF communication style 110 6 Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic 129 Conclusion 147 Appendix A: Data collection 152 Appendix B: WWF Global Arctic Programme personnel 156 References 162 Index 176

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

List of figures and tables

List of figures 1.1 Greatest threat facing the Arctic: summary of ‘Arctic public opinion survey, vol. 2’ (2015) results

9

List of tables 1.1 Greatest threat facing the Arctic (percentage) 4.1 WWF Arctic contribution to the Arctic Council: 2016 observer report

11 99–100

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Acknowledgements

The process of researching, writing and publishing this book spans seven years and there are many people, funders and institutions that helped me along the way. Firstly, I must thank all the people who participated in my research projects that inform this book. Particularly I would like to thank the WWF representatives, Arctic state and Permanent Participant representatives to the Arctic Council and all other interviewees, including Greenpeace representatives, Halldór Jóhannsson, Warren Bernauer, Mayor Jerry Natanine, academics/ researchers and Indigenous community leaders. Their involvement is invaluable for my research and this book would not have been possible without the willingness to share their insights and experiences with me. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge and thank my funders. The majority of the research was completed while I was funded by a European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 746312 (2018–20). Additional research came from an earlier project funded by the Carlsberg Foundation in which I received a Distinguished Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (Project Number: CF15–0434) (2016–18). The Carlsberg project laid the foundation for inspiration and success of the subsequent Marie Curie project research. Lastly, supplementary research from the Centre for Newfoundland Studies, Memorial University of Newfoundland came from research undertaken while a Fellow of the J. R. Smallwood Foundation (2020–22) on the legacy of the anti-sealing movement from the 1960s to 1980s on the peoples of the Canadian Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Centre for Newfoundland Studies research helps to contextualize the legacy of environmental

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

viii Acknowledgements and animal rights organizations, including WWF, in the Circumpolar North. I also owe a debt of gratitude to my institution, University of Southern Denmark (SDU), and colleagues at the Department of Political Science and Public Management who supported me throughout my research projects and the process of writing this book. In particular, I thank Tina Guldbrandt Jakobsen, Morten Kallestrup, Signe Pihl-Thingvad, Bess Egede Rogers, Ann Skovly, Anette Schmidt, Arne Bækdal Hansen, Rasmus Reimer Ejsing, Kurt Klaudi Klausen, Klaus Petersen, Arjen van Dalen and Romana Careja. Additionally, many thanks to my colleagues at the Center for War Studies, SDU, especially Vincent Keating, Pål Røren, Amelie Theussen, Sten Rynning, Chiara de Franco, Peter Viggo Jakobsen, Tanja Marie Hansen, Trine Flockhart, Vicky Karyoti, Olivier Schmitt and many others past and present. Furthermore, the Marie Curie project underpinning much of this book’s research was hosted for a secondment at Keele University from March to September 2018. Special thanks to David Scrivener and Brian Doherty for all their guidance, feedback and support while in Keele, UK, with particular thanks to Teale N. Phelps Bondaroff who worked tirelessly with me while at Keele to write ‘Becoming an Arctic Council NGO observer’, published in the Polar Record journal – an article that helped inspire the conceptualization of this book. Thank you, as well, to colleague André Saramago. Special thanks to Ulrik Pram Gad, founder of the Arctic Seminar Series based in Copenhagen, Denmark jointly at the University of Copenhagen and Aalborg University, for the opportunity to present early chapters of this book and receive vital feedback from polar scholars from the Kingdom of Denmark. This feedback enabled me to strengthen my book’s focus and approach, which ultimately helped me to obtain the publishing contract. Additionally many thanks to Colleen Field, archivist at the Centre for Newfoundland Studies, and to her colleagues for their help with archival data collection at the Centre, and to Nicole Holloway of the Ferriss Hodgett Library, Grenfell Campus, Memorial University of Newfoundland for her library assistance. Together Colleen and her colleagues and Nicole were of tremendous help navigating restrictions in place in 2020 at the time of the completion of this book due to the COVID-19 pandemic and global, national and

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Acknowledgements ix provincial lockdown restrictions and travel impediments. The research at the Centre and access to Memorial’s library resources would not have been possible without their help. Lastly, a special thanks to my family. Their support and love helped me throughout the process of researching, writing and publishing the book, especially as I navigated the challenges of remote researching and working during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

List of abbreviations

AEPS AMAP CAFF CITES EEC EPPR FSC ICC IFAW ISI ITK MPA MSC NAMMCO OECD PAME PETA PP RAIPON WWF WWF Arctic

Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (Arctic Council working group) Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (Arctic Council working group) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora European Economic Community Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (Arctic Council working group) Forest Stewardship Council Inuit Circumpolar Council International Fund for Animal Welfare Indigenous Survival International Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Marine Protected Area Marine Stewardship Council North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (Arctic Council working group) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Permanent Participant Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North World Wide Fund for Nature / World Wildlife Fund WWF Global Arctic Programme

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Introduction

The World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is one of the most recognizable international environmental nongovernmental organizations (IENGOs) in the world. The iconic panda symbol is known around the globe but in recent years a different bear has taken centre stage in the organization’s work: the polar bear. The Arctic has become one of the organization’s prominent focus areas in the twenty-first century, but what the general public is less aware of is the fact that WWF has been involved in northern conservationism work for decades. WWF’s Arctic work at the regional/ international level is led by the WWF Global Arctic Programme (WWF Arctic), which is a multinational programme that draws expertise from WWF national organizations in the Arctic states (and their associate offices)1 and the national organizations in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Within academic literature about WWF’s Arctic and northern engagement, much attention is given to cursory references about the organization’s participation as an observer within the Arctic region’s pre-eminent forum for environmental protection and economic development work – the Arctic Council. It is true that WWF is involved in the Arctic Council and has been an observer for over twenty years, but what is not clear is how the organization has managed to carve out a place for itself in Arctic and northern discussions and decision-making and whether its participation is even welcome or adding value to help address local interests and concerns.2 In this book I delve into the work of WWF in the Arctic and the North and focus on how it has built its role in regional discussions and decision-making in order to engage different local, national, regional and international audiences.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

2

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Understanding how an organization like WWF is engaging various audiences in the Circumpolar North is important for two key reasons. First, WWF ‘is the world’s largest and one of the most experienced independent conservation organisations’ (Chasek et al., 2014: 86). As such, when considering how IENGOs influence global environmental politics, WWF stands out for its size and duration and is, therefore, a valuable case study. Second, WWF has an Arctic/ North-specific focus in its work through WWF Arctic and the work in its national organizations in the Arctic states, but the Arctic work of WWF’s offices has not received much detailed attention in academic literature. Rather, acknowledgement of WWF’s presence in the Arctic often comes from the organization’s own promotion and information material (e.g. WWF, n.d., ‘The Circle’),3 its website (WWF, n.d., ‘The Arctic’), references to WWF Arctic’s presence as an observer within the Arctic Council in academic writing (Koivurova et al., 2009; Knecht, 2017; Graczyk, 2011) and in broad discussion about the contrast between WWF’s northern work and the other environmental organizations who have an overtly negative legacy in parts of the North and Arctic, such as Greenpeace (Burke, 2020c). This book builds on the existing scholarship about WWF’s work in the Arctic by researchers like Timo Koivurova, E. Carina H. Keskitalo and Nigel Bankes (2009) and Sebastian Knecht (2017) and aims to bridge the research gap in our awareness and understanding about WWF’s overarching approach toward Arctic and northern engagement, while also highlighting areas which all environmental and animal rights organizations must take into consideration when coordinating campaigns and agendas and targeting them toward different audiences. It does not attempt to provide a summation of all of the work of WWF Arctic and the national organizations and associate offices on Arctic and northern issues. Instead the book focuses on increasing our understanding of WWF’s presence in the Circumpolar North by examining its overarching approach toward its work and how its approach is received and perceived by key audiences in the region. The book argues that WWF has adopted an insider strategy to foster relations with two key regional audiences: (1) Arctic governments and (2) northern communities and peoples, notably Indigenous peoples. The capacity and appeal of WWF’s strategy and the receptiveness to it by its target audiences are grounded in four inter-related pillars: (1)

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Introduction 3 legacy; (2) networks; (3) scientific research; and (4) communication style. These pillars are distilled from interviews I conducted with WWF representatives from the national organizations and WWF Arctic who work on Arctic/northern issues. The thematic selection of the pillars is triangulated through additional interviews with civil servants, diplomats and Indigenous peoples’ representatives. The insights of these individuals from outside of the WWF organization who routinely interact with WWF representatives help to provide insight into the perception and regional reception of WWF’s engagement efforts and its proposed and existing northern-focused work.4

Outline Chapter 1 contextualizes the book’s exploration of how WWF approaches its Arctic work and how it is received by regional, national and local actors by situating WWF’s work within the wider context of the history of IENGO involvement in the North. It introduces core concepts necessary to understand the operating conditions for environmental and animal rights organizations, and WWF in particular, in the Circumpolar North and what factors like trust, moral legitimacy and stigma are and what role they play in the capacity of IENGOs to make inroads into the Arctic with different audiences in the region. This chapter emphasizes that WWF has waded into a geopolitical landscape in which local audiences, particularly in the North American North, Iceland and Norway, are predisposed to be sceptical toward non-local IENGOs owing to historical events and negative experiences at the hands of environmental and animal rights activists. As such, the local audiences can find it difficult to distinguish between and trust different non-state actors focused on environmental issues. Understanding the geopolitical context, WWF is trying to distinguish itself from the negative perceptions of the IENGO category of actors, while balancing its mandate and philosophical approach to conservation with the interests and concerns of its supporters and donors situated outside of the North and the needs, wants and interests of local peoples in the region. Chapter 2 explores the WWF legacy. In order to examine the legacy, the chapter examines the organization’s structure and advocacy

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

4

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

history. It focuses on the work that the national organizations and WWF Arctic have done to distinguish themselves from the negative legacy of IENGOs in the Circumpolar North, and the Arctic in particular.5 This chapter discusses the broader legacies of the antisealing and anti-whaling movements, which have had a profound impact on the receptiveness of local audiences in many parts of the North and Arctic to environmental and animal rights organizations, and details WWF’s effort to navigate perceptions of IENGOs which come from the cultural and economic fallout of these movements. The chapter also examines the challenges faced by large international NGOs trying to navigate internal divergences in opinions and interests amongst its various branches. The chapter emphasizes how the work of one national branch can impact the work of another, even when the two sub-organizations are largely disconnected from one another. Specifically, this chapter examines the implications of WWF South Africa’s opposition to whaling in 1998 on WWF Arctic’s effort to obtain an observer seat at the Arctic Council. Chapter 3 explores the second pillar: networks. It inspects the role of the networks that WWF has as an organization and the networks of its individual representatives in how WWF has approached its northern work. The chapter stresses the value of networks for IENGOs like WWF and their necessity to effect any change with audiences, such as governments and businesses. One example explored in more detail is WWF’s work in Greenland and Denmark to address overfishing. The chapter focuses on work that national organizations in Scandinavia are doing to promote sustainable fishing in partnership with corporate actors. The chapter also alludes to some of the potential liabilities for an organization’s credibility when it decides to partner with certain actors. It addresses concerns in the non-state actor literature about NGOs being perceived by their supporters as selling out or being co-opted by corporate or government actors when accepting financial support from them. Furthermore, the chapter examines the strategic move by WWF to have associate offices in more northerly locations, such as in Iqaluit, Canada, Nuuk, Greenland and Arkhangelsk, Russia, and the role that physical presence plays in the organization’s path to distinguish itself and foster local trust, legitimacy and networks. Chapter 4 examines the third pillar: scientific engagement. This chapter unpacks the WWF promotion of itself as an organization

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Introduction 5 leading with science in all its work. It discusses the role that scientific research plays in how WWF plans its work and frames its contribution to addressing northern issues from the perspective of WWF representatives. It focuses on the claim that WWF’s work is driven by scientific research and how the perception of, and belief in, the scientific underpinnings of WWF’s work influences and frames its lobbying and advocacy efforts. This chapter touches on the issue of capacity when discussing scientific research and whether WWF sometimes has ambitions about how it would like to contribute to northern work which extend beyond what it is actually able to act upon. Specifically, the chapter raises the issue of Indigenous inclusion, in particular the challenges associated with incorporating Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK) and the bringing together of different knowledge systems in the research, planning and implementation of conservation efforts and strategic planning on environmental issues. Chapter 5 looks at the fourth pillar: communication style. It delves into the benefits and drawbacks of WWF’s communication style and how that communication style has helped to characterize external expectations of the organization and how it is able to engage on certain topics with different actors. The chapter emphasizes the role that the audience and perceptions of transparency and legitimacy play in all NGO work and how WWF’s communication style is a reflection of its navigation of its role in national, regional and international governance debates and discussions. Overall, the chapter illustrates WWF’s effort to project an image of being an organization that communicates in a straightforward manner and is relatively uncontroversial in its approach toward its messaging techniques and its grounding in science. The chapter points out the potential implications of the WWF communication style and some alternative perspectives on its effectiveness. Specifically the book notes that concern exists regarding WWF’s adoption of a compromising style of conservation diplomacy in exchange for a trusted place behind the scenes in closed decision-making situations within forums, institutions and backroom discussions. The alleged worry is that by being known as an organization that is open for compromise to find conservation-focused solutions, WWF may be diluting its calls for action too much at times and undermining what it is trying to achieve in the long run.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

6

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Lastly, Chapter 6 provides a snapshot of opinions, as expressed by some Arctic states’ representatives to the Arctic Council and Arctic Indigenous peoples’ representatives, on WWF’s work and engagement efforts. This chapter helps to triangulate the reception of two key audiences that WWF is trying to engage within the Arctic and North and opens room for discussion about how successful the WWF strategy has been to date. It highlights the general receptiveness that Arctic state representatives at the Arctic Council have toward WWF contributions to the forum’s work, and the more nuanced perspectives of some Indigenous organization representatives who have some concerns over WWF’s consistency and use of scientific data.

Notes 1 WWF has national branch offices in seven of the eight Arctic states (Canada, Finland, the Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the United States, excluding Iceland), who also do Arctic and northern-focused work. 2 In this book, ‘success’ in environmental/animal rights activism is broadly understood as an activist’s and/or an organization’s ability to achieve their objectives. In the case of WWF, this book argues that its primary overarching objective in Arctic politics and diplomacy is to carve out an accepted place for the expression of its positions in regional environmental diplomatic dialogue and decision-making spaces. In other words, WWF wants a seat at the table when discussions and debates on issues that affect, or could affect, the environment of the Arctic region and the Circumpolar North more broadly are occurring. Acceptance by target audiences and actors can include audiences like state, sub-state (e.g. provinces and territories) and Indigenous governments and Indigenous actors such as Permanent Participants at the Arctic Council and Indigenous communities. Decision-making spaces can include the working groups and task forces at the Arctic Council and multinational negotiations for things like the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. Through the inclusion of WWF via its representatives in diplomatic dialogue and decision-making spaces, the organization has access to decision-makers, experts and processes, and can, and sometimes does, influence and/or effect change through cooperation, partnerships, alliances and offering suggestions to decision-makers in line with the organization’s subjectspecific aims and agenda items (e.g. ecosystem conservation areas, polar bear protection) which vary at different points in time.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Introduction 7 3 The Circle is a magazine published by the WWF Arctic Programme which aims ‘to inform decision-makers, scientists and the interested public about Arctic environmental and development issues. The Circle is distributed free online to stakeholders worldwide, and each issue focuses on one specific Arctic-related topic’ (WWF, n.d., ‘The Circle’). 4 Interview materials have been copyedited to conform to the publisher’s house style and therefore may differ in minor points of spelling and grammar from previously published versions. 5 It is common to see the Arctic referred to as the High North in some Nordic/Scandinavian contexts, particularly Norway.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

1 NGOs in the North: concerns, challenges and audiences

According to Pamela S. Chasek, David L. Downie and Janet Welsh Brown, non-governmental organization (NGO) influence on global environmental politics stems from three principal factors: First, NGOs often possess expert knowledge and innovative thinking about global environmental issues acquired from years of focused specialization on the issues under negotiation. Second, NGOs are acknowledged to be dedicated to goals that transcend narrow national or sectional interests. Third, NGOs often represent substantial constituencies within their own countries and thus can command attention from policy makers because of their potential ability to mobilize these people to influence policies and even tight elections. (Chasek et al., 2014: 85)

In a world with a growing focus on the issues of climate change, global warming and melting in the polar regions,1 NGOs are increasingly inserting themselves into Arctic and northern discussions, using their influence in global environmental politics to try to shape and define issues and solutions.2 Out of the broad category of ‘NGOs’, many international environmental and animal rights organizations in particular (referred to broadly as IENGOs in this book) are expressing interest in the polar regions. The North and the Arctic more specifically have witnessed an increase in NGO advocacy attempts in recent years. Organizations ranging from the focus of this book, WWF, to other groups like Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, Oceana, National Geographic Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have all done work on northern issues. Until relatively recently, campaigning organizations like Greenpeace and WWF that worked on issues that affected the North predominantly focused on topics related to ecosystem conservation and animal rights (WWF, n.d., ‘The Arctic’;

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



9

NGOs in the North

50 40 30 20 10 0

Canadian Canadian Alaska North South

USA

Russia

Global warming, climate change Environmental damage/degradation

Sweden

Finland

Norway Denmark Iceland

Ice caps melting, melting of seaice/permafrost Do not know/refuse

Figure 1.1  Greatest threat facing the Arctic: summary of ‘Arctic public opinion survey, vol. 2’ (2015) results. Compiled using survey results: Gordon Foundation, 2015, 27–8. Note that the chart does not summarize all the results from the survey. Rather, it focuses on the key results surrounding expressed concern for climate and environmental related issues faced in the Arctic region.

Greenpeace International, n.d., ‘Save the Arctic’; Wohlforth, 2017; Oceana USA, n.d.; Oceana Europe, n.d.; National Geographic, 2016; Prater, 2017; Townsend, 2018). Many of these IENGOs have been advocating about Arctic and northern species issues like whale and seal hunting for years, but the scale and focus on issues and topics related to the Arctic and North have escalated in the twenty-first century. The appetite amongst IENGOs to undertake northern-focused work is undoubtedly motivated by the clear public concerns about environmental threats to the region, as expressed by the general public within the Arctic states and around the world. According to a survey by the Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program (2015), the greatest threats to the Arctic region identified by the public within the Arctic states (Canada, Finland, the Kingdom of Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Russia and the United States) are climate change/global warming; melting ice caps, sea ice and permafrost; and environmental damage/degradation. As Figure 1.1 depicts, the major threats perceived by the general public within the individual Arctic states largely centre on threats to the environment.3 Global warming and climate change, in particular, were identified in all the Arctic states as the greatest threat to the Arctic.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

10

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Below, Table 1.1 outlines that, among the respondents in the Arctic states to the question ‘What do you think is the greatest threat facing the Arctic region today?’, almost half of the respondents in Denmark expressed concern (46 per cent) about global warming and climate change as the greatest threat to the Arctic, making them the most likely to identify this as their primary concern for the Arctic, with many respondents in Finland (43 per cent) and southern Canada (40 per cent) also agreeing to a large extent. The least likely to identify global warming and climate change as the greatest threat were respondents in Russia (20 per cent) and Norway (26 per cent), with respondents in Iceland and Alaska (both with 30 per cent) and Sweden (32 per cent) also having low levels of agreement. Regardless of low levels of agreement in some states, across the board, global warming and climate change received the most respondents for their respective states as the top perceived security threat to the Arctic region. Interestingly, Norway had 49 per cent of respondents either not knowing or refusing to answer what they believe to be the greatest threat to the Arctic. Russia also had 38 per cent, Sweden 35 per cent and Iceland 36 per cent of respondents either replying that they did not know or refusing to answer the question. In Norway, Russia, Sweden and Iceland more people did not know or refused to answer the question than expressed the belief that climate change and global warming were the biggest threats to the Arctic. In light of the high degree of environmental concern about the Arctic region within the Arctic states and the high degree of uncertainty about the biggest threats, it is not surprising that NGOs are increasingly including Arctic and northern advocacy in their work and are encountering mixed receptions to their messages and agenda items. While IENGOs are expressing interest in, and concern about, the Arctic and the North, their attempts to do work focused on the region are shadowed by the lingering negative stigma and a lack of trust they have as a class of actors with local audiences in some places as a result of the lack of perceived moral legitimacy that NGOs as a group, particularly environmental and animal rights organizations, have in large geographic portions of the region. Moral legitimacy is socially constructed by giving and considering the reasons for justifying certain actions, practices, or institutions …

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Table 1.1  Greatest threat facing the Arctic (percentage): ‘Global warming, climate change’ versus ‘Do not know/refuse’

Global warming, climate change Do not know/refuse

N. Can.

S. Can.

Alaska

S. USA

Russia

Sweden

Finland

Norway

Denmark

Iceland

37

40

30

37

20

32

43

26

46

30

14

15

26

35

38

35

28

49

29

36

Source: Compiled using survey results: Gordon Foundation, 2015: 27–8.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

12

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

audiences can assess an organization’s moral legitimacy by evaluating … outputs and consequences (doing the rights things), techniques and procedures (doing things right), categories and structures (the right organisation for the job), and leaders and representatives (the right person in charge of the tasks). (Liu et al., 2013: 635; also see Suchman, 1995)

The concept of moral legitimacy is especially important for understanding the relationships and audiences of NGOs and the factors that influence their development and reception because ‘moral legitimacy … [is] the most meaningful type for judging the legitimacy of NGOs’ (Baur and Palazzo, 2011: 584). Furthermore, stigma and moral legitimacy are intertwined because stigmatization exposes ‘something unusual and bad about the moral status of the signifier’ (Goffman, 1963: 1) and moral legitimacy is conferred by a ‘positive normative evaluation’ (Suchman, 1995: 579 in Hampel and Tracey, 2019: 11). The concept of stigma can be applicable in macro-level analysis to actors like NGOs at the level of tribal (or collective) stigma, which means that an actor has a stigma ‘attached to the group rather than to the individual’ (Gardner and Gronfein, 2014). This is one of the three forms of stigma identified by Erving Goffman (1963).4 With tribal stigma, the stigma ‘can be transmitted through lineages and equally contaminate all members of a family’ (Page, 1984: 4). This can result in guilt-by-association even for those members that did not directly participate in whatever actions, attitudes or behaviours led to the stigma but may have or may be perceived to have benefited in some manner from the stigmatizing circumstances. Stigmas, however, must come from somewhere. According to Burke, ‘for a stigma to be attributed someone must be the stigmatizer’ (2020a: 4) with ‘[s]tigma … entirely dependent on social, economic, and political power – it takes power to stigmatize’ (Link and Phelan, 2001: 375). Burke (2020a) argues that changes in Indigenous legal, cultural and political power in the North American North, for example, have empowered Indigenous communities and organizations to identify and push back against actors that have acted in ways that have negatively impacted them and their people in the past. Some actors, such as non-northern-based IENGOs, are broadly seen as one of an egregious class of non-state actor offenders for

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



NGOs in the North

13

misrepresentation and violation of local rights, cultures and practices, thereby resulting in the stigmatization of the broad class of groups that can fall under the IENGO banner. As Indigenous peoples become increasingly empowered, legally and politically, they are more effectively challenging, and in some cases reversing, the power dynamics that once stigmatized them and are now consolidating and using their power to call out and, on occasion, stigmatize past and current offenders of their local social and cultural rules and norms. In calling out actors, actions and attitudes that contrast with their broad range of world views, Indigenous peoples are challenging the legitimacy and the work of those actors who propagate views which have negatively impacted local lives and are pressing these offenders to reform their approaches – representatives and organizations – by raising the bar for what it takes to be seen as a trusted, value-adding entity to audiences within their local political, social, geographic and cultural landscapes (Burke, 2020a). Since ‘actors are unable to reliably predict the future behavior of others’ (Brugger et al., 2017: 407) trustworthiness ‘revolves around whether one party has positive expectations that another party will fulfil agreements where there is the possibility of a loss to the first party if the second party defects’ (Keating and Thrandardottir, 2017: 136). Therefore, in the absence of certainty, expectations and predictions based on past performance inform perceptions of an actor’s trustworthiness. This link between past performance and trust centres on reputation. For IENGOs, their reputation is vital to their ability to do their work in any meaningful way, and in a part of the world where their reputation as a group or class of actors is shaky at best in some parts, the lack of a positive reputation for the category of actors influences the extent to which individual IENGOs are able to engage with local actors. The link between the ability to influence and an IENGO’s individual reputation is argued by Mitchell and Stroup as follows: ‘[a]n NGO’s reputation is a critical determinant of its authority and ability to act independently or collaboratively to influence global politics’ (2016: 398). Furthermore, ‘reputations are multidimensional and NGOs face multiple audiences … Not only are NGOs’ reputations

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

14

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

with peers important, they are also likely to differ from reputations in the eyes of other audiences’ (Mitchell and Stroup, 2016: 404). Hardin (2006: 24) also highlights the importance of reputation for trust when he argues that ‘reputation … is the incentive it gives the person [or actor] who has a good reputation to behave in ways that sustain that reputation’ and, as a result, reputation both informs an actor’s actions and constrains it simultaneously. Misplaced trust can have massive implications that can potentially undermine both the trustor and trustee (Hardin, 2006). As such, actors labouring with a tribal stigma from the point of view of an audience that they now want to trust them will have a much steeper hill to traverse than an actor that had no history of trust but no stigma either. If the stigmatized group hopes to be trusted by the stigmatizing audience, they must operate and engage with the audience with the awareness that, even if they do everything they believe is required of them by that audience to demonstrate their trustworthiness, they may still be unable to completely shake off their stigma and be viewed as a trustworthy actor. To many northerners, particularly those living in rural communities and Indigenous peoples who were previously attacked or undermined by IENGOs and their work (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014), externally based IENGOs are seen as colonial-like institutions, inviting themselves into areas often uninvited and imposing their views on locals (Burke, 2020a; Burke, 2020c; Burke, 2021b). Environmental and animal rights organizations have a legacy in some northern locations, especially in the North American North, of coming into areas and imposing their ideas about what is right and wrong on subjects like the seal hunt and polar bear hunt without any genuine or in-depth effort to appreciate how their work might negatively impact local peoples, cultures and economies or whether they and their agendas are welcome at all (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014; Burke, 2020b; Burke, 2021b). The negative IENGO legacy in the North and Arctic, and its roots in colonial-like approaches and attitudes, have not gone unnoticed by some organizations who perpetrated such past behaviours and attitudes and who are looking to make amends and build new alliances. Greenpeace Canada, for example, has called itself out for its past anti-sealing work in the 1970s and 1980s. In 2014 Greenpeace penned an open apology to Canadian Inuit, Indigenous peoples and

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



NGOs in the North

15

coastal communities for the problems and harm it caused through its anti-sealing work. In the apology, the organization acknowledged: Like the corporations we campaign against, we too must be open to change. Open to examining ourselves, our history, and the impact our campaigns have had, and to constantly reassessing ourselves – not just by apologizing, but by humbly making amends and changing the way we work. And we have a responsibility – not just as an organization that once campaigned against the commercial hunt, but also as conscious, socially responsible human beings – to right wrongs, to actively stop the spread of misinformation, and to decolonize our thinking, our language and our approach. (Kerr, 2014)

With some environmental organizations increasingly recognizing the long-term consequences of their past campaigning approaches, attitudes and actions, the psychological research on first impressions can help further add to our understanding of why the perception of environmental and animal rights organizations as colonialist exists and is so hard for these organizations to overcome. According to Rabin and Schrag (1999: 37), research indicates that people have a confirmatory bias which leads them to incorrectly interpret new information as support for their existing hypotheses. This is evidenced, for example, when teachers misread a student’s performance to support their initial impressions about them even if the evidence is weak. The implication of a confirmatory bias is that it ‘leads to overconfidence, in the sense that people on average believe more strongly than they should in their favored hypotheses’ (Rabin and Schrag, 1999: 38). This can lead to actors dismissing or misinterpreting signals that conflict with their assumptions and perhaps receiving more evidence countering their beliefs than they are aware of (Rabin and Schrag, 1999: 39). As a result, ‘an infinite amount of information [that conflicts or challenges the bias] does not necessarily overcome the effects of confirmatory bias’ (Rabin and Schrag, 1999: 38). The reality is that the severity of the initial exposure many northerners had to external/non-local IENGOs left such a strong negative impression that there is now a bias against organizations that can fall within this catch-all category of actors. This impression is especially true for those organizations which are associated directly with the past negative experiences that created the negative perception to begin with.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

16

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Many local northern audiences now have distinct impressions about environmental and animal rights organizations and these impressions impact how individual IENGOs, and evidence of their work, are perceived and received. Generally, the perception is that IENGOs are typically rooted in and supported by members from southern cities and are supported by middle- and upper-middle-class people; that they can end up interfering in local life and be dismissive of local and Indigenous Traditional Knowledge if it does not support their agenda or way of thinking about the environment or a particular cause they are pursuing; and that they tend to prioritize listening to their southern-based, urban audiences and donors at the expense of the locals whose lives are more likely to be impacted directly by their actions, agendas and recommendations (Burke, 2020a; also see Burke, 2021b).5 The general perception that IENGOs are outsiders who have a history of reneging on local allies and tend to try to force their world views on vulnerable parties came through vividly in the 1960s to 1980s. This happened, for example, in 1976–77 when Greenpeace formed ‘an alliance with Newfoundland [and Labrador] sealers against the large factory ships as the locals found the large hauls of the sealing ships a threat to their hunt’ (Harter, 2004: 96) but then quickly ‘abandoned [the alliance] for tactical reasons’ within a year (Dale, 1996: 91). There is also a very real concern about violence – psychological, economic, cultural and occasionally physical – from protesters and activist organizations. At the most extreme end of the anti-sealing cause, there are those that believe threatening children is an acceptable method to ‘encourage’ sealers, their families and communities to give up their cultural and economic practices. There was an alleged incident in the mid-2010s, for example, when a Newfoundland woman, whose father is a sealer, received a threat to kidnap and skin her three-year-old child after she posted a photo of her child wearing a seal-fur bow tie and hat on social media (CBC The Broadcast with Jane Adey, 2021). In 2006, James Winter, a former president of the Canadian Sealers Association, testified before the Canadian Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that he too received threats to skin his children alive for supporting and practising sealing: ‘I’ve had death threats. I’ve had people threatening to skin my children alive, when they were much younger, so that I would

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



NGOs in the North

17

understand how a mommy seal feels’ (Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, 2006). The threat to hurt children is not a new occurrence in anti-sealing activism, nor is the overt devaluing of culture and dehumanizing of sealers and their families. For example, instances of children being impacted by anti-sealing activism were reported in rural Newfoundland and Labrador at the height of the protests in 1977 (Roswell, 1977). Culturally and historically, Newfoundland and Labrador is distinct in Canada, joining Canada in 1949 to become the newest Canadian province (Cochrane and Parsons, 1949). It was the sealing community most directly targeted by environmental and animal rights organizations during the sealing debates which started in the 1950s shortly after Confederation and it has been the frontline for much of the anti-sealing protesting since the 1960s.6 Children in rural Newfoundland and Labrador witnessed their families and culture being attacked by IENGOs trying to indoctrinate them into their interpretation of the Canadian way of doing things. According to Roswell, who was an observer to the Canadian seal hunt in 1977 and attended an information session about the seal protests at a school in the Northern Peninsula on the Island of Newfoundland: They [the students] believed that others in Canada were attempting to force them to give up their way of life to adopt that of those in the mainland. This was unacceptable to them. They were frustrated by the lack of understanding of their geographic difference, their social and cultural life and their opportunities for employment peculiar to the Newfoundlander. (Roswell, 1977: 24)

The desire to stop the attacks and imposition of outside views persisted beyond the 1970s. In 1986, for example, schoolchildren once again in rural Newfoundland wrote to the Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing Industry in Canada pleading for greater understanding of their culture: We … believe that the seal hunt is a vital part of our economical, social and cultural life; therefore we are writing this brief to express our concern. Attacks have been made on our culture before, but never more so than the ever-present frenzy being displayed by various protest groups. The seal hunt has been a vital part of the Newfoundland fishery for hundreds of years and has been a reliable source of income

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

18

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

during the long, harsh winter months. (Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing Industry in Canada, 1985)

The cultural divide is starkly portrayed in these calls from children for more inclusion, understanding and a halt to cultural, psychological and economic violence. Remembrance of these types of events, which impacted local rural society, is strong and makes it difficult for IENGOs to get local buy-in with audiences there, even decades after the frenzy of the anti-sealing movement subsided. Some individual environmental and animal rights organizations are working to distinguish themselves from the generalized perceptions of IENGOs as untrustworthy actors who will hurt locals to advance their own agendas and WWF has been one of the most successful at it. Major IENGOs seeking to engage in the North, such as WWF and Greenpeace, are aware of the rural–urban divide that often characterizes polar engagement and how it has impacted past campaigning. Now some IENGOs realize the usefulness of engaging and working with local northern audiences on a consistent and continuous basis and are seeking to build inroads with them while trying to balance these efforts so as not to undermine their base of supporters. Mads Flarup Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace Nordic, reflected: We got things wrong in the 70s around the sealing issue where I think we did not have sufficient knowledge or grounding in those areas and communities to really be able to, as city people and [from] other countries, to go into areas and have a massive impact on local life. I think we burned our fingers on that and understood that this is not the way we could work and therefore I think from the beginning 2000s when we increasingly saw that we had another frontier coming up in the Arctic around both as a consequence of climate change but also because of the resource grab that was starting up in the region, that this would be a new frontier for us. Therefore, our approach from the beginning was to partner up and do what we do in alliance with Indigenous organizations.7

WWF representatives have also observed the impact of the rural placement of polar work on the types of interests they must try to balance. As one WWF representative said:

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



NGOs in the North

19

I think in terms of the Arctic, in rural and urban, there is a divide in terms of interests and perceptions, and that can be a challenge … The greatest impacts on our environment are probably from our intensely populated areas and yet, we often work in more rural and remote places. Ensuring [a balance between] those connections and perceptions is a challenge, as is working within those perceptions, as well.8

For local audiences in the wider North, the impression of outsiders trying to impose their ideas and agendas on them, such as in the form of IENGO advocacy, developed and has been reinforced for many people there by protracted negative experience with IENGO actors.9 The stigmatization of external/non-local IENGOs as a category now means that it is incumbent on individual IENGOs to distinguish themselves from the generalized impression about IENGOs if they want to have constructive engagement with local northern audiences in their work,10 a practice increasingly seen in the Arctic states as necessary rather than optional to legitimize IENGO Arctic or northern advocacy. IENGOs must distinguish themselves through their actions, attitudes and positions to demonstrate accountability, transparency and consultation with their targeted and core audiences and to show that they can be a positive value contributor in a working relationship if they want to be included by different audiences within the North in their regional diplomacy and discussions (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014). Brugger et al. (2017: 408) argue that ‘trust … becomes relevant in strategic settings where cooperation cannot be taken for granted’; IENGOs cannot make their target audiences trust them but they can conduct themselves in ways that foster and encourage trust. Successful IENGOs are keenly aware of the role that trust plays in the ability of their organization and its representatives to do their work in a way that resonates with its membership, donors and other potential audiences. Furthermore, these organizations do not assume that the trust they have obtained so far is guaranteed to continue into the future. They take the deliberate step of trying to operate in ways that maintain and reinforce the trust they have built up with key audiences, out of awareness that trust is vital to their organization’s ability to operate. They are also aware that they cannot expect to be trusted by local audiences simply because they

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

20

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

believe they are trustworthy, that they believe that what they are doing is good or that they want to contribute to a debate, subject or situation. This is often the case when organizations start new campaigns or branch into a new area of focus in their work, as well as when engaging in an area or with people where they have no or negative social or political capital (for more on social and political capital see, for example: McDonald, 2016; Booth and Richard, 2012). For example, Burke and Phelps Bondaroff (2019) found that IENGOs’ past and present conduct, and the perception of it amongst decision-makers, play a big role in the assessment and re-evaluation of Arctic Council NGO observer members. The formal and informal criteria for observer membership make it essential that NGOs desiring insider regional access in the forum make a convincing and evidenced case that, if the Arctic states (Canada, Finland, Iceland, the Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the United States) and the Permanent Participants who represent Arctic Indigenous peoples (Aleut International Association, Arctic Athabaskan Council, Gwich’in Council International, Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) and Saami Council) let the NGO into their exclusive working space, the NGO and its representatives will conduct themselves in a way that will not undermine the forum and the leaders of it. That does not mean that NGOs must always agree with the Arctic states and Permanent Participants. Rather it requires that an NGO conduct itself in a way that demonstrates tolerance for cultural, diplomatic and personal norms and standards they may disagree with, and that the NGO will use their platform to help the Arctic states and Permanent Participants in the Arctic and not try to undermine them from within their own arena. The trend appears to be that NGOs that have more success with their applications to the Arctic Council are known to have adopted an insider strategy in their work. The insider strategy is characterized by an NGO ‘seeking to attain influence by working closely with negotiators and governments by providing policy solutions and expert advice. They also engage in knowledge construction and the production of research-based reports and papers on particular topics’ (Gulbrandsen and Andresen, 2004: 56). An NGO approach to pursuing their agendas through an insider strategy leans toward

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



NGOs in the North

21

diplomatic endeavours such as attending meetings and writing reports, which is in contrast to protesting and campaigning by some environmental and animal rights and welfare NGOs such as Greenpeace, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) or Sea Shepherd (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014), who have used tactics like deliberately disrupting meetings and direct action, either currently or in the past, as part of their outsider strategic approaches (Fogarty, 2011: 210).11 Trust is closely tied to reputation and, as Hardin (2006: 24) points out: ‘The best way to establish a reputation is commonly not to tell others of your reliability but rather to demonstrate it very clearly in actual interactions.’ The NGOs that have been able to obtain observer status in the Arctic Council include Oceana, Red Cross, National Geographic Society and WWF Arctic (Arctic Council, 2022a).12 The most well-known NGO to apply for, and not obtain, observer membership is Greenpeace (Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019). It did not obtain membership because some of the Arctic states and Permanent Participants believe that the organization does not meet all the formal criteria for membership. Underpinning that assessment is a lack of trust in Greenpeace’s conception of professionalism; their unpredictable style of advocacy and inconsistency; their history of negatively impacting Arctic Indigenous peoples with their campaigning (namely the anti-sealing campaigning and its impact on Inuit); and whether Greenpeace can be open to taking into account perspectives and desires on issues which contrast with their ideology, base-supporters and mandate and can engage in respectful discussion on issues such as sealing and other regional development prospects, such as offshore non-renewables like oil and gas (Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019).

Conclusion Issues of trust, moral legitimacy and stigma are major elements that impact the likely success of NGOs in the pursuit of their work. These elements factor into the reception of IENGOs in the Arctic. As the subsequent chapters further unpack, WWF’s work in the Arctic is happening within the context of a controversial history of IENGO involvement in, and impact on, the lives of peoples in the

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

22

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Arctic and the North more broadly. The events which cumulated in that negative perception of IENGOs are explored throughout this book, but at their core are the elements of trust, moral legitimacy and stigma. WWF has done a relatively good job in appealing to key northern actors such as the Arctic states and Indigenous peoples, as well as stakeholders, like businesses, other NGOs, communities and research institutes, on Arctic and northern issues with their message and priorities, as the book will illustrate. WWF is navigating the issues of trust, moral legitimacy and stigma which underpin the negative IENGO perception in the North and Arctic by its work to distinguish itself through its Arctic national offices, WWF Arctic and the conduct of its individual representatives (e.g. Arctic Council, 2022a; WWF, n.d., ‘The Circle’; Koivurova et al., 2009),13 work which is framed by four key pillars: (1) legacy, (2) networks, (3) scientific research and (4) communication style.

Notes 1 The boundaries between the North and Arctic are malleable and there is a lack of consensus in academic and political literature on where the boundaries exist, either contemporarily or historically (e.g. Grant, 1989; Elliot-Meisel, 1998; Burke, 2021a). However, what is broadly understood is that the North is a broader concept than the Arctic and it can be subdivided into two categories that lack clear boundaries: the Arctic/High North and the sub-Arctic (Burke, 2018: 6–8). A key reason why there is debate rather than consensus on definitions for North, Arctic and sub-Arctic is because the concepts are not static and according to Shelagh Grant ‘[t]he “real” north keeps moving north, but never ceases to exist’, with the North also being able to be ‘merely a “state of mind,” directly related to one’s own experience’ (Grant, 1989: 16; also see Elliot-Meisel, 1998: 77). 2 According to Michele M. Betsill and Elisabeth Corell, ‘the term “NGO” refers to a broad spectrum of actors from advocacy groups rooted in civil society to privately held multinational corporations and trade associations to research-oriented bodies that participate in international environmental negotiation processes using the tools of diplomacy’ (Betsill and Corell, 2008: 4). In general, ‘[t]he main characteristic of proper NGOs is that they result from private initiatives and on principle act

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



NGOs in the North

23

independently of governments’ (Betsill and Corell, 2008: 12). Specifically, an NGO can be defined as ‘an organization that (1) is not formed by intergovernmental agreement (2) has expertise or interests relevant to the international institution, and (3) expresses views that are independent of any national government’ (Betsill and Corell, 2008: 4; also see Oberthür et al., 2002; Willetts 1996). Bob Reinalda (2001: 12) distinguishes between NGOs and INGOs noting that: ‘NGOs are domestic actors when they confine their activities to their national political systems. They become transnational actors as soon as they operate across national boundaries, for instance by establishing a relationship with a similar NGO in another country. When various NGOs from three or more countries establish an international non-governmental organisation (INGO) to serve as a mechanism for cooperation among national NGOs in international affairs, NGOs through their INGO become international actors.’ Common types of NGOs and INGOs include humanitarian NGOs/INGOs and environmental NGOs/INGOs. WWF, for example, is commonly sub-classified as an environmental NGO, or an ENGO. There are also other sub-categorization of NGOs/INGOs that are not frequently discussed in relation to western advocacy or the Arctic such as ‘QUANGOs, or quasi-NGOs, which are financed by the state but have autonomous agendas’, of which Norway has a large number, and government-organized non-governmental organizations (GONGO), which are common in authoritarian countries such as China, where the ‘State Environmental Protection Administration, China’s foremost environmental agency, has a dozen such GONGOs to assist it in its work’ (McBeath and Rosenberg, 2006: 61). There exists a distinction, however, between the broad categories of NGO and INGO, through the terms are often conflated in literature resulting in NGO being commonly used as the generalized term for NGOs, INGOs and other sub-categories such as GONGOs. 3 The survey results are based on the following numbers of respondents from each Arctic country and sub-state area: Canadian North (770), Canadian South (2,042), Alaska (500), South USA (1,016), Russia (1,011), Sweden (1,003), Finland (1,002), Norway (1,002), Denmark (1,000), and Iceland (866). The Canadian North was defined as the three Canadian territories of Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut (Gordon Foundation, 2015: 13). South USA means people residing in continental USA, or the lower forty-eight states, whereas Alaska is defined as the only USA Arctic territory in the survey methodology (Gordon Foundation, 2015: 14). Lastly, there is no clear indication in the survey that the results for ‘Denmark’ include input from the whole of the Kingdom of Denmark (the political entity that makes up the

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

24

4 5

6

7 8 9

WWF and Arctic environmentalism Danish realm, which includes Greenland, Faroe Islands and Denmark) (Gordon Foundation, 2015: 15). The other forms of stigma that Goffman explores in his research are individual stigma and physical stigma. The global population distribution and growing environmental issues have an urban bend to them. Chasek et al. note that: ‘[e]nvironmental quality in urban areas continues to be a major problem and the situation could become far worse. In 2008, for the first time in history, the world’s urban population equaled the rural population. Between 2011 and 2050, the population living in urban areas is projected to increase from 3.6 billion in 2011 to 6.3 billion in 2050’ (Chasek et al., 2014: 12). For the purposes of this book, the Canadian North is liberally defined to include much of the upper portions of the Canadian mainland provinces (excluding Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick) and the whole of Labrador and the Northern Peninsula and Northeast coast of Newfoundland. This definition acknowledges areas throughout Canada which have traditionally been part of the North and in which many people continue to identify as being northerners with northern historical, cultural, societal and economic roots and practices (Burke, 2021a; also see Stone, 1954). Areas such as the Island of Newfoundland presently have a more contested placement within twenty-first-century definitions of the North, a reality compounded by Newfoundland and Labrador’s somewhat disconnected history from Canada since it only joined Canada in 1949 (Cochrane and Parsons, 1949; Burke, 2021a). However, the Island of Newfoundland has long historical, cultural, societal and economic roots connected to its northern (sub-Arctic) heritage (with Labrador being the historical and geographic Arctic as the upper portion of the province), which persist in the daily lives of people with deep cultural roots on the island whose families have lived for generations in many rural and isolated areas into present times (Stone, 1954). Interview with Mads Flarup Christensen (Greenpeace Nordic), 7 February 2019. Interview with WWF representative 2. This does not mean that IENGOs cannot add valuable perspectives and challenge ideas about how things have been done and how they might be changed. Indeed, in the case of sealing practices in the Canadian North Atlantic and Arctic, important industry changes such as improved workplace safety and improved seal stock management and quota procedures were introduced in part as a result of IENGO encouragement and highlighting sustainability issues with the hunting practices and

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



NGOs in the North

25

stock management practices of the day. However, there was a wide range of different IENGOs involved in the sealing protests and debate and the environmental and animal rights and welfare organizations that participated in the protests, such as Greenpeace, PETA and IFAW, were not local organizations; they were more focused on their individual audiences, world views and perceptions and on the fulfilment of their mandates with little thought or care to peoples whose cultures they targeted and who have to live with the repercussions of the outcomes the organizations advocated for. When the IENGOs wanted to stop protesting or scale back on their protesting, they were able to leave local areas after their interest in sealing dissipated, leaving the local peoples and cultures to deal with the fallout of their actions. 10 As previously explored in my co-authored articles ‘Becoming an Arctic Council NGO observer’ and ‘Bridging troubled waters: History as political opportunity structure’ with Teale N. Phelps Bondaroff, my solo authored article ‘Re-establishing legitimacy after stigmatization: Greenpeace in the North American North’ and my commentary piece ‘The case for a Greenpeace apology to Newfoundland and Labrador’, past actions of IENGOs in the Arctic and the North, particularly during the anti-sealing (at their height during the 1970s–1980s) and antiwhaling (at their height in the 1980s–1990s) protests, have created an impression amongst people targeted by these movements that IENGOs are a monolithic entity (Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019; Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014; Burke, 2020a; Burke, 2020c; Burke, 2021b). These actions include protesting traditional and cultural practices and economies of predominantly rural-based peoples of Indigenous and nonIndigenous descent without serious consideration of the psychological, social, economic or cultural destruction that would result for people as a result of the protest messaging, strategies and tactics that were used. 11 Greenpeace has evolved since its inception in the 1970s. While it lent toward a clear outsider strategy in its earlier years (1970s–1980s), it has gradually adopted a more hybrid approach since the 1990s when their organization became more professionalized in its approach to advocacy (Carter, 2001). 12 Red Cross and WWF are some of the earliest observers in the Arctic Council and obtained membership prior to the establishment of the formal assessment criteria. Since their initial joining as Arctic Council observers, they have both completed the newly implemented re-evaluation of observers to express their continued interest in involvement in the forum and to present evidence of their participation over the years in fulfilment of the forum’s criteria in order for the Arctic states, in direct consultation with the Permanent Participants, to determine if

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

26

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

the observers, in this case the Red Cross and WWF, continue to meet the criteria for membership. Obtaining and renewing membership in the Arctic Council is subject to a process of evaluation, which is based on consensus amongst the eight Arctic states in consultation with the Permanent Participants (Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019). 13 The label World Wide Fund for Nature-Global Arctic Program is the term used to refer to the WWF Arctic observer membership in the Arctic Council, as indicated on the Arctic Council’s webpage outlining the observer members. As such, the term WWF Global Arctic Programme is used in this book. The differences between the American and British/ Canadian spelling of program/programme are noted in this book. The Arctic Council webpage uses the American spelling but the WWF Arctic Programme website and Twitter, for example, uses British/Canadian spelling. As such, the spelling used in this book is ‘programme’.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

2 Legacy: the burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

WWF’s Arctic work and why it is generally well received in the North and Arctic is strongly informed by the organization’s legacy, which is tied to its brand. To understand WWF’s legacy in the Arctic and the wider Circumpolar North, however, you must situate it within the wider context of IENGO campaigning and movements which have impacted the region and which were briefly discussed in Chapter 1. WWF representatives working on Arctic and northern issues are aware of the contextual complexities that the IENGO legacy in the Arctic and North presents for WWF’s specific work in the different Arctic states. It is through the successful navigation of the messy and frequently negative or suspicious view of IENGOs as a broad category of actors that WWF as a brand and its representatives have been able to build a generally well-received reputation and get their overarching WWF organizational legacy to shine through and distinguish itself in word and deed in the Circumpolar North and the Arctic in particular. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the impact of the IENGO-led anti-sealing and anti-whaling movements in the second half of the twentieth century left an indelible mark on locals. In the pursuit of their immediate aims in the 1970s and 1980s, many IENGOs failed to adequately consult and consider the lives, cultures and economics of peoples and their communities, which were undermined by the actions of various environmental and animal rights organizations. These organizations failed to consider the role that the individuals and communities they were targeting in the 1960s to 1980s would later play in their future ability to do their work (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014), for example on issues related to climate change campaigning and in their ability to inform and influence government

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

28

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

decision-makers (Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019; Burke, 2020a; Burke, 2020c). Many of those groups of peoples targeted during the anti-sealing and anti-whaling movements are currently well placed in Arctic and northern governance, such as Inuit throughout Canada and Greenland. Indigenous leaders, for example, are increasingly empowered to influence and make decisions in local, national, regional and international politics and are vocal about their positions and priorities. These actors can now counter some of the efforts to influence opinion being pursued by those same IENGOs that failed to consider local peoples, cultures and economies in the past. As such, local and Indigenous leadership and governments are more aware of the impact that IENGOs can have and the need to strategically approach IENGOs when they try to affect governance in their homelands and communities, such as through publicly raising doubt about the legitimacy of IENGO agendas and motives when they do not align with local opinions, needs, cultures and plans and using legal challenges and juridical authority to halt or undermine the ability of IENGOs to pursue or impose their plans on local peoples (Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019; Burke, 2020a). WWF’s Arctic legacy and its efforts to pursue current engagement in the North and Arctic are situated within this geopolitical landscape of past actions, experiences and outcomes. As such, WWF has had to take stock of its contributions to the attitudes and outcomes displayed in the 1960s–1980s which undermined and attacked local peoples and communities, their cultures and economies that were intertwined in practices such as sealing and whaling. The result is that WWF national and associated offices in the Arctic states have worked for years to adapt its organizational approach when engaging polar actors in order to distance itself from its own past missteps and the more egregious offences of other IENGOs, with the aim of evolving WWF’s conduct and internal attitudes and beliefs to create a positive regional legacy and escape the IENGO stigma that is prominent in key parts of the Circumpolar North. The organization has taken the ‘actions speak louder than words’ approach toward slowly trying to foster trust on northern and Arctic issues, but this is not a simple task. WWF, like all IENGOs, is trying to balance the agendas, interests, wants, needs and idiosyncrasies of its Arctic-focused national organizations, associated offices and WWF Arctic with its non-Arctic-focused

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

29

associated national organizations and the various audiences around the world that WWF branches hope to appeal to, work with and encounter while trying to accomplish its aims.

WWF and the Arctic: formation, structure and focus To understand WWF’s northern legacy, we must first have a basic understanding of the organization: what is WWF, why was it formed, by whom and how does the organization work? WWF is a conservationist organization that was founded in 1961 (Carter, 2001: 132). It was founded by elite figures in society, government and academia ‘as an institution devoted to galvanizing the world’s attention and resources to save the most important places and species’, according to Carter Roberts, President and CEO of WWF United States (Steinbach, 2016: 61). The organization was founded by the Morges Manifesto which was signed ‘by 16 of the world’s leading conservationists, including biologist and African wildlife enthusiast Sir Julian Huxley, IUCN vice president Sir Peter Scott and directorgeneral of the British Nature Conservancy E. M. Nicholson’ (Steinbach, 2016). It includes individuals such as the late Duke of Edinburgh, His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Prince Consort of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (as well as a number of other countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Jamaica and the Commonwealth), as an emeritus president. Other notable individuals associated with WWF include former US President Dwight Eisenhower and former US Ambassador Philip K. Crowe (WWF, 2019b). Despite being a conservationist organization, WWF is sometimes mistaken for an animal rights group, with a likely contributing factor to this perception being the organization’s original name emphasizing its focus on wildlife: the World Wildlife Fund. Another likely contributing dimension to the misperception is WWF’s longestablished work highlighting species conservationism and habitat protection and preservation. However, the incorrect impression that WWF is an animal rights organization is an issue when trying to engage northern-based audiences where people are especially critical of animal rights groups given the legacy of these types of organizations in damaging local economies (e.g. seal and fur trading) (Woods, 1986; Burke, 2020c).

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

30

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

As one WWF representative noted when asked to reflect on their personal view of the international perception of WWF and the perceptions of environmental and animal rights organizations in the Arctic: I think there are those, particularly in Europe, that view WWF as an animal rights group, which we are not. We are all about environmental health, the health of populations of wildlife and ecosystems … People [in the Arctic] often conflate all NGOs into animal rights groups, whether that’s Greenpeace or PETA or others, and so they may not differentiate between us and other NGOs so we have to strive to differentiate what we are doing on our approaches and allow people to understand the differences between us and other groups.1

This misperception of the organization is a reoccurring issue that WWF contends with as part of its Arctic engagement. In terms of legacy, however, this conflation of WWF with IENGOs and IENGOs with animal rights organizations by some people in the Arctic and the North has meant that WWF has had to proactively draw attention to its distinction from this type of IENGO by emphasizing how it does not operate like an animal rights group because it is not, and never has been, one. Branding is a big part of this strategy of distinguishing WWF from animal rights organizations and emphasizing what WWF is and is not. WWF’s mission is the conservation of nature and the preservation of biodiversity and healthy ecological systems through the protection of natural areas and wild plants and animals, sustainable use of renewable resources, more efficient energy use, and reducing pollution. It also works on crosscutting sustainability issues, including climate change, toxics, trade and investment (e.g. WTO rules), indigenous and traditional peoples (e.g., intellectual property rights), the impact of tourism, and what WWF sees as the root causes of biodiversity loss: poverty, migration, macroeconomics policies, and poor enforcement of environmental legislation. (Chasek et al., 2014: 86)

According to Neil Carter ‘[m]ost conservation groups are wedded to conventional forms of pressure. Their political campaigning focuses on the dissemination of information, lobbying and using the legal system to protect the environment’ (Carter, 2001: 136). These types of engagement and advocacy are core to the WWF brand. This is

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

31

in part because these forms of engagement are generally seen as less controversial, appear to be more cooperative and are rooted in the organization’s origins as a group founded by intellectual and world elites keenly aware of diplomatic practices and norms. The result of WWF taking the less controversial and more cooperative route over the decades is that the organization has been able to foster a ‘willingness to work with the WWF worldwide; we have a good brand of working together rather than working against’, as one WWF representative framed it.2 Another key element of the WWF brand is its structure. As an organization, WWF is known for its institutional structure which has served as the foundation upon which it has spread its messages, promoted its brand internationally and been able to plan, coordinate and implement its work. Carter (2001: 136) argues that ‘[c]onservation groups have become more institutionalised … in so far as they are now mass-membership organisations which have acquired greater legitimacy and better access to policy-makers’. The make-up of this mass membership is predominantly from the middle and upper classes in economically developed countries. Of its membership, WWF has approximately one million members in the United States and about five million globally (WWF, 2019a). WWF is also present in 100 countries. In the 100 countries in which WWF operates, it has approximately 6,500 staff (Steinbach, 2016).3 The WWF offices fall into two broad categories: national organizations and programme offices. National organizations ‘can raise funds and carry out work autonomously’ and programme offices ‘must work under the direction of one of the independent WWF offices’ (WWF, 2019c).4 Jerry McBeath and Jonathan Rosenberg point out that in mass membership organizations, ‘there is likely to be an organizational bureaucracy that may have a great deal to do with setting the goals and activities of the ENGO, and determining its bargaining strategy’ (2006: 60). To some extent, this organizational dynamic exists within the WWF. WWF’s overarching purpose is to ‘conserve the natural environment and ecological processes worldwide’ and in order to do that the organization has sought: (a) To collect, manage and disburse funds for the conservation of nature, to review the long-term requirements of conservation

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

32

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

throughout the world and to study and develop means of meeting these requirements. (b) To promote awareness of the need for the conservation of nature and to assist in designing, producing and making available suitable material for educational purposes, campaigns, exhibitions and the media to assist the growth and development of the conservation movement worldwide; (c) To finance conservation activities and projects including research and the exchange of scientists, specialists in the conservation of nature, students and others, especially from developing countries, and to promote and participate in conferences, seminars, lectures, meetings and discussions in furtherance of the conservation of nature worldwide; (d) To protect, acquire, administer, commercially exploit and dispose of land and other property and resources, including intellectual property; (e) To develop worldwide moral and financial support for the conservation of nature and to appoint representatives and establish affiliated, associated or subsidiary organizations in any part of the world and to co-operate with, and support, other organizations in the field of conservation, and engage in and encourage any lawful, financial, commercial and other activities conducive to the Purposes; (f) To achieve its Mission as established from time to time by the International Board in accordance with the above Purposes. (WWF International, 2010)5

WWF has a structure in place in order to help it fulfil its purpose, and at the top of the infrastructure is WWF International. WWF International is the WWF’s Secretariat and it has a Director General. It is based out of Gland, Switzerland. The role of the secretariat is to ‘lead and coordinate the WWF Network of offices around the world, through developing policies and priorities, fostering global partnerships, coordinating international campaigns, and providing supportive measures in order to help make the global operation run as smoothly as it can’ (WWF, 2019c). Furthermore, WWF International provides advice and debate over internal office and branch opinions and organizational needs, helps facilitate alignment amongst offices, discusses and shares best practice and ideas between organizations, and provides peer support for offices having compliance difficulties. Lastly, WWF International is in charge of taking measures against national organizations that are non-compliant

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

33

with WWF operating rules and their ‘obligations within the WWF Network’ (WWF International, 2010). While the international office is in Gland, WWF Arctic is based in Canada and connected to the national organization there (previously it was based in Norway).6 It is formed of various employees/ representatives from national organizations and their associate offices that focus on the Arctic. Specifically, WWF Arctic facilitates cooperation between the national offices in seven of the eight Arctic states (excluding Iceland which does not have a national office), and the national offices of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands (WWF Arctic, 2019b). It is WWF Arctic that generally steps forward for WWF regionally and internationally on Arctic issues, such as at the Arctic Council where it has held observer status since 1998; the Arctic Council is the Arctic region’s pre-eminent forum for work on environmental protection and sustainable development. It is not uncommon to hear people refer to the WWF as an observer within the Arctic Council, but in fact it is WWF Arctic specifically that holds the observer membership (Arctic Council, 2022a). WWF Arctic was set up in 1992 amid the structural environment and campaigning legacy of the overarching WWF organization. The national offices that make up the programme are independent from one another, linked by the overarching WWF network and purposes as facilitated by WWF International. Reflecting on the structure, one representative summarized that ‘all those offices are independent from each other. They have their own boards and reports; they report [for example] all my colleagues in Russia report to the WWF board in Russia, not to WWF International.’ When I asked why it is structured in this manner, they replied that: We have always been structured this way. It is not really a franchise, but it gets close to a franchise company, where if you meet certain criteria you can use the logo and you have to adhere to the standards of WWF as laid down by WWF International and that record is kept in Switzerland at our international secretariat there.… That means that WWF International can only say, as a pressure if an office is not keeping to the WWF way of working, then they can withdraw the logo. They have that right.7

The national offices in the Arctic states do their own independent Arctic work at the national level, with WWF Arctic being more

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

34

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

regional/international in its focus, and sometimes the two levels of WWF – the Arctic Programme and the national offices – coordinate with each other on overlapping work. The national offices can feed their Arctic work into the programme, though the national offices also sometimes do international representation on issues that pertain to their national areas of focus.8 Assisting with the meshing of the national programme boundaries is the fact that some members from the national offices are part of the programme team and its steering committee so they help facilitate the flow of data, connections, plans and objectives. Furthermore, the team is comprised of skilled (education and work experience) professionals. Of the people I spoke to who are members of WWF Arctic, they are educated, with at least a graduate (Masters) or postgraduate (PhD) level degree and all have work experience in places like governments, universities, think-tanks or other IENGOs prior to becoming part of WWF Arctic. Additionally, of the team members within WWF Arctic, some individuals have ten, fifteen and up to twenty-plus years of work experience on polar (Arctic and/or Antarctic) issues, thus helping to distinguish themselves as world-leading experts in their respective areas over and above their affiliation to WWF or WWF Arctic. The team make-up has an important impact on the continued legacy of WWF’s expertise and the capacity of the Arctic Programme to signal to its primary audiences that it can deliver in the areas where it claims to have competencies, particularly with upholding the perception that its work is scientifically informed (more on this in Chapter 4). As one programme member pointed out: WWF is, and we say we are, a science-based conservation organization and I think that in itself is probably quite appealing to those of us with a science or research background in conservation biology and ecology and certainly … credibility, having that background [education and work experience] probably does help with external credibility. Particularly in the Arctic Programme, we don’t, WWF, have a research station. We have a real diversity of expertise. While we definitely support science, there aren’t a lot of projects where we are actually leading the science or fieldwork that is happening. To be able to understand where the scientific priorities are and to be able to assign support for them and to then interpret the results in the context of what this means for this population or this species or the greater

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

35

Arctic ecosystem, having that prior [education and work] experience is really beneficial.9

My understanding of the education and work experience background of WWF Arctic and its team members comes from reflections and work history provided to me in interviews and open-source details disclosed about the team on the WWF Arctic webpage (see Appendix B).10 The WWF Arctic and national office teams are relatively small, so unfortunately, owing to the need to not disclose the interviewee identities, there are some limitations in this book to providing some rather interesting specific details about the ways in which education and work experiences of individual WWF national office and WWF Arctic team members were able to advance their work based on their individual skills, networks and expertise (see Appendix A). However, publicly available information can give you a sense of the expertise held by members of the programme. Appendix B provides a breakdown of publicly disclosed data on WWF Arctic members, their locations and their expertise (where information is provided on their website).

Overcoming past IENGO legacies in the Arctic WWF’s overarching legacy does not exist in isolation. In the Arctic in particular, WWF is trying to re-establish damaged lines of communication, legitimacy and trust because of the negative environmental and animal rights campaigning legacy. As a result, WWF national offices working on Arctic/northern issues and WWF Arctic must repeatedly evidence that their presence and work add value rather than sow the seeds of more negativity and destruction for locals, since northern peoples are one of the broad audience groups that WWF wants to engage with. Putting people at the heart of its work, however, is sometimes challenging for WWF: ‘We have to put people into the centre sometimes and that is sometimes painful for us … if you drive it too far it also creates some issues for biodiversity conservation itself, or for staying true to best available knowledge.’ 11 WWF offices and the Arctic Programme must work to build and re-establish inroads with local peoples in the Arctic and wider North

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

36

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

in order to be able to pursue its environmental regionally-focused work, but it must balance and contextualize its Arctic messaging and work with WWF’s international organizational priorities and the individual commitments, actions and opinions of WWF offices and programmes around the world. Indeed, WWF’s Arctic-focused agendas are targeted toward a part of the world where environmental and animal rights organizations have fractured trust and where the factors impacting that trust are nuanced and not as uniform as often described, despite the generalized impression of IENGOs being received poorly in the Arctic and the North.12 Generally, in the region there is a preference for working with home-grown grassroots organizations, which some see as more knowledgeable and considerate about local needs, cultures, practices and norms (Burke, 2020a), though they can lack the financial resources and large international networks and reach of IENGOs on the scale of WWF. Additionally, grassroots organizations are typically seen as more accountable in the region since they are locally based and made up of people from the local society, whereas ‘NGOs are not formally accountable to their members’ (Reinalda, 2001: 14), which makes externally based IENGOs harder for local peoples to hold to account for any negative impacts on their communities. For example, as the Mayor of Clyde River (Kanngiqtugaapik), an Inuit community in Nunavut, Jerry Natanine stated about views of IENGOs in his community: ‘The view has been of all these environmental groups, we have traditionally viewed them as organizations that are against our culture; against our hunting culture’.13 Particularly, the legacy of the anti-sealing movement fed this perception. In the effort to destroy the commercial harp seal industry in the 1970s and 1980s, IENGOs undermined ‘the market for ringed seal skins harvested by Inuit in the Canadian Arctic [and Greenlandic sealing] and interfer[ed] with the market for northern fur seal skins harvested in Alaska’ (Young, 1989: 45; also see Woods, 1986; Burke, 2020a). The fallout of the environmental and animal rights organization-led anti-sealing and anti-whaling movements left cultural, economic and reputational damage in their wake for many Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples throughout the wider North (Woods, 1986; Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014; Allen, 1979). In the Canadian North (broadly defined), for example, the anti-sealing movement upended local economic structures and practices of peoples throughout the Eastern Arctic, along the Labrador coast down as

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

37

far as the sub-Arctic fringes of the Island of Newfoundland (Burke, 2021a). The most devastating economic impact of the anti-sealing movement was experienced in the Canadian High Arctic. Following the initial European Economic Community (EEC) seal product ban in 1983, many rural communities in the Northwest Territories (which at that time included the present-day Territory of Nunavut, in addition to areas still included in present-day Northwest Territories) were economically devastated by the anti-sealing movement. While protesters watched the collapse of Canada’s east coast whitecoat sealing industry with satisfaction … the Government of the Northwest Territories [NWT] estimated that 18 of 20 Inuit villages in the NWT lost 60 per cent of the total annual community income because of the EEC [precursor to the European Union] ban – a loss that affected 1500 Inuit hunters and their families. For some communities in the NWT, the loss was even more devastating. In Resolute, for example, income from sealing dropped from $54000 in 1982 to $1000 in 1983. (Woods, 1986: 2)

In the end, the ‘anti-sealing campaign … destroyed markets for seal pelts, ending this important source of income not only for the fishermen of Labrador and Newfoundland, but also for Inuit communities in Canada, Greenland, and Alaska’ (Woods, 1986: 1). The anti-whaling movement also caused a lot of ‘bad blood’ between rural northern communities and peoples and environmental and animal rights organizations and the tensions continue into the present day (e.g. Cunningham et al., 2012; Simke, 2020; Coburn et al., 2018; Greenpeace, n.d., ‘Commercial Whaling Banned’; Altherr, n.d.). In Iceland, for example, the anti-whaling movement had a prevalent local cultural impact. The movement is seen by some people in Iceland as an attack on Icelandic culture. Halldór Jóhannsson, an Icelander and the Director of the Arctic Portal, believes that cultural awareness, respect and sensitivity are needed by NGOs and their representatives when engaging on sensitive cultural issues.14 In his experience as an Icelander who saw his culture targeted by the anti-whaling movement, he noted that: especially when you come from a smaller country, I mean I’m educated abroad and I work a lot abroad, but I’m still Icelandic and I have my roots and my background [in Iceland] and I think the same applies

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

38

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

to people in Greenland and Norway and so forth. You have a certain pride and certain roots you would like to maintain … I’m absolutely for good observations and good management and respecting nature, but respecting culture is also very important and culture as a way of life.15

The range of negative experiences of many people throughout the North and the Arctic with environmental and animal rights organizations in the past has meant that individual IENGOs have had to work hard to distinguish themselves from the negative legacy and illustrate that they are different from the perceptions and can be positive contributors to local life. For example, as one WWF representative reflected on their organization’s work: ‘we have a good brand of working together rather than working against and … in Greenland [for example] there are some powerful people that are very against international NGOs and it all comes back to seal hunting and Greenpeace’.16 For its part, WWF has been able to improve relations in Greenland.17 The Inuit peoples of Greenland, like Inuit in the Canadian Arctic, found their local economic and cultural practices negatively impacted by the anti-sealing movement (Burke, 2020a; Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014) but the reception of WWF as an individual IENGO has been promising despite lingering IENGO scepticism (Burke, 2020c). WWF has been able to slowly, over time, demonstrate its limited involvement in the most egregious actions of the anti-sealing movement, for example, and show through the actions of WWF Arctic and the national offices and their associate offices that it can add value to local people’s lives through its environmental conservation work and agendas (e.g. Holland, 2018).18 Still, many northerners, especially people in the Arctic/High North, are slow to change their view of IENGOs. Reflecting on his work with the communities of Baker Lake (Qamani’tuaq) and Clyde River (Kanngiqtugaapik), academic Warren Bernauer observed that ‘[t]here are certainly a lot of people up North that see ENGOs as colonial institutions; external actors trying to expand their own interest in the North’. 19 In particular, Bernauer observed that the local perception of many people he had encountered working with northern Canadian communities is that Greenpeace bears a large amount of the vitriol, given its high-profile involvement in the anti-sealing

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

39

movement and its role in helping to set the tone for the industry’s collapse. Bernauer notes that ‘there are still many folks up north that still want absolutely nothing to do with Greenpeace. They want them to stay out of the Arctic. They still see them as nothing more than a colonial institution.’ 20 In Greenland there is also a very negative impression of Greenpeace, with one individual stating their belief that: ‘Every time Greenpeace has shown their face … every child knows that they look down upon Greenlanders and want to hinder Greenlanders in being Greenlanders.’ 21 Despite the personal view of the interviewee and the acknowledged role that Greenpeace and other IENGOs played in inflicting cultural and economic wounds on northern peoples, it may not be entirely fair to say that Greenpeace dislikes Greenland or Greenlanders. However, it is important to contextualize the sentiment expressed. A lot of the anti-sealing movement actions occurred at a time when Greenpeace was new (it formed in 1971 and started protesting against sealing in 1976) (e.g. Weyler, 2004; Hunter, 2009), experimenting with campaigning strategy and tactics, and was unprofessional and disorganized in its leadership make-up and approach toward such a culturally sensitive and economically important topic for Greenlanders and many peoples in the North. In the decades since its participation in the anti-sealing movement, for example, ‘[a] lot of things changed [within Greenpeace] that forced a professionalization’.22 What is vital to note is that WWF is not Greenpeace and it does not, and never has, operated like Greenpeace, though comparisons are often made between the two organizations. WWF has a different philosophical focus, way of campaigning and process of approaching, incorporating and working with various audiences. Regardless, WWF is associated with Greenpeace in the minds of some northern people, which is why understanding the challenges Greenpeace faces in the Arctic and North is important in order to situate the issues that WWF encounters when working in the area. As one WWF representative who works consistently in the Arctic noted: ‘When people ask me, “Who are you?”, having never seen the WWF but recognizing the panda, I say, “Listen, we’re not Greenpeace and we have not destroyed the sealing in the Arctic. It’s not our fault. We are helping you.” Still people are very sceptical to international NGOs and it is probably because of this sealskin campaign.’ 23

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

40

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

In addition to various Arctic Indigenous peoples being impacted by environmental and animal rights campaigns, there are nonIndigenous but long-established peoples and cultures in places like Iceland, Canada (Newfoundland and Labrador), the Faroe Islands and Norway that have been attacked by IENGO activists too, and these people are also sceptical of IENGOs. A current and high-profile example of local traditional hunting practices being attacked is the whaling practices of the Faroe Islands. In the Faroe Islands their traditional pilot whale drive hunt is subjected to extreme IENGO interference and attack, namely by the animal rights organization Sea Shepherd. The continuation of activism in the style employed against the Faroe Islands reinforces negative perceptions and experiences that some organizations, like WWF, are trying to distinguish themselves from. Sea Shepherd’s approach makes it difficult for other environmental and animal rights organizations not involved in the protests to convince sceptical, often rural, northern audiences that IENGOs have evolved away from past communication methods and urban audience prioritization, which northern audiences see as destructive and failing to balance and respect their rights, traditions, culture and heritage with messaging techniques, recommendations and desires for transition away from certain practices. The attacks against the Faroese people, for example, resulted in the Faroese government feeling that they had to issue a memorandum of understanding to help clarify the community-based whaling done by its people. In it they note that: Illegal and potentially dangerous actions by activists from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, combined with attempts to spread deliberately misleading information to the media, have been the hallmark of the activities of this group for decades. Sea Shepherd representatives will go to any lengths to paint a negative picture of the Faroese whale hunt as ‘unnecessary’, ‘evil’ and ‘lunacy’ describing Faroese as ‘sadistic psychopaths’, with the aim of inciting anger and outrage against the people of the Faroe Islands. They have chosen an easy target, as whale drives in the Faroe Islands take place in the open for anyone to watch and document. (Government of the Faroe Islands, 2018)

For its part Sea Shepherd stands firm on its protest against Faroese whale hunting, calling its work ‘Operation Bloody Fjords’ (Sea Shepherd, n.d.).24

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

41

The problem for IENGOs operating in the Arctic and the North who have not played a major, or any, role in high-profile and controversial movements like the anti-sealing or anti-whaling movements is that the diversity of environmental and animal rights organizations working on different aspects of environment protection, conversation, eco-justice and so on is often lost on general public audiences, particularly the typically rural audiences in the North that have been, and in some areas continue to be, badly affected by culturally and economically destructive messaging and activities spearheaded by IENGOs that have stigmatized their ways of life. As a result, some people in different parts of the Arctic and the North lump IENGOs into a monolithic category of actors (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014). This means that individual organizations, like WWF, must work consistently to distinguish themselves from the general impression of the IENGO group and its associated stigma, and to reinforce the distinction between WWF as an organization and the broader IENGO legacy with various audiences. According to one experienced researcher who spent over two decades working on Arctic issues, including work for the Arctic Council, the long negative legacy of past campaigns impacts the potential for IENGOs to engage with local actors in the region that might otherwise mutually benefit from an association or alliance. While they [northerners] could see that with environmental issues some of those groups, particularly the ones with a global reach, could actually be useful for the protection of the Arctic and their homelands, it [is] going to be difficult to find a way to work with them. The memory of the seal campaign and its impact on northern Canada indirectly [and Greenland] [is] so deeply felt that they couldn’t see how they could really trust any of them [IENGOs].25

While WWF has been careful in its approach toward involvement or direct association with these movements, it is nonetheless placed within the broad category of externally based IENGO, with some people failing to, or hesitant to, differentiate between various organizations and their orientation toward activities such as protests and direct action (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014; Burke, 2020c). While WWF is not working with the animal rights protesters who led the anti-sealing and anti-whaling movements with their campaigning, nor regarded as one of the ‘worst offenders’ of the

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

42

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

movements, it does have to navigate a tendency by IENGOs to romanticize northern nature.26 The romanticization of nature is evident, for example, in the debate about seals and whales, as both are anthropomorphized and this anthropomorphization dominates the movements and debates over the conservation and the human use of animals in the polar regions and elsewhere. As noted by one interviewee: One disappointment came for people like me in the last 2000s in the context of the polar bear. In that particular story we saw Greenpeace globally beginning to use of the polar bear symbol, as did WWF to some extent, to popularize the threat to the Arctic environment posed by climate change and in the longer run posed by us all, and I think many people probably felt that this was a turning point and that there would be further ease in [the] marriage of convenience between the people that had been represented by the likes of Sheila Watt Cloutier and the big POPs [persistent organic pollutants] negotiations and then in the climate change regime … Sadly the whole thing was polluted or perverted by debates over the conservation status of the polar bear.27

For its part, there are suggestions that WWF offices and the Arctic Programme are trying to move past the organization’s contributions to the romanticization of nature and colonial narratives about the Arctic and the North through practical changes in its practices, such as acknowledging the presence of peoples in the Arctic, including local forms of knowledge (e.g. ITK) in its work and investing in on-the-ground, year-round representation through offices and representatives in remote northern locations rather than parachuting people in for short periods for targeted campaigning. (There is more on the role of northern offices in networking in Chapter 3.) The WWF organization also has a long-standing cautious approach toward involvement in controversial movements and campaigning strategies and tactics (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014). The implication of the institutional cautiousness is that the organization has avoided some major long-term pitfalls that other actors have fallen into the pursuit of short-term objectives and immediate goals. During the anti-sealing movement in Canada in the 1970s and 1980s, for example, WWF was involved in the broad sealing issue from early on and largely focused on conservation and sustainable management, namely working to find a balance between hunting practices and the long-term survival of the harp seal. WWF was not involved

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

43

in spreading the images that came to define the anti-sealing movement, such as direct action on the ice and harassing and threatening sealers and their families, nor was WWF associated with mailing abuse and threats to locals, damaging equipment and destroying seal pelts (Roswell, 1977; Patey, 1990; Woods, 1986). WWF’s involvement in promoting seal industry reform focused on engaging governments and departments in Canada at the federal and provincial levels, with calls for quotas and revised hunting and safety regulations (Burke, 2020c). Later, WWF was instrumental in supporting Indigenous peoples’ attempts to persuade Greenpeace to abandon its involvement in the anti-sealing movement in the mid-1980s (Woods, 1986). WWF Canada supported the Indigenous Survival International (ISI) organization and its plea to Greenpeace to reconsider its hardline approach against sealing in the 1980s. In January 1985, ISI and the World Wildlife Fund appealed to Greenpeace International to honour the commitment to aboriginal peoples that was part of Greenpeace’s founding philosophy … ISI’s appeal led Greenpeace International to suspend its protests against the fur trade. [In spring 1986], Greenpeace announced that it is withdrawing from the anti-fur campaign in recognition of the difficulties that an environmental organization faces in running head to head with native peoples’ organizations. (Woods, 1986: 6)

WWF’s established support for Indigenous actors such as ISI and its lobbying track record for sustainable management and development of renewable resources ground its credibility as a long-time supporter of, and collaborator with, northern Indigenous peoples. WWF’s own demonstrable stance and involvement in promoting seal conservation and sustainable industry reform, while helping to elevate Inuit and Indigenous voices in the 1980s, help to illustrate present-day debate about what it and other IENGOs did and did not do during the time the anti-sealing movement was at its most destructive and/ or effective (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014; also see Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019).28 Recently, however, WWF has found itself having to navigate its position relative to a newer IENGO movement: the anti-Arctic oil and gas movement. This movement is a current issue involving IENGOs, and WWF is aware of the moral and economic considerations tied

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

44

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

to the growing autonomy of people in the Arctic, their rights to choose their path forward and their contemplation of the role that non-renewable resources may play in their future. As such, WWF has tried to adopt a nuanced approach to the issues of oil and gas exploration and not hold the same absolutist ‘no drilling’ stance that organizations like Greenpeace have taken. (There is more on communication consistency issues about Arctic development in Chapter 5.) Not proactively advocating against Arctic oil and gas drilling, however, is not the same thing as arguing that WWF is pro-oil and gas; WWF’s stance is more subtle and therefore more complicated to communicate. Awareness was expressed by some WWF Arctic members that there is a risk of being somewhat hypocritical toward Arctic peoples by preaching ‘no drilling’ to them and that this must be factored into how the organization approaches the topic of oil and gas exploration. As one representative reflected: We will not go out and say ‘thou shall not drill for oil’. Inuit, they always ask us. ‘Why are the rest of the world allowed to drill for oil and we are not? Why? And we don’t cause climate change. It’s you guys in the South and now you come to us and say to us that we are not allowed to get our ticket to independence [like] in Greenland. Explain it [why], we can’t get it.’ I think there is a moral point there to make. So we always have to come with the argumentation, why things are not the wisest for sustainable development.29

At the end of the day, the debate over Arctic oil and gas development is a major discussion amongst people in the Arctic, as well as stakeholders outside of the region (e.g. Chorush, 2019; Ruskin, 2019; BBC News, 2015; Johnson and Dobuzinskis, 2015). The colonial experiences and perceptions which intermingle with discourses about the past management of the region and its future infuse the geopolitical landscape that WWF is currently navigating while engaging with regional issues. Working with locals and trying to learn from the past and not impose organizational philosophy or desires are part of the evolving approach for how WWF’s national and associated offices and WWF Arctic conduct themselves; the approach is best characterized as working to persuade audiences rather than preach to them. This has helped the organization develop a strong reputation for making

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

45

continuous strides to evolve beyond the colonial legacy of IENGOs in the region and be perceived as a positive example of how to engage local peoples in a constructive, generally well-received way. Bernauer, for example, observes that: There are groups [that] have also done quite a bit of work to move beyond their former colonial campaign style. I think the WWF Canada is a very good example of this. A few years ago there was a proposal to have the polar bear listed as an endangered species. It had nothing to do with population conditions right now; it had to do with the predictions of sea ice loss which would cause their population to decline in the future. The implication of that is that it would ban the international trade in polar bear products; the Inuit would no longer be able to sell polar bear skins on the international market. From a northern [Canadian] perspective, it was an absolutely horrible idea. It wouldn’t do anything to reduce hunting because the Inuit have a constitutionally protected right to hunt polar bears. All it would mean is that they would get less money for their skins when they tried to sell them on the market. It was just a ridiculous endeavour as far as northerners were concerned. And the WWF actually funded the Inuit intervention to try and stop it. They paid for the Inuit to travel to Thailand, I think, where the conference was being held and also took a similar position. I’m sure they lost a lot of their donors for it, but it was the right thing to do and I think they have much better relations with Inuit organizations as a result.30

WWF Canada’s support for Canadian Inuit polar hunting rights in the 2010s was focused on the issue of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) listing and international trade bans. WWF Canada argued that listing polar bears with CITES was not the same as listing tigers and rhinos because polar bears do not meet the specific criteria for inclusion on the CITES Appendix I list (WWF, 2013a). Appendix I species are the most endangered and at threat of extinction (CITES, n.d.). WWF Canada also pointed out that a CITES ban would have no impact on domestic hunting by Inuit and that WWF Canada is working with local actors to implement a range of polar bear conservation actions, though it reserves the right to revisit the CITES listing if population changes due to habitat loss and climate change negatively impact the polar bear population (WWF, 2013).

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

46

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Through supporting Canadian Inuit on the issue of polar bear hunting, WWF Canada acknowledged both the value of traditional knowledge and practices, in combination with scientific data on the polar bear population, and the need for greater international awareness about how conservation efforts, like the CITES listing, might have negative implications for local cultures and economies. WWF also helped to highlight that ‘[w]hen discussing scientific and technical problems, holders of experiential, local, or tacit knowledge are generally not granted a seat at the decision-making table due to an institutional bias toward formal knowledge’ (Karvonen and Brand, 2016: 218), and its support signals the need to overcome information and knowledge bias that undervalues local and Indigenous Traditional Knowledge. Overall, the move to support Canadian Inuit is part of the WWF effort to overcome a colonial past that has generally pervaded environmental conservationism and activism. Past legacies, however, continue to influence the geopolitical landscape and perceptions of those engaging in it, requiring WWF national offices, regional branches and WWF Arctic to tread lightly for fear of undoing all its decades of work to positively distinguish the organization.

Conflicting messages and legacy troubles WWF International and all the organizations that fall underneath the broad WWF umbrella put considerable effort into the maintenance of the WWF brand, and by extension its legacy. This is notable in the work that the different WWF national organizations select to do and what they choose not to get involved in. At the Arctic level, one WWF representative reflected: ‘There is a lot of thinking [about our brand] that goes into that, like what is our brand and what are we good at and how are we seen to be good at it?’ 31 When I asked, ‘What effort goes into WWF brand protection when choosing what to do?’, the WWF member replied: There is certainly style. We all know how we work and what kind of attitudes we are expected to bring to the table. I think everyone who works for WWF embraces these values, otherwise he or she should, [pause] that’s just the way we work. It’s this kind of noncombative but demanding attitude that I think goes a long way into

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

47

securing [the brand] … That’s basically how we ensure brand on a daily basis, i.e. by the style that we operate in. We are also trying to be true to our funders. The majority of our funding is leveraged through private donors so we have to be true to how they see WWF. Globally there are studies done to check this out every now and then to see how people see us and what they expect us to do. Certainly there is that. We enforce that globally and locally through our work.32

Despite all the efforts of the representatives at the WWF offices in the Arctic states and WWF Arctic, brand management for WWF is not their sole responsibility; they are part of a massive international operation and share a brand with other national offices in other parts of the world which have been having problems. Even though the decentralized structures of the WWF organization can help to insulate individual offices from problems in other parts of the organization, the fact that WWF is organized in this manner is not something that is well understood by the general public. Not only must WWF Arctic and the national offices in the Arctic states work against negative regional perceptions in the Arctic and North about IENGOs but they can also have major brand and legacy challenges from within their own broad organizational structure which individual national offices and programmes have to manage and navigate. For example, at present WWF International and some national offices in Asia and Africa are facing serious accusations of misconduct. In 2016, the humanitarian NGO Survival International launched a formal complaint against WWF to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Barkham, 2017) on behalf of the Baka Indigenous people of Cameroon (Survival International, 2016). The case is considered unique because ‘it [is] one of the few OECD Guidelines cases against an NGO, and the first ever filed by an NGO against an NGO’ (OECD Watch, 2017). The case centres around WWF playing a leading role in the creation of several national parks and other protected areas in Cameroon on the land of Indigenous peoples, including the Baka. Survival’s complaint argues that WWF violated its own policy that ‘any such projects must have the free, prior and informed consent of those affected’. Instead, Survival argues that WWF helped create conservation zones on Baka land without their consent and WWF repeatedly failed to ‘take action

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

48

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

over serious human rights abuses by wildlife guards it trains and equips’ (Survival International, 2017). The case was accepted by OECD and went to the National Contact Point of Switzerland (NCP)33 and ended up in mediation on 6–7 June 2017 in Berne, Switzerland. Meetings broke down and Survival withdrew from mediation. The Swiss NCP reported that the parties were not able to agree on ‘the extent of the responsibility of the different actions, especially in regards to WWF and the Cameroonian government, regarding FPIC [free, prior and informed consent] and action that should be taken in the event of unsatisfactory consultation with the Baka’ (OECD Watch, 2017). More accusations emerged in March 2019, echoing the types of problems reported by Survival in 2017. The WWF was accused of funding guards who torture and kill in national parks in Asia and Africa by a BuzzFeed investigative journalistic report. BuzzFeed claimed that it ‘carried out a year-long investigation in six countries, based on more than 100 interviews and thousands of pages of documents, including confidential memos, internal budgets, and emails discussing weapons purchases’. Among the allegations were that ‘Indigenous people and villagers have been shot, beaten unconscious, sexually assaulted, and whipped by armed guards in parks in places like Nepal and Cameroon’ and that the organization acts as a ‘global spymaster’ (BBC News, 2019; also see McVeigh, 2019). WWF has hired an international lawyer and has begun an independent review to investigate and address the accusations. WWF International stated in a post released on 10 July 2019 that: WWF does not tolerate human rights abuses, and we are deeply concerned for those affected by alleged abuse. Collaborating with local communities and respecting human rights are core principles of our work. WWF works in extremely challenging geographies and social contexts. We are continuously strengthening our ways of working, with the aim of increasing protection of people’s rights and better ensuring their safety, wherever we operate around the world. (WWF, 2019d)

This is a follow-up statement to its 4 March 2019 announcement of an independent review ‘to fully understand, and act on, allegations made relating to human rights abuses in places where we work’

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

49

(WWF, 2019d). The investigation of the allegations is ongoing at the time of writing this book. It must be noted that at no point during the research or writing of this book was any accusation of misconduct by WWF Arctic, WWF national offices in the Arctic states, their representations or their partners in the Arctic or the North raised by interviewees. Also, the 2019 allegations about conduct in Asia and Africa occurred after the interviews were conducted, therefore interviewees did not have the opportunity to reflect on these developments at the time of our conversations. However, the point that the conduct of other national organizations of WWF can have a filter-down effect on perceptions of WWF’s organizational reputation and brand is very important to highlight. This double-edged sword of being part of an international network of independent ‘WWF’ organizations is not a new issue. While no evidence was found in the research for this book that the recent WWF Cameroon problems, nor other allegations of misconduct in Asia and Africa, have influenced or impacted WWF in the Arctic, there is evidence of spillover in 1998 when the conduct of WWF South Africa impacted WWF Arctic. In 1998 WWF Arctic was trying to secure its observer status in the newly formed Arctic Council. The process got caught up in a controversy owing to advocacy by a WWF branch not connected directly to the Arctic – WWF South Africa. WWF South Africa penned a public letter that was released in June 1998 and stated: YOU CAN HELP STOP THE SLAUGHTER AT SEA. As a nature lover, you will probably have a great love for the sea … You will be horrified to learn that even the seas are threatened, as they are being transformed by human exploitation and other activities … sea mammals, including several whale species are still being hunted, despite an international treaty banning commercial whaling … The seas are being stripped of life … NOW IS THE TIME TO DO SOMETHING TO SAVE OUR SEAS! (Capital letters in the original text; MacDonald, 1998)

The Icelandic foreign ministry got a copy of this letter and it took serious issue with its contents, as did its Norwegian counterpart. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Iceland sent a fax to their counterparts in Norway, who also support whale hunting as part

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

50

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

of their traditional northern economy and culture, stating their reservation against WWF observer status ‘due to basic principles concerning sustainable utilization of marine resources’.34 Both states objected to the notion that all whaling should be banned; the implication that a call for a whaling ban has universal acceptance; and the accusation that Iceland’s and Norway’s practice of their centuries-old traditional whale harvests are tantamount to stripping the seas of life. The fact is, however, that the WWF offices in the Arctic states and the relatively new WWF Arctic at that time did not release this statement nor have any involvement in its construction or publication but they became connected to the comments as a result of the overarching WWF brand. Both the WWF national offices in the Arctic states and WWF Arctic would likely have been aware of the problematic nature of such a definitive and simplistic stance on whaling as it pertains to cultures and peoples throughout the Arctic and North and would most likely have been more cautious in their own national and regional articulation of opinions on the subject of whaling, especially at a critical time in regional diplomacy for the organization as WWF Arctic sought observer status in the Arctic Council. According to an experienced Arctic politics expert whose close colleague attended the Arctic Council meeting where WWF Arctic’s application was discussed after the revelation of the WWF South Africa letter: WWF was in a very difficult position in [the] Iqaluit [Senior Arctic Official Meeting prior to the ministerial meeting for accreditation]. Iceland tabled a fundraising letter sent out by WWF South Africa. This letter noted that the seas were being stripped of life, etc., with an argument against commercial whaling thrown in. In retaliation Iceland threatened to veto WWF observer status until Peter Prokosch [then WWF Arctic Director] could arrive and justify it all. This he did with a mea culpa speech; not a pleasant sight. Even then, Iceland noted that had they seen the South African letter a few weeks ago they would probably not have voted in favour of WWF observer status.35

In the end, the issue of WWF observer status was resolved in 1998 when the pro-sustainable whaling and sealing regional body, North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), founded by

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

51

Iceland and headquartered in Norway, was also supported for observer status; NAMMCO was another observer status applicant whose application was being stalled owing to American reservation of its membership and which the researcher noted caused the observer procedures at that time to devolve. The researcher recalled that in September 1998: There was an extraordinary paragraph in the SAO [Senior Arctic Officials] report to ministers dealing with observers to the Arctic Council. It was written by Kate Sanderson of NAMMCO who attended the meeting as part of the Norwegian delegation but approved by all. The paragraph notes that until NAMMCO is admitted to the Council other potential observers will be vetoed. Of course, this meant the rules of procedure were out the window and that it is a matter of pure politics.36

A compromise was struck and both WWF and NAMMCO were admitted – WWF in 1998 and NAMMCO in 2000 (Arctic Council, 2022a). The Arctic Council now has formalized its rule of procedure for the admission and reassessment of observers, which helps to avoid the issues that occurred during 1998–2000 with the WWF–NAMMCO observer membership dispute (for new observer procedure information, see Arctic Council, 2013a; Arctic Council, 2013b; Arctic Council, 2015). The dispute, however, highlights both the internal messaging inconsistencies which can occur in large IENGOs and the problems it can cause when information is disseminated or action is taken without adequate consideration of how it will affect other branches of an organization and what they are trying to achieve.

Conclusion As this chapter illustrates, the first pillar of the WWF’s work to overcome the negativity toward IENGOs in the Arctic and North centres on its own awareness, as articulated by the national offices in the Arctic states and WWF Arctic, of WWF’s organizational legacy in the Circumpolar North. The parts of the organization that are doing Arctic work appear to have a good awareness that the key audiences they are interested in partnering with or having access

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

52

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

to – namely, state governments and their departments and Indigenous peoples, their communities, organizations and governments – want to avoid IENGO actors, attitudes and behaviours that hint at a repeat of past experiences, such as events that took place during the anti-sealing and anti-whaling movements, which are still happening in some cases (e.g. in the Faroe Islands). WWF’s inherently cautious approach toward involvement in lobbying and cause promotion has helped to insulate it from seeking deep involvement in trendy or controversial subjects. Its cautious approach toward conservationism has also helped to limit or prevent WWF’s involvement in the kind of actions and approaches toward environmental lobbying and activism that it is now trying to distinguish itself from. An interesting feature of the legacy pillar, though, is the fact that legacy is not static. As interest in the Arctic grows and pressure to be more distinctive in regional campaigning increases with it, it will be interesting to see if WWF stays committed to its cautious conservationist roots, resisting the pressure to resort to more confrontational tactics in its work (e.g. media stunts, protests) and continuing to foster the perception that all of its work is carried out by a highly professionalized, educated staff using a diplomatic approach informed by scientific evidence and a cooperative, open-minded spirit. As the next chapter illustrates, however, WWF’s Arctic legacy is only one part of the puzzle that helps it appeal to audiences in the Arctic and North. WWF’s networks also play a major role in how the organization approaches its work and why the WWF stands out as one of the more well-received IENGOs in Arctic and northern environmental affairs.

Notes 1 Interview with WWF representative 2. 2 Interview with WWF representative 1. 3 Kal Raustiala states that WWF ‘has major affiliates in twenty-eight key states’. While this is a number from 1997, it does raise the question of how to what extent the offices in the forty countries are considered ‘major’ operations is a point open to interpretation (Raustiala, 1997: 728). Furthermore, there are conflicting numbers provided by WWF about its membership, but it appears to range between 5 and 6 million mass

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

53

members; a key exception to the ENGO demographic, whose members typically come from the middle and upper classes, ‘are participants in local grassroots who are more likely to be lower-middle or lower class in economic terms and from ethnic minority communities’ (McBeath and Rosenberg, 2006: 59–60). 4 In interviews, it was common to hear national organizations referred to as national offices and secondary offices under the national purview called regional offices, as in regional within the national context. For example, WWF Canada has a national office in Toronto but WWF Canada has a regional office in Iqaluit, Nunavut. 5 These are the priorities as outlined in 2010 and may have changed since the writing of this book. 6 During the research for this book, I did not obtain a clear explanation as to why the office was relocated from Norway to Canada in my interviews, and I was unable to find an explanation for the move in the public domain. 7 Interview with WWF representative 5. 8 For example, WWF Canada supported Inuit from Canada when they went to Thailand to protest the implementation of international protection measures on polar bears. 9 Interview with WWF representative 4, 10 Please note that the make-up of the WWF Arctic team may have changed since the completion of the primary research project in 2020 on which this book’s research is based. Appendix B, however, provides a useful snapshot of the individuals and types of expertise WWF Arctic has at any given time. 11 Interview with WWF representative 3. 12 Russia is a bit removed from the anti-sealing and anti-whaling legacy of NGOs as much of this happened prior to the fall of the Soviet Union and the organizations that were involved in those movements did not have much of a presence in Russia until post-1991. In Russia the primary issue with NGOs is that they are seen as foreign agents by the government and there is a perception that they have a western bias. This is rooted in scepticism about the West in Russia and the fact that many NGOs are not headquartered there but rather are branches of a centralized organization that is based, and was formed, in western Europe or North America. Owing to the nature of the WWF structure, where each national office is a separate organization based in the nation state in which it is located, WWF is Russian-led and based, and there is debate over whether WWF Russia might be categorized as a foreign agent in Russia. One WWF representative stated that ‘WWF can be called to court any moment … by the Russian government at this

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

54

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

moment under that act. I discussed it at length with my colleagues on the board of WWF Russia and they explained how that act works and WWF has not been asked to provide the evidence to determine whether they are a foreign agent or not, so we operate as is. We don’t have to label the WWF in Russia as a foreign agent but we can be asked to do so at any moment and it has never happened’ (Interview with WWF representative 5). Regardless of the potential to be labelled as a foreign agent, which has not happened, WWF Russia appears to be held in good standing by the Russian government which is sometimes open to hearing what the organization has to say on topics such as the creation of conservation areas and wildlife protection (Interview with WWF representative 7). 13 Interview with Jerry Natanine, Major of Kanngiqtugaapik (Clyde River), 19 December 2018, conducted over telephone. Also see Burke (2020a). 14 The Arctic Portal is an NGO that works ‘in consultation and co-operation with members of the Arctic Council and its Working Groups, Permanent Participants, Observers and other Stakeholders’ (Arctic Portal, n.d.). 15 Interview with Halldór Jóhannsson, 28 August 2019, interview conducted over Skype. 16 Interview with WWF representative 1. 17 Interview with Arctic state official 6. 18 Interviews with WWF representative 1, WWF representative 3, WWF representative 7. 19 Interview with Warren Bernauer, 7 January 2019, interview conducted over telephone. 20 Interview with Warren Bernauer, 7 January 2019, interview conducted over telephone. 21 Interview with Arctic state official 6. 22 Interview with Mads Flarup Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace Nordic, 7 February 2019. 23 Interview with WWF representative 1. 24 Sea Shepherd sees whaling as cruel and barbaric and anything less than a complete end to Faroese whale hunting as unacceptable. Sea Shepherd’s position on the issue is non-negotiable. From a communications and legacy perspective, Sea Shepherd is quite consistent in its proverbial ‘line in the sand’ on hunting and human use of animals, which is ‘don’t do it’. 25 Interview with experienced Arctic governance researcher, 18 June 2018. 26 The romanticization of nature, specifically the Arctic and the North more broadly, is the history of viewing nature as a pure, untouched space which excludes the presence or experiences of local peoples, or portrays local peoples as a problem for the natural environment (for

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



27 28 29 30 31 32 33

34

35 36

Legacy: burdens and benefits of the WWF brand

55

more information on the Canadian experience with romanticizing its Arctic and northern regions, Burke, 2018; also Grace, 2001). Interview with experienced Arctic governance researcher, 18 June 2018. Whether the anti-sealing movement was destructive and/or effective is a subjective assessment. Interview with WWF representative 5. Interview with Warren Bernauer, 7 January 2019, interview conducted over telephone. Interview with WWF representative 3. Interview with WWF representative 3. According to its website: ‘The National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises promotes the observance of the Guidelines and discusses with the parties concerned all relevant issues so as to contribute to the resolution of any problems which might arise’ (SECO – State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, 2019). Telefax (number 0047–22249580) from Jón Egilsson MFA Reykjavik to Kåre Bryn, SAAO Chair, MFA Oslo (Subject: ‘AEPS/Arctic Council – Observer Status for WWF’), 14 February 1997. Interview with experienced Arctic governance researcher, 18 June 2018. Interview with experienced Arctic governance researcher, 18 June 2018.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

3 Networks: roots for success or reputational liability?

In the Arctic and the North, networks play a large role in the ability of WWF to do its work in a way that resonates with key audiences, bolsters organizational legitimacy and trust, and helps it overcome the IENGO stigma in the Circumpolar North. This chapter illustrates that WWF takes networks and networking very seriously and that the various types and levels of networks of WWF Arctic, its national organizations and associate offices and of its organizational representatives play a large role in how WWF accomplishes its work and fosters trust with key audiences it seeks to engage. Governments and northern peoples and communities are not the only actors that WWF organizations network with when it comes to scientific research and its use and access, as Chapter 4 will elaborate. Other actors that WWF seeks to foster positive relationships with include research institutes, other environmental organizations, corporations, academics and universities.

Networking, NGOs and the WWF approach Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (1999: 90) argue that: ‘Networks are communicative structures’ and the process of networking enables NGO members to facilitate the possible exchange of information, personnel, ideas and resources. According to Bob Reinalda, NGOs are essentially private interest groups and the ways in which they typically operate include ‘through mostly covert lobbying activities directed towards agencies of government, in order to persuade legislators into taking decisions favourable to those lobbying, and to a lesser extent through propaganda activities directed towards the

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

57

general public, to build popular support for their purposes’ (Reinalda, 2001: 18). When NGOs gain access to government representatives they try to ‘influence official decision making, depending on their capabilities and diplomatic skills’ (Reinalda, 2001: 19). Ultimately, the ‘main factors constraining private organisations are the use of a “wrong” approach, the presence of like-minded but dominant states … and negotiations based on traditional bloc politics of “North” and “South”’ (Reinalda, 2001: 26). Networks help all NGOs to ‘promote norm convergence or harmonization at the regional and international levels’ and they also assist in ‘norm implementation, by pressuring target actors to adopt new policies, and by monitoring compliance with regional and international standards’ (Keck and Sikkink, 1999: 90). In addition to helping to empower and legitimize an NGO to pursue their agendas, networks can attribute and/or reinforce status through a process of mutual recognition, ‘status’ meaning ‘an effective claim to social esteem in terms of positive or negative privileges’ (Weber, 1978: 305). This process of mutual recognition of status is important in trust building and perceptions of trustworthiness of NGOs, their representatives and their actions and outputs. WWF representatives working on Arctic and northern issues stress that both their networks as an organization and their individual networks play a vital role in their ability to do their work, and that the WWF style of networking and the types of networks it seeks to create are a big reason why the organization is generally successful in its work. For example, when asked ‘how important is a network for your ability to get your message out about what it is you are trying to do?’, one WWF member who spends considerable time in the Arctic answered: Crucial. It is a small community and to be taken seriously here … you have to be here and you have to know people or else you’re just an outsider. It is very very difficult to know what’s really going on … if you’re not living here and you do not have the network, that’s a lot of phone calls and meetings, so yes, networks are very important.1

This sentiment was echoed by other representatives. One representative in particular highlighted WWF’s networks as a key strength of its ability to operate. They noted that: ‘We have the networks, offices in all Arctic countries, except Iceland … You can always

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

58

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

find information and advice and it’s really brilliant advice that you get.’ 2 When I pressed them to elaborate on the importance of these networks to the ability of themselves and their colleagues to complete their work, the WWF member stated that the networks – building them, having them, maintaining them and using them – all come back to trust. As such, networks not only have a practical use but they also have an important role as signalling devices to demonstrate the organization’s trustworthiness with different audiences and stakeholders: It’s like the core, the key thing … We are trusted and one of the key things is that we are aware of the importance of being trusted. There might be something confidential [in a meeting, for example] in some instance and you don’t even need to say that it’s confidential because we know. I think it’s important, networks. I just feel that, because we do so much advocacy work and we want to get some messages through, that we need to have these long-lasting relationships so we can just go and talk to people and be on view for them. It’s really important for us.3

The key idea that the individual spoken to was trying to convey was that networks help engender trust as they provide a level of transparency and access by fostering personal relationships amongst WWF representatives and with other actors and audiences. Networks help actors and audiences to have access to WWF representatives and the organization’s resources. As one representative noted when asked why they think people trust their organization: I think it’s the transparency. Another thing is simply that we have these networks and we work with so many experts and governance people and Indigenous peoples, etc. so I would say it’s that as well. We are known and they know us in person, which is also important and we can talk about other things as well, other than work, which is also good. It’s part of it, in a way. It’s difficult to distinguish, in a way.4

Networks serve a range of important roles in WWF’s way of operating but it is not just the networks themselves. It is also the use of those networks and the WWF style of networking that is particularly relevant for encouraging trust in WWF and its personnel.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

59

The representative noted that the style of the networks fits with the type of people the organization seeks to attract as members and within their network: WWF has a style that I would say suits knowledge-based people quite well as it is a knowledge-based and fact-based NGO. You could even say science-based. That suits me very well. That’s my style and consistent with my background. It is also the one [organization] that I think does many of the things that NGOs should do these days and that work best. What I have valued since I joined WWF is the global network, which is the largest such NGO network, because if this network works together actually really good work can be done that combines work at several scales to focus on particularly good outcomes. That is something that I value a lot and I don’t think there is another organization like that, which leads me to be here.5

The representative went on to note, however, that despite the WWF strength of being a science-based organization, there are drawbacks, including ‘several … problems that have occurred over the years while having a position with WWF’.6 When asked to elaborate on what these several problems were, the individual reflected that: It is basically the way that a global organization, particularly [the way] a regional programme within a global organization works, is affected by changes in the overall network and has to find its footing. These issues affect the role that I have. For example [moving the headquarters from Oslo to Ottawa caused disruptions]. Then there are restructurings that affect the nature and ways of working that were granted to the regional Arctic Programme. One of these came through when I started and another one came through just two years ago. So that is what I was referring to; it’s the continuity of positions. In any NGO, you don’t necessarily have a permanent job, so it is these sorts of things that are issues that have produced some hiccups.7

The issues raised by this individual about their observations while working as part of the WWF network go back to capacity challenges. WWF, like most NGOs, operates with an uncertain financial position and shifting national, regional and international priorities for the organization as a whole, as well as for individual programmes, national offices and associate offices. This can make planning and continuation and maintenance difficult. Recognition of that difficulty

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

60

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

by representatives and internal leadership, however, once again points to awareness that, within the Arctic-focused branches of the wider WWF organization, networks are an invaluable resource for the organization as it navigates operating challenges which see the political, legal and environmental landscape in which the various arms of WWF exist in a constant state of flux.

NGO networks and funding According to Carter Roberts, President of WWF US, corporate money plays a role in the organization’s fundraising, though it is a relatively small percentage of the budget relative to membership fees. Our main source of funding is our membership, ranging from the US$25 per year donors to wealthy individuals to our foundations who support our work around the world. Many government aid agencies support us in our work as well, and we receive about six percent of our revenue from corporations. Far and away, the biggest source of support we get is from our diverse membership. (Steinbach, 2016: 61)

In fact, Roberts states that ‘WWF currently has 60 people in our Washington office who do nothing but work on these private sector partnerships, and we have 300 to 400 such personnel globally’ (Steinbach, 2016: 62). A good example of WWF working with a corporate actor in the Arctic is WWF Canada’s work with Coca-Cola (and other actors) on the ‘Arctic Home’ polar bear conservation starting in 2011 (WWF Canada, 2011a; Burke, 2018: 143–4), an Arctic partnership that has since expired according to a WWF member spoken to during the research of this book.8 When the partnership occurred, it worked to merge WWF’s expertise in conservation with Coca-Cola funding and brand recognition with polar bears (a commonly used mascot in their Christmas campaigns since 1922) (Burke, 2018: 144; Burke, 2020b) to help raise awareness about polar bear conservation but the cooperation was allegedly controversial for some environmentalists because of the impact that Coca-Cola production has on global water conservation (WWF US, 2018). While the WWF Canada-CocaCola Arctic polar bear conservation partnership has since ended,

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

61

WWF continues to work with Coca-Cola on global water conservation issues and ways in which the company’s work might be more environmentally conscious and sustainable.9 The water conservation partnership has been ongoing since 2007 (WWF, 2013c). The extent of WWF’s networking with, and acceptance of partnerships with and funding from, corporate and government actors is controversial for some individuals and other environmental and animal rights organizations because the IENGO category is made up of a diverse group of actors. It is not monolithic and the various different organizations that do environmental and animal rightsfocused work approach the broad subject of environmental protection in a large array of ways (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014). Some IENGOs see a willingness to take corporate or government money as ‘selling out’. In fact, some ‘deplore the fact that a company can use an NGO to build credibility at no major cost, particularly when this involves free and favourable media coverage’ (Berlie, 2010: 26). The tension about the potential overt and hidden costs to the organization and its independence when accepting funding from certain sources is fed by competing NGO perspectives on how to do campaigning and advocacy and the differences in agendas and organizational philosophies. For example, some environmental and animal rights organizations challenge the notion that humans have rights over nature (Lee, 1995; Næss, 1973; Carter, 2007; also see Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014). Alliances with corporate actors are viewed as a risk to an IENGO’s power to influence: ‘It is … fundamental that the NGO maintains its autonomy and its capacity to criticise, and it must not hesitate to criticise’ (Berlie, 2010: 37). There are concerns that autonomy may be compromised if an organization takes corporate funding. If the organization has firm no-go areas or stances on issues, by taking corporate money there is a risk that conflicts of interest may arise in the partnerships. This is not solely a WWF problem or an IENGO problem; this is a relationship reality for all political actors. Organizations founded upon the animal rights philosophy, for example, often have strong and somewhat controversial stances when it comes to the protection of animal life and some tend to use more confrontational tactics to convey their messages. This can put them at odds with potential corporate and government donors,

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

62

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

who might not condone such outsider strategies and tactics, and who may find themselves on the receiving end of these actors at some point. However, these strategies and tactics can also sometimes be effective in creating public awareness about environmental issues and galvanizing actors and audiences to pressure for immediate change. The push against the insider approach toward advocacy, which groups like WWF use, and the belief in a need for a different direction for advocacy contributed to the second wave of environmental NGOs in the 1970s, which included the rise of organizations like Greenpeace (Carter, 2001; Carter, 2007). Greenpeace is an example of an organization that is typified by its commitment to confrontational tactics and strategies, though it has undergone a degree of professionalization since the 1990s. A well-known example of Greenpeace’s work was its work against the United States government’s nuclear testing plans in Amchitka, Alaska in the 1970s. While the organization has evolved since its inception to become somewhat more open to a limited form of insider strategy (Carter, 2001), it remains staunchly against the aspects of the insider approach that see organizations accept money from most corporations and governments (see Burke, 2020a). Greenpeace’s stance is grounded in its belief that accepting money from potential targets comes with strings and expectations that undermine manoeuvrability and neutralize an IENGO’s effectiveness by creating a dependency on funding and conflicts of interest. A good example of an IENGO that got caught in the debate over the benefits and drawbacks of taking corporate money is the Sierra Club (Burke, 2020c). In 2007, the Sierra Club partnered with The Clorox Co. to promote new eco-friendly products that Clorox developed, by permitting the company to use the Sierra Club logo on its products in return for a profit share in the venture. But because Clorox’s brand is synonymous with its signature product, chlorine bleach, the decision by the Sierra Club executives to partner with Clorox caused internal fracturing within the organization (Kamenetz, 2008). The deal ‘angered and embittered Club members all across the country [USA]’, causing the national board of the NGO to ‘remove the leaders of the Club’s 35,000-member Florida chapter, and to suspend the chapter for four years’ because the Florida chapter leadership protested the partnership with Clorox (Montague, 2008). The fallout of the partnership illustrates that going too far with an insider strategy and taking corporate money can push an organization

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

63

to the point where its core supporters believe the IENGO’s credibility is compromised and this can fracture an organization’s internal, as well as external, networks. As the Sierra Club example illustrates, networking is not without risks. Another example of an organization with a strong commitment to the use of an outsider strategy is the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Founded by Paul Watson after his expulsion from Greenpeace in 1977 (Weyler, 2004: 457), Sea Shepherd is infamous for its radical use of tactics like ramming ships and altercations with hunters to protect wildlife (Phelps Bondaroff, 2020; also see Scarce, 2006; Cameron, 2009; Darby, 2007). While Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace solidified their international reputations and brands off their antisealing work in the 1970s–1980s (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014), Sea Shepherd has reinforced its position against all hunting since the 1980s with its extensive work against whaling. Its antiwhaling work includes, for example, extensive attacks against Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean and Faroese whaling in the North Atlantic (Sea Shepherd, n.d.; Government of the Faroe Islands, 2018; Phelps Bondaroff, 2020). Sea Shepherd views the acceptance of corporate money as akin to poison for their freedom to operate and ability to stay true to their ideas. Both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, however, accept public support from celebrities like Paul McCartney, Lucy Lawless, Brigitte Bardot and Pamela Anderson, which correlates with their frequent use of image events and media stunts to generate interest and fundraise for their advocacy work (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014). Berlie (2010) concurs with the Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd perspective that taking corporate money and entering into alliances with them can have negative trade-offs which may affect an NGO’s ability to pursue its preferred agendas and subjects. Capacity of confrontation is one of the resources an NGO possesses and often uses against firms … NGOs, due above all to their international networks and to the development of the Internet, have increased their ability to harm companies … an alliance would therefore be a means of preventing the application of this capacity, that is, a means of deactivating it. (Berlie, 2010: 35–6)

Berlie elaborates that while the overt corporate agenda of ‘“controlling” the NGO’s capacity of confrontation cannot be the official

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

64

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

motivation or goal of the alliance’ (2010: 36), the implication of alliances is that they can ‘call into question the role of NGOs’ and threaten their power to influence (2010: 37). In contrast, WWF does not hold the same view as organizations like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd on the subject of accepting donations or in-kind support from corporate and government actors. For example, in its 2019 Annual Report WWF US states that of its revenue in 2019 11 per cent was from government grants and 4 per cent from corporations (WWF US, 2019: 33).10 WWF has worked with many corporate actors over the years, including Walmart and Coca-Cola, as previously mentioned (Burke, 2020c; also see Pedersen and Pedersen, 2013: 8).11 A willingness to accept some forms of corporate and government funding does not mean, however, that the organization indiscriminately accepts all offers of financial support or partnership. For NGOs, ‘connections (or networks) are strongly linked to the NGO’s credibility. Without this credibility, the NGO loses its ability to mobilise and is thus deprived of one of the mainstays of its activities’ (Berlie, 2010: 35). The interviews with WWF representatives make it clear that the organization and its members are aware of the link between networks and credibility and the power that money and partnerships can have over WWF’s manoeuvrability on subjects and on different actors in various arenas and locales. The WWF members spoken to acknowledge that money and partnerships can open doors but they can also create problems for any organization and result in unanticipated barriers which may stem from requests by donors that are incompatible with an organization’s mandate, philosophy, agenda and membership base. Not all money is seen as good money for an NGO/IENGO. Acknowledging that there are revenue streams that simply do not conform to the WWF way of operating, the entire organizational operation, from WWF International down to national organizations and associate offices, has established no-go partnership and donor areas and has review processes in place for large donation opportunities to consider their potential implications. One representative reflected that in their experience: WWF, for example, doesn’t take money from oil and gas, doesn’t take money from weapons [manufacturers], doesn’t take money from

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

65

anything related to war and there are some other limitations … we critically look at the opportunities and do our best with fundraising. It is our own assessment and we can also consult with partners on strategy priorities.12

Another representative echoed the no-go formal partnership and financial support zone for WWF with the oil and gas industry: ‘other organizations are working closely with oil and gas companies, Shell for instance, where that is definitely a bridge too far [for WWF]. We have a due-diligence process that is very strict for the whole network where certain industries are banned from a formal partnership.’ 13 It is important to consider, when reflecting on the role that money and partnerships have on networks, the fact that the pursuit and need for funding is an ever-present issue in the background of agenda setting and daily practices for all IENGOs. However, accepting money to address existing budgetary deficits or agenda plans can create new problems so offers must be weighed carefully by an organization that wants to maintain its reputation and status and its internal cohesion. While WWF is often not as hardline as some other organizations that refuse point-blank to consider corporate or government revenue streams, it does avoid certain options and opportunities. WWF International and its branches and associate offices assess funding opportunities carefully to consider incompatibility issues with potential donors and to consider any potential or anticipated long-term negative consequences for their organizational reputation, status and trust in their work and motives that can arise from accepting donations from certain actors.

WWF networks and engaging states and Indigenous/local peoples in the Arctic and North There are at least two key ways that WWF seeks to engage the Arctic states and their representatives on Arctic and northern issues: at the local/national level and the regional/international level. At the national level, the WWF approach is typically led by the national offices. National work can be more akin to a WWF–nation state bilateral relationship on an issue, for example WWF Russia’s work targeted toward encouraging change or reconsideration at the Russian

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

66

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

government level, such as seeking support for establishing national conservation areas for the protection of walruses (WWF Russia, 2020a; Sandford, 2013). Often, however, northern-based WWF offices pair with both government and Indigenous actors to develop a project, such as WWF Denmark’s working with the community of Ittoqqortoormiit in East Greenland on the implementation of the Greenlandic version of the Polar Bear Protection Programme (WWF Arctic, n.d., ‘What WWF is doing for polar bears’).14 WWF also acts in intermediary or consulting scientific expert roles during project proposal assessment processes, such as WWF Finland’s work with the Sámi (Saami) and the Finnish government to assess the viability of a northern railway line between Finland and Norway (WWF Finland, 2018; Virki, 2019; Barents Euro-Arctic Region, 2016; Barents Euro-Arctic Region, 2017; Staalesen, 2017b).15 At the regional/international levels, WWF work is generally led by WWF Arctic (see White, 2016; Unlay, 2020).16 WWF Arctic seeks to engage states through its membership and participation in regional forums and institutions, with the Arctic Council being the standout example. WWF Arctic’s engagement with the Arctic Council is spread out through participation in the organization’s six working groups (Burke, 2019a: 49) and different task forces which vary in number since they are set up as one-off entities to deal with particular targeted issues, such as the Task Force on Arctic Marine Oil Pollution Prevention (Burke, 2019a: 61).17 Parallel to engaging the governments of the Arctic states, WWF Arctic is trying to foster networks with local peoples. As one representative reflected, ‘[t]he area of Indigenous peoples is where we have made huge investments in parts of our network over the last years in order to build trust’.18 WWF Arctic’s acknowledgement of the importance of Indigenous involvement in their work was emphasized by a representative who reflected: Of the networks and national offices, WWF Canada [which is the base of WWF Arctic] is, for example, involving Indigenous peoples in almost all their work if it has any relevance to them. The intern programme director of the Global Arctic Programme [Paul Crowley, later replaced by Peter Winsor as WWF Arctic Director], he lives in Iqaluit. So he never lets us forget about Indigenous peoples.19

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

67

Much like engagement efforts with the Arctic states, engagement efforts with Arctic Indigenous peoples are occurring at the national and international levels. Once again, the national-focused Arctic work is typically led by the WWF national branches, whereas WWF Arctic spearheads the international engagement efforts. At the local/national levels a leading example of WWF’s work is the establishment of the polar bear patrol programmes (WWF Arctic, n.d., ‘What WWF is doing for polar bears’).20 The polar bear patrol programmes help find ways to mitigate bear–human contact in remote settlements and protect both local people and bears by limiting defensive bear shooting in communities through the implementation of preventative measures to deter bears from entering communities. Such measures include hiring local hunters to be armed patrols against bears while children walk to and from school and other preventative measures such as developing ‘a rubbish bin prototype … that can be put into [communities] to improve their situation’.21 Programmes exist in Canada, Greenland and Russia – the three largest Arctic territories and habitats for polar bears (WWF Arctic, n.d., ‘What WWF is doing for polar bears’). These programmes have been successful at bringing together local skills and knowledge with advances in technology and science to find ways to help bears and humans coexist. The polar bear programmes also stand out as one of the strongest examples of WWF work which includes direct and active local Indigenous involvement and effort to find a workable balance between local needs and interests with a global conservationist agenda. The presence of local offices plays a vital role in the success of long-term local or national programmes, especially with the sort of Indigenous engagement displayed with the polar bear programmes. Much like national offices help WWF adapt to different national audiences, the presence of satellite associated offices in Greenland (from WWF Denmark), Canada and Russia provide a year-round presence in the North/Arctic of these countries, act as local networking and information sharing hubs, and serve to demonstrate that WWF’s interest, and willingness, to invest resources to help in their homelands is not fleeting. At the regional/international levels, polar bear protection is an area of continuous WWF conservation interest since 1973 when it helped with the creation of a regional polar bear conservation agreement

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

68

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

(WWF Arctic, n.d., ‘What WWF is doing for polar bears’; Burke, 2018: 144), but it is at the Arctic Council that WWF–Indigenous diplomatic engagement has advanced most notably in recent years. Part of the developments between WWF and Indigenous/ local engagement at the regional/international levels is linked to the requirement now in the Arctic Council observer membership criteria for observers to acknowledge and engage with Indigenous peoples. Specifically, one of the conditions of Arctic Council observer membership is that observers respect the Permanent Participants (who represent Indigenous peoples of the Arctic) and find ways to assist these organizations (Arctic Council, 2013a; Arctic Council, 2013b; Arctic Council, 2015). For its part, WWF has stepped up and is trying to help highlight ways in which the Permanent Participants might be further empowered for self-representation. In particular, WWF has used its networking skills to support the work of Permanent Participant organizations to establish the Álgu Fund (Burke, 2019a: 68; Gwich’in Council, n.d.; Álgu Fund, n.d.).22 In 2014, ‘the idea of a PP [Permanent Participant] core fund was … brought up by the World Wide Fund for Nature’ to help improve the capacity of the Permanent Indigenous organizations at the Arctic Council (Gamble and Shadian, 2017: 150). The Álgu Fund is a foundation established and administered by the Arctic Council Permanent Participant organizations. The aim of the fund is: to raise an endowment of $30,000,000 USD, the interest of which will be distributed annually between Permanent Participant organizations. Funds will be distributed at a sustainable level, so that the principal of the endowment remains untouched. In this way, we seek to ensure the long-term viability of the Fund. (Gwich’in Council, n.d.)

The target audience for contributors to the fund is the Arctic Council observers who are supposed to support the Permanent Participants, as per the conditions of observer membership (Roddick, 2017). At present, observers have a preference to offer Permanent Participants in-kind support (e.g. education programmes) rather than give money without strings (Burke, 2019a: 50–67; Burke and Saramago, 2018). It is the money, however, that the Permanent Participants are more interested in receiving so they can independently direct resources to the requirements of their daily operations and pursue

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

69

their own causes in their own ways.23 Funding limitations are the biggest challenge for Indigenous organizations to do their daily work at the international level through active participation in the Arctic Council, such as attending meetings around the region, and to operate offices from which to conduct research and other activities, like community outreach, in their homelands which cross multiple states for all Permanent Participants except RAIPON (Burke, 2019a: 62–6). The hope is that the Permanent Participants can use funding donated to the Álgu Fund to support their existing Arctic Council delegations and pursue programmes and agendas set by Indigenous peoples for Indigenous peoples.24 According to Saami Council Representative Gunn-Britt Retter, the fund was established by the Permanent Participant organizations because ‘[e]very [Arctic Council] declaration talks to the need to strengthen the Indigenous Peoples’ capacity, but then nothing happens. So, then we just went ahead to establish the [Álgu Fund] ourselves. We hope that it will be effective’ (Roddick, 2017). WWF helped the Permanent Participants draw attention to the need for a fund and have provided support with its structural development since its inception (Gamble and Shadian, 2017).25 In working at the local/national and regional/international levels, two broad types of networks were highlighted in the interviews with WWF representatives as helping to facilitate trust in WWF and its work: networks of individual WWF representatives and the organizational networks of WWF. Often the two types of networks are intertwined, particularly once an individual joins the WWF organizational apparatus and has worked there for some time. After all, when an individual representative forms a professional relationship as a WWF member with an individual from another organization, institute or government, they are in effect adding to the WWF organizational networks in addition to their personal network. However, a unique aspect of WWF, particularly WWF Arctic, is the degree to which its members have professional experience and expertise before becoming part of WWF Arctic. There was no consensus in the interviews conducted with WWF representatives about how important they believed that their own pre-WWF contacts were to their subsequent WWF work, though they were not considered a negative thing to their transition into the organization. The personal networks that individuals brought

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

70

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

to their WWF employment were typically seen as an added bonus to facilitate work. For some individuals, their pre-WWF networks were important in helping to smooth their transition into WWF Arctic work, particularly those with more extensive careers prior to joining the organization. However, the general view expressed was that it was their association with the WWF brand and existing organizational network that helped to open the most doors for them while trying to do their work; the overall view was that their connections to WWF amplified their ability to capitalize on and grow their professional network. The WWF national and international networks, coupled with the organization’s legacy, status and track record in environmental conservation, were perceived by representatives to elevate the receptiveness of their engagement attempts when interacting with government officials and to help them gain traction when engaging with northern Indigenous peoples, communities and organizations. As one individual noted: They [networks] make work quite a bit easier. I know where to go if I wanted to gather knowledge or to be seen to facilitate knowledge. There is a lot of established trust and sometimes scientists, both government scientists and scientists in academia, are a bit sceptical when asked to engage on the work by an ENGO and I think it was very easy for me to actually have the trust of my old networks when I said, ‘Could you help us?’ for doing something for WWF because a personal relationship had been established. They were very, very helpful. I would say that they are not absolutely essential because the name ‘WWF’, when you approach people actually speaks, normally, to a certain degree for itself. So, people are more willing to cooperate with WWF.26

As such, the personal networks that the representatives bring into the organization, whether that is at a national office or part of WWF Arctic, add to the networks that WWF already has, while the individual representatives also benefit from the association with the WWF networks. WWF’s Arctic networks are headquartered within both the national organizations and WWF Arctic, and as one representative reflected on the WWF’s placement in the Arctic: We are pan-Arctic so we have offices in seven out of eight Arctic states and that means, from a governance point of view, that we have

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

71

WWF staff that have, and potentially can have, relationships with politicians and members of government in seven out of eight Arctic countries. I think that’s a real strength for us because it enables us to get our agenda out more widely so when we are observing in these intergovernmental forums we are able to use the strength of our network to appeal and get these priority conservation issues into the consciousness of multiple governments.27

As the above reflection illustrates, the networks themselves are perceived to be only part of the equation of WWF’s success. Other parts of the equation for the Arctic work include the strategic location of networks and connections, the ability to draw upon and use those networks effectively, and its conduits (e.g. local and national office infrastructure) for the dissemination of messages to actors and audiences at different levels (e.g. within the WWF network, from communities, national media, politicians, intergovernmental bodies). This acknowledgement ties in with what is arguably the overarching reason why WWF representatives perceive networks – individual and organizational – as so important to their ability to do their work: capacity. For NGOs, their ‘capacity is derived from financial and human resources, administrative and expert knowledge, and political ties’ (Carmin, 2010: 186). The wider Arctic, northern and global networks of WWF increase the organizational capacity to do things, which is always a challenge for WWF and IENGOs in general: ‘Capacity is always an issue. You ask anyone in any field if they would like more capacity and I think they’d probably answer “yes” so in that case it comes back to focus. I think capacity will always be limited so how do we focus and how do we work smartly to ensure that we get the best results?’ 28 A big reason why capacity is an issue for an organization the size of WWF is that operating within the multinational framework has its challenges – challenges akin to those faced by other IENGOs trying to consolidate positions amongst diverse audiences and cultural, political and geographic landscapes. This point was emphasized by one representative when asked the question, ‘To what extent does the organization’s capacity impact your capacity to act on some of its ambition for involvement in the Arctic region?’ In their opinion, the representative observed that trying to get such a large group of internal actors to agree on positions, approaches, timeframes and resource allocation is one of the major downsides of having an

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

72

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

organization the size of WWF, while fully acknowledging that the size is also one of its key strengths. In terms of bodies, we are always short [of capacity], but as an organizational structure where we try to describe that we have WWF Russia and Canada not always agreeing on exactly what we want to communicate and achieve and we are always spending quite a bit of time discussing our positions on ‘this and this and this’, on fisheries or whatever. It happens sometimes that we have to come to a certain compromise in order to allow each of our different parts of the network to be able to engage with their national constituencies and national governments. So sometimes we have a more compromised position than other parts of WWF would like to have because we are a collaboration of offices.29

Compromise is important for maintaining the cohesion of such a large organization as WWF and its networks (internal and external) but this approach can create disagreements and problems. One issue is messaging inconsistencies, a challenge that WWF has in common with other large-scale IENGOs (e.g. Burke, 2020a). There can be WWF messaging issues on Arctic matters, which become compounded by efforts to keep the Arctic’s regional/ international work as the wheelhouse of WWF Arctic. One person reflected that: I’ve been to a couple of Arctic in-group meetings, but we want it to be handled by the Arctic Council programme and it has a core team and they are in charge of all the international [Arctic] arenas: IMO [International Maritime Organization], Arctic Council, etc. They led all the different part of the WWF network in the Arctic Council.30

This division of labour is not always possible, however, and networks and national focus areas are a key reason why. It is impossible for the WWF national offices in the Arctic states not to voice opinions and do work on Arctic issues and the content of those messages will be influenced and impacted by the networks and contexts that the national offices and representatives have to work with and navigate at the local/national levels. This has a spillover effect on messaging delivered to national audiences and those conveyed by WWF’s regional/international messaging on Arctic issues by WWF Arctic. For example, WWF has a stance that sustainable development is possible in the Arctic region (WWF International, 2011).31 On the

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

73

surface, there is nothing too controversial about this statement. The problems come when it becomes apparent that there is no agreed upon definition for sustainable development. The lack of an accepted definition for sustainable development is an issue that has caused much grief within the Arctic Council and hampered its efforts to work on and reach agreements on sustainable development (Burke, 2019a). Internally, WWF has a similar struggle when it comes to the topic of sustainable development, particularly as it pertains to the issue of offshore oil and gas development. As stated before, oil and gas exploration in the Arctic is a subject that WWF Arctic navigates with nuance, but national audiences around the Arctic have different points of view that must also be considered. So, for example, WWF Finland’s stance on Arctic oil exploration is more hardline, more anti-Arctic offshore drilling. In contrast, WWF Russia is not explicitly against offshore oil exploration.32 WWF Russia acknowledges the ‘dirty’ environmental impact of oil and gas development and uses (WWF Russia, 2020b) while also being acutely aware of the central importance of the oil and gas industries to the Russian economy. As a result of the domestic political and economic realities within Russia, WWF Russia is not as hardline against oil and gas as other Arctic WWF national offices, like WWF Finland. Instead, WWF Russia is pushing for industry reform by informing consumers and money lenders about environmental infractions by the oil and gas industry in Russia through the creation of an industry rating system that aims to improve ‘the quality of environmental risk management during the extraction, transportation, and processing of hydrocarbon fuels’ (WWF Russia, 2020b). Messaging differences are sometimes less apparent to international audiences looking to WWF Arctic for the WWF regional/international position on Arctic development, in part because of the national languages used to convey some of the messages (Finnish and Russian). However, messaging differences are also the result of the national audiences that the offices are appealing to, the countries’ geopolitical, cultural, political and economic differences and the role that Arctic development, notably offshore development,33 plays in these domestic contexts. (Chapter 5 has more on the role of communication in WWF work.)34

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

74

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

This diversity in focus, messaging, positions and experiences within the WWF’s Arctic and global work, however, is an asset as much as it is a challenge to navigate. A key way in which the broader WWF networks are perceived by the representatives to increase organizational capacity on Arctic issues is by challenging the notion of Arctic uniqueness in conservation and regional problem-solving. In the opinion of one representative, the Arctic, while unique in many respects, is not so unique as to prevent learning from conservation in other parts of the world. The representative noted that, in their opinion: I think there is a huge amount of expertise within the WWF network. It’s kind of incredible and personally my personal values are strongly around collaboration and that’s why I like this work as well. When I talk about working smartly, I think one of those things is not to reinvent the wheel and the Arctic has a lot of unique characteristics that are not found in other places of the world, but I also think that nothing is so unique that you can’t learn from other areas. The beauty of the Arctic is that we talk about, and it is a catchphrase, that ‘there is still a chance to get it right’ because the Arctic environment itself has precluded large-scale [projects] up until now and that’s changing so we have a chance to get it right. What exactly that means is that most of this stuff has happened in other parts of the world so we must use those examples where we can learn and to me that’s where the network is really valuable.35

As such, the view expressed above points to how the extensive global network(s) of WWF and its individual representatives enable the organization to bring substance to diplomatic negotiating tables. Specifically, the depth of experience, knowledge and connection of those networks help to inform how WWF contributes to Arctic discussions in a way that can ease transitions in decision-making by not reinventing the wheel in conservation, while also adapting to changing environmental, social, political, economic and cultural conditions. The ability to tap into the wider WWF network to generate ideas and proposals is important but so too are the Arctic-specific networks. At the Arctic Council, for example, representatives perceive a link between trust and the individual networks they have fostered. However, they also acknowledge that their ability to have their

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

75

work on behalf of WWF taken seriously in meetings with state and non-state actors is very much connected to the trust that has already been developed in WWF more broadly, so they benefit as individuals by the association. [T]he whole work is based on trust, I think. It is valuable in the sense that we are building these contacts with other members of the Arctic Council so that, and they can be very informal as well, when we need to deliver a message and we want our voice to be heard, the informal coffee break discussions, you have them first and then you go and deliver it. I think it’s all about trust and we get it. I think the more you get to know people, then hopefully you start to trust them. At least, I feel that I am working that way. I am trying to have contact with as many people as I can. We also tell what we are doing. We are transparent and that’s also about trust, I think.36

The WWF representatives spoken to generally expressed the view that individuals representing state and non-state actors feel they can trust that they understand what WWF stands for and can make an informed judgement about whether they want to associate with the legacy and way of doing things which WWF represents. (More on the perceptions of WWF’s work from the point of view of Arctic state and Indigenous representatives is covered in Chapter 6.) Association with an organization whose name has such instant recognition and status for conservationism in political circles makes the WWF an attractive work environment for conservation-oriented specialists. The WWF networks are a foundational element of the organizational magnetism: What I have valued since I joined WWF is the global network, which is the largest such NGO network, because if this network works together actually really good work can be done that combines work at several scales to focus on particular good outcomes. That is something that I value a lot and I don’t think there is another organization like that.37

The degree to which WWF’s networks can help attract like-minded individual experts is a valuable tool for organizational growth and self-preservation of its core brand, but the size of the organization (formal and informal networks included) also poses challenges.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

76

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

At the highest level – WWF International – the issue of institutional memory loss has gained attention in recent years. This was confirmed by an individual active with WWF who noted that ‘[i]nstitutional knowledge is such a valuable thing and … how do we stop ourselves from losing that when people move on … It has come to the attention of WWF International level.’ 38 In effect, institutional memory loss ‘is a significant problem that can impact an organization’s ability to advance its mission successfully, its ability to avoid making the same mistakes it made in the past, and its ability to leverage the accomplishments of departing employees’ (Coffey and Hoffman, 2003: 38). Institutional memory issues are important to network building, maintenance and use because the WWF network is not just a series of well-documented formalized arrangements, whether they be partnerships, collaborations, organizational membership statuses or financial agreements.39 WWF’s networks are also made up of many one-to-one relationships between its memberships and those people they know, work with and rely on, as well as their individual connections to places, cultures and contexts. In the effort to address institutional memory concerns WWF has started an internal process for changes. Recently there has been an architectural change in WWF from working on priority species and places to having a more thematic approach where there are now practices of communities around wildlife, around oceans, around forests and around climate. If you go on the website you can see probably what the new structure is. Within each of those communities of practice areas there is a dedicated person who is the knowledge manager. I think a lot of their job broadly within the WWF network is to do exactly that, to capture the knowledge [within the organization] and keep it within the organization. It does, when I think about the Arctic, I think, ‘Do we have a really good system in place where we ensure that [institutional knowledge retention] happens?’, and maybe I don’t know about it, but I would say not that I can think of right now. It comes back to the relationships and maybe that’s a bit of the tenuous way to capture knowledge and make sure it stays around. Very much, personally, I very much rely on the maintenance of relationships.40

Another challenge for manoeuvring an organization the size of WWF is evolution, in particular, how to bring local knowledge and ITK into the WWF network. This is a challenge because there is some

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

77

internal dissonance in the existing network of largely universityeducated individuals who are encountering challenges in bringing scientific knowledge, based on academic methods and techniques, and traditional knowledge – Indigenous and non-Indigenous – together in conservation communication, strategies and decision-making. The inclusion of local/community traditional knowledge, particularly ITK, is a relatively new dynamic in northern diplomatic engagement, in the sense that it is increasingly viewed as essential for inclusion (e.g. in the Arctic Council; negotiating multilateral or bilateral agreements; project assessment and consultation procedures), and it will take time for IENGOs to find ways to more comfortably work with the two bodies of knowledge and ways of informing decision-making and not view or treat one form of knowledge as inherently better than the other. One WWF member revealed that, in their personal opinion, one challenge with integrating local traditional knowledge and ITK is connected to the difficulties environmental organizations associate with including people and their knowledge and needs in their biodiversity and animal conservation: I think we just need to work harder to show that how what we are doing which has biodiversity and ecosystem focus is actually good for people and I am blaming conservation for 50 years or longer for its late start in making [that distinction] clear. That includes also that we don’t have enough science and knowledge that shows that [distinction]. We keep using the bees at the pollinators as the example but it is actually much, much broader than that. I think we have to make a real big effort to show that what we are doing is actually good for people. That is one of the biggest things we need to do and show on this issue. We have to put people into the centre sometimes and that is sometimes painful for us. Some of our networks are doing this at the moment but if you drive it too far it also creates some issues for biodiversity conservation itself, or for staying true to best available knowledge.41

The local offices in remote northern and Arctic communities and cities are vital parts of the process of information sharing and learning. As the polar bear programmes and their implementation in northern Canada, Greenland and Russia show, WWF associate offices in the Arctic are working to foster trusted local partnerships and networks to nurture a positive local reputation through the achievement of observable, positive results. When asked how they would categorize

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

78

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

working with scientists and communities in the North, one individual said: The work that we usually do with scientists is around knowledge gathering or knowledge-based partnerships. That can also be the way that we work with communities. We are working with them around increasing our knowledge base on an issue. But [with] some of the other communities its different … Working with communities can be on things like knowledge generation, but it can also be on working on something that is important to them. So really on the ground stuff like hiring and giving some money to do the polar bear patrol in their community so that their kids can walk to school [safely]. This is something that is important to use because human–polar bear conflict is something that is an increasing issue and if it is not managed properly it can have pretty devastating consequences for people and polar bears. It’s also a very big priority for communities.42

Internally within WWF, however, it has been observed by members that the work to evolve the organization and expand its potential resonance with local northern audiences is ongoing and more work in this area can be done.

Conclusion WWF’s networks are a big reason why representatives believe their work is gaining traction with some key actors they are engaging, and with whom they are seeking partnerships and dialogue in the North and Arctic. As an older IENGO operating cautiously for approximately sixty years and founded by leading conservationists and elites of their time with strong educational backgrounds and expertise in diplomacy, WWF has had time to slowly build a web of connections with important and powerful global actors. According to those on the frontline doing WWF’s work in the Arctic and North, networks are vital to their ability to operate. They enable the organization’s representatives to bring together experiences, resources and expertise from around the world and add to and adapt it for the northern context in order to get work done and not have to reinvent the wheel of conservation at the same time. There can be challenges, however, when trying to navigate agendas through an organization as large and with as many connections

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Networks: roots for success or liability?

79

and commitments as WWF. One side effect can be that sometimes conflicting messages emerge between the local, national, regional and international levels. However, the perception amongst the WWF representatives, as expressed in interviews during the research for this book, is that the networks open more doors than they close. The WWF association has helped organization members advance a conservationism agenda in collaboration and diplomatic dialogue with states, corporate actors and communities. WWF’s way of fostering, committing to and using collaborations, alliances and cooperation opportunities is not an approach that all IENGOs take or support, but it is the way that WWF has chosen to do its work and has worked well for it, given the types of things the organization is trying to achieve. At the same time, the organizational evolution of WWF, as observed by some representatives, includes ongoing growing pains when trying to come up with plans that incorporate input from two different schools of thought about knowledge production and use: scientific research and traditional knowledge (more on this in Chapter 4). However, the accomplishments of the polar bear protection programmes by the offices in northern Canada, Russia and Greenland reflect the effort to work with and build local networks and to try to incorporate traditional knowledge into planning, decision-making and conservation practices. Furthermore, the WWF Arctic support for the Arctic Council Permanent Participants in their establishment of the Álgu Fund also points to WWF acknowledgement that northern and Arctic representation and activities must reflect the interests and leadership of northern and Arctic people.

Notes 1 Interview with WWF representative 1. 2 Interview with WWF representative 6. 3 Interview with WWF representative 6. 4 Interview with WWF representative 6. 5 Interview with WWF representative 3. 6 Interview with WWF representative 3. 7 Interview with WWF representative 3. 8 This interview was conducted in 2018 and no specific date for the ending of the Coca-Cola Arctic Home partnership was provided in the

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

80

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

interview or found during the research of this book; Interview with WWF representative 1. 9 Interview with WWF representative 1. 10 In the WWF US 2019 financial statement the operating revenues for the organization were listed as follows: Individuals 39 per cent ($119,748,715 US); In-kind and other 26 per cent ($81,233,537 US); Government grants 11 per cent ($34,458,758 US); Foundations 8 per cent ($23,545,798 US); Network 6 per cent ($19,737,560 US); Other non-operating contributions 6 per cent ($16,731,861 US); Corporations 4 per cent ($12,836,421 US). 11 According to Pedersen and Pedersen (2013) ‘WWF’s key competences within water and energy efficiency have allowed Coca-Cola to reduce water consumption by over 2%, while its sales volume has increased by more than 21%. This reduction in water consumption adds to WWF’s mission of conserving and protecting freshwater resources by setting industry standards. Furthermore, WWF has received funds from Coca-Cola earmarked for conserving seven key freshwater basins worldwide, and WWF also utilises the partnership as a platform for leveraging global movement to address water challenges’ (Pedersen and Pedersen, 2013: 8). 12 Interview with WWF representative 7. 13 Interview with WWF representative 5. 14 Interview with WWF representative 4. 15 Another example discussed in Chapter 2 is WWF Canada’s international support of Inuit in Northern Canada to hunt polar bears, which WWF Canada exhibited to international audiences through its open support of the Canadian Inuit against the CITES proposal to list polar bears as an Appendix I animal, which is the list for animals that are the most endangered and threatened globally such as tigers and rhinos (CITES, n.d.; WWF, 2013a). 16 WWF has engaged in other international activities which affect the Arctic and the North, while not solely being in the purview of WWF Arctic or any individual Arctic state national office. A prime example of this is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which WWF helped establish in 1996. According to the MSC website: ‘Our mission is to use our ecolabel and fishery certification program to contribute to the health of the world’s oceans by recognizing and rewarding sustainable fishing practices, influencing the choices people make when buying seafood and working with our partners to transform the seafood market to a sustainable basis’ (MSC, n.d.). WWF representative 1 observed that the MSC is active in the Arctic and its conservation ethos and WWF influence has meant that branches of the WWF have pushed for

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



17

18 19 20

21

22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Networks: roots for success or liability?

81

MSC certification of Arctic marine species’ fisheries. For example ‘in Greenland … the shrimp was certified … in 2013, or something like that. The cold-water West Greenlandic shrimp is MSC certified and that was a pretty hard process…[WWF] have worked there [in Greenland] much with the MSC and now we are trying to push the MSC to higher [raise] their standards.’ An interesting dimension of the Arctic Council representation of WWF Arctic that WWF representative 4 observed: ‘It’s probably different in the different working groups but when I first started this job people said that we’re in an interesting position because we coordinate work for a programme but the national offices have their own mandates and their own priorities so in a sense we are coordinating and bringing people together without having a dedicated team … A lot of what we do is based on relationships. That’s the same internally within WWF, but it’s also the same externally.’ Interview with WWF representative 3. Interview with WWF representative 6. National and regional governments are also involved in the polar bear patrol programmes but local Indigenous actors and governments generally play the central roles. Direct quote from interview with WWF representative 4; others who discussed measures for community engagement for the polar bear patrol programme included WWF representative 1 and WWF representative 7. WWF is not the only Arctic Council observer to increase their Indigenous engagement. State observers such as China, South Korea and Singapore are all offering Indigenous focused education programmes for Permanent Participants and the people they represent (Burke and Saramago, 2018). Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 5. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 5. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 5. Interview with WWF representative 3. Interview with WWF representative 4. Interview with WWF representative 4. Interview with WWF representative 5. Interview with WWF representative 5. Jim Leape, former director general of WWF International has stated that ‘In order to preserve ecosystem resilience and support sustainable development in the Arctic, a new conservation and sustainable development plan based on using an ecosystem-based management approach should be promptly developed by arctic governments’ (WWF International, 2011).

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

82

WWF and Arctic environmentalism?

32 This point was raised in an interview with a WWF representative. This individual is not directly referenced here to avoid potential identification in association with other quotes from them in the book. 33 For example, Finland with its national audience interests against offshore Arctic oil and gas development is not an Arctic coastal state. Therefore a stance against Arctic offshore non-renewable development will not directly impact Finland’s economy. In contrast, Russia is an Arctic coastal state, the largest Arctic state in fact. The Russian government has a lot invested in the growth of offshore non-renewable industry for the expansion of its country’s economic future. 34 The general position outlined in this sentence about WWF Finland’s and WWF Russia’s stances on Arctic offshore oil exploration were expressed in some interviews with WWF representatives. No direct attribution to the interviews is given here to help protect their identities. 35 Interview with WWF representative 4. 36 Interview with WWF representative 6. 37 Interview with WWF representative 3. 38 Interview with WWF representative 4. 39 Other challenges include messaging inconsistencies, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, and quality partnership selection, oversight, financial dealings and mismanagement. These are all issues discussed in Chapter 2 with reference to the disputes over WWF work in Cameroon and work in Asia and Africa more generally. 40 Interview with WWF representative 4. 41 Interview with WWF representative 3. 42 Interview with WWF representative 4.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

4 Leading with science: WWF and scientific engagement

When interviewed, WWF representatives stressed that their work is informed by science. Arctic state representatives interviewed also acknowledged that their perception of WWF is that the organization’s work is backed by science.1 There is a distinction, however, between WWF’s work being backed by science versus its work being based entirely on scientific research. Rather, it is the wider package of WWF’s scientific engagement which makes up the organization’s third pillar as a relatively successful actor in Arctic environmental dialogue. Scientific engagement comprises WWF’s organizational and individual representatives’ scientific expertise, a balance between its decisions and reports being supported by scientific research with some secondary moral and emotion based messaging and undertones, and WWF’s ability to find audiences receptive to its engagement attempts. In this chapter, WWF’s scientific engagement is not defined as scientists doing science so much as it is a more encompassing term that best describes an overall approach toward its conservation work. This chapter explores how science and the WWF approach to using science act as a cornerstone of the WWF brand and reputation and how the organization operates to engender trust in its work and messaging.

‘We’re science-based’ According to Berlie, ‘NGOs have … seen their power increase. This power is mainly based on trust the general public bestows upon them’ (2010: 12). For WWF, its use of science and its ability to both

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

84

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

project the image and be perceived as having its work based on science are at the centre of how it has fostered its credibility in conservationism.2 This combination of doing work in a certain way and also being perceived by target audiences as doing work in that particular way is important. To obtain the status of being sciencebased, it is not enough for WWF representatives to see their work as science-based; they need others to believe that WWF’s work is science-based as well. The perception that WWF’s work is science-based is central to the organization’s brand3 as a high-status organization in environmental conservationism which is accepted as a legitimate authority on environmental conservation issues.4 For WWF representatives doing the organization’s Arctic work, the perception is generally that the link between the organization’s science-based approach and its credibility is fundamentally important to their success with a wide range of audiences. As one individual notes: ‘I think for me it is a strength that we are a science-based organization because I think it does increase our credibility, perhaps with the public but also with the science community.’ 5 WWF national offices in the Arctic states and WWF Arctic are generally trying to network with a wide range of actors and audiences, from small towns and Indigenous organizations to multinational corporations, states, international forums and organizations and other IENGOs. This is a wide-ranging group of actors and audiences and one of the problems with trying to do all this work at once is consistency in communication in order to appeal at both the grassroots and insider corporate and diplomatic levels. One of the central ways in which WWF tries to create consistency which transcends variable elements in its work, such as cultural nuances, education levels, language barriers, social classes, political agendas and national politics, is to let science underpin its agenda priorities and lead the underlying arguments of the organization’s work and suggestions. One WWF representative noted that there can be some confusion about how science informs WWF’s work on issues such as polar bear protection; campaigning for polar bear protection is quite a popular topic but, as has been stated previously, WWF is not an animal rights organization and this can create some confusion for people about WWF’s stances on human hunting and the use of animals like polar bears and seals.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

85

I think the [negative] perception [of IENGOs] is there because there are other NGOs that advocate for particular species conservation issues around polar bears and seals and have done that in the past. I think sometimes we just get lumped into the same group. And to be honest, we are a wildlife organization so we do talk a lot about polar bears and tigers and whales and elephants and all these large charismatic megafauna. We do talk about them so in a sense perhaps we communicate using similar tools, but the messages we communicate are very different from animal rights organizations.6

In general, emotional and moral messaging, while present in some WWF communication, plays more of a backseat role than WWF’s overt attempts to display that its opinions and recommendations are based on the best available scientific evidence at any given point in time.7 The approach of generally putting emotional or moral messaging in the background rather than the forefront is in contrast to how some other environmentally-focused organizations, such as Greenpeace, operate. For example, one Arctic state representative reflected that, in their opinion: WWF wants to cooperate with governments and corporations. Greenpeace has a more radical agenda. Cooperation is not their main aim. [Greenpeace’s main aim is] to act in accordance to their own agenda even if it includes actions that are sometimes provocative and sometimes illegal. [Interviewer question: Do you think this is how Greenpeace is coming across to your colleagues?] Yes.8

Greenpeace is perceived by some state actors in the Arctic as approaching its own Arctic work by leading with emotional and moral messaging and advocacy first, with some science afterwards to support a position taken.9 This type of approach toward advocacy impacts the strategy and tactics that an organization uses and what it deems as acceptable behaviours, attitudes and outcomes (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014). One common strategy synonymous with the Greenpeace brand is direct action and WWF does not use this strategy to convey its messaging or to generate support and attention for its interests (Carter, 2001). In practice, direct action events can result in tactics such as hanging off oil platforms or ramming vessels and this, in turn, can have an adverse effect on the willingness of certain actors

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

86

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

to trust groups that use these strategies and tactics. It must be said, however, that organizations like WWF and Greenpeace, which have deep philosophical and agenda differences, often diverge in their primary and secondary audiences and the actors that they are open to working with, which in turn impacts their messaging and priorities in how they convey those messages. For example, according to one Arctic state representative, their ability to trust Greenpeace was adversely impacted by their experience seeing the aftermath of a Greenpeace direct action strategy. There was a collision between a Norwegian Coast Guard ship and an environmental NGO ship, Rainbow Warrior. Then both sides argued that it was the other ship that hit them on purpose … the coastguard vessel came to the port … and I spoke to the man who had been steering the coastguard vessel and I asked him if it was his fault but this was a person I could trust … when he said it was the Rainbow Warrior that aggressively hit them. I trusted that [person’s reflection on their experience]. I’ve had difficulty trusting Greenpeace since that.10

Greenpeace’s approach toward environmentalism is more controversial than WWF’s approach (Carter, 2001; Carter, 2007). At times the Greenpeace approach can alienate some actors that potentially turn out to be very useful to have on your side when trying to obtain things at a later date, such as observer membership within the Arctic Council (Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019; Burke, 2020c). That does not mean that Greenpeace’s approach toward advocacy is incorrect; it all depends on the target audiences and the outcomes sought. Greenpeace’s approach, however, may be more appealing to certain audiences and actors which the organization targets as potential allies or partners and in certain contexts (see the discussion on funding in Chapter 3).11 In Arctic and northern environmental affairs, WWF generally takes a more conservative diplomatic approach toward its work which has similarities to how states operate and in return it is held up as a prime example of how many state representatives would like to see IENGOs approach Arctic environmental concerns and conservation (Burke, 2020a; Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019). The WWF’s diplomatic approach is typical of an IENGO that relies heavily on its insider status to obtain access to decision-makers and

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

87

closed-room discussions in forums and institutions; WWF typically does a lot of its work behind the scenes through lobbying rather than outright public advocacy (Arts, 2001: 199).12 As such, the organization’s offices in the Arctic states appear to exercise caution over their messaging and emphasize how their recommendations are based in science, using this approach to validate whatever policy recommendations and proposals they make. There is awareness that advocacy based on emotion might appeal to some audiences but there is also concern that such an approach would also likely repel, offend or incite hatred from others; this is the crux of the legacy of the anti-sealing and anti-whaling movements, for example, and the regional legacy and reputations of the different organizations that participated in them (Phelps Bondaroff and Burke, 2014; also see Chapter 2). Scientific research, however, addressing questions such as how many whales, seals or fish there are in Arctic and northern waters and making recommendations for the sustainable management of renewable resources based on assessments of scientific findings about the marine stocks, can be more neutral in tone. However, discussions can become emotive when the science and recommendations are seen to suggest or encourage changes that disrupt industry and cultural practices that some actors would like to see remain in place. The scope of scientific studies used or produced by WWF deflects somewhat from existential back-and-forth debate about the morality of the proposals, despite the fact that discussion can be had over the findings of any research done or used by the organization in its recommendations or proposals, questions and concerns over things like methodology, sample size and equipment used in data collection. By grounding its work in science, the focus of WWF’s work is more likely to be directed toward conversations on the practicality and usefulness of the proposals and plans that it puts forward. As such, lobbying and suggestions grounded in scientific research can come across as less of a personal attack on people, places and cultures compared with campaigns led by emotional and/or moral messaging and positioning that takes a more binary good versus evil, right versus wrong approach toward actions, attitudes and behaviours. According to WWF representatives doing the organization’s Arctic work at the national offices and WWF Arctic, the science-based

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

88

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

approach is one of the organization’s biggest strengths and a big reason why WWF is perceived highly in the Arctic region. One representative reflected, when asked ‘Why do you think the WWF is perceived highly in the Arctic region?’, that: one, we are constructive and based on science and two, we are there at a community level working with people and showing how one can change and that gives us a lot of credibility at the government levels. We don’t come out with an opinion but we come out with facts and sometimes with solutions which are viable.13

The use of science alone is not enough to foster trust in WWF or illustrate its credibility. As this book argues, the pillars of an IENGO’s work are interwoven. While the science-based approach is important, in the opinion of this representative, it is coupled with the networking and communication style of the organization, and the ability to show change in the organization’s legacy of conservation in contrast with other IENGOs and its own past actions. Science is part of the engagement package and WWF’s credibility for its use of science relative to its messaging on subjects is a big element behind the trust that the organization enjoys with leading regional stakeholders and actors. This individual elaborated on their view of the organization’s biggest strengths: Three things, I think. We are (1) solution-oriented and (2) based on science, that is two things and (3) we are there for the long run. We are a trusted partner, so to speak. We are not coming in for a short time to achieve what we think is important but we are there for the long run, for decades, to work with whoever wants to work with us. I think that helps a lot, that they are our strengths. I think that our offices are ‘sons of the soil’, so to speak. We are Canadians talking to Canadians. We are Swedes talking with Swedes. It is not the international office in Switzerland sending a letter to Trudeau saying, ‘What are you doing?’; it’s Canadian citizens, for example, talking with their own governments on all those issues that we, all together, think are important.14

These three things identified by the WWF member can be linked back to the organization’s science-based origins but are also grounded in its overarching approach toward scientific engagement.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

89

This scientific engagement trifecta of being solution-oriented, based on science and committing to long-term work on an issue or topic is important for perceptions of WWF credibility because ‘[t]he legitimacy and credibility of NGOs are based on their effectiveness’ and ‘a number of factors have implications for NGO effectiveness and efficiency. These factors include long-term sustainability; core functions; strategic planning; governance and image building; boards of directors; funding; performance management; human resources; and partnerships’ (Amagoh, 2015: 226). Amagoh argues that, in particular, ‘NGO effectiveness is enhanced when they engage in projects that are sustainable over the long run’ (2015: 226). This is something which WWF aims to do but which is best demonstrated for the Arctic through WWF Arctic: a programme with a long-term, dedicated focus on the protection, conservation and sustainable use of the Arctic region using a science-based and a solution-oriented approach (WWF Arctic, 2019b). The science-based dimension of the WWF brand and work is also vital to how it recruits experts and the type of person that wants to be part of the organization as a member, volunteer or partner (see Appendix B for a table of members of WWF Arctic). When questioned about why they joined WWF, members often highlighted the science-based aspect of the work. As one individual responded to the question, ‘What is it about WWF that appeals to you versus joining a different organization?’: WWF is a professional organization in this area, the area of conservation, which uses best available science as a background, which proposes solutions – so we are solution-oriented – and we are structuring our work in a way that we keep open dialogue with various partners. We establish partnerships with different interested parties and thanks to the support that we receive from our supporters from all over the world, we are able to strategize, to find and propose solutions and help with implementation.15

Another individual noted that for them the grounding in science and not emotion is a motivating reason for working for WWF. We have a very open discussion about how we are going to make our line, how we are going to word our press releases and our statement papers and we have a very open discussion about it and every time we find a good compromise. There is not a conflict but there are

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

90

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

different opinions and we have a very good way of discussion and so far they [other WWF organizations] have listened to WWF [in the Arctic countries]. The important thing is that that’s why I work for WWF, [it is because] we are science-based. We are not looking at the brown eyes [of a seal] … we support the Inuit in the EU about accepting sealskins from Inuit hunting and we have a report coming out that we supported the hunting in Greenland. We had a lot of critics talking about that but we said, ‘We’re science-based’.16

While these individuals talk about WWF being science-based, at the heart of their comments is the belief in the factual foundations of their campaigning and causes. This use of facts to select issues and make recommendations is a style of environmental lobbying that has appeal for certain individuals. And according to at least one representative, this way of operating adds an important stylistic approach toward conservationism and environmental protection that is attractive to particular types of scientific-oriented professionals. This individual reflected that: WWF has a style that I would say suits knowledge-based people quite well as it is a knowledge-based and fact-based NGO. You could even say science-based. That suits me very well. That’s my style and consistent with my background. It is also the one that I think does many of the things that NGOs should do these days and that work best.17

This individual is not the only WWF representative to express the belief that there is a correlation between the WWF style of working, its use of science and the kinds of people that the organization attracts. [In] WWF we say and we are a science-based conservation organization and I think that that in itself is probably quite appealing to those of us who have a science or research background in conservation biology and ecology. And certainly with the word credibility, having that [science-based] background probably helps with external credibility. Particularly in the Arctic Programme, we don’t, WWF does not have, a research station. We have a real diversity of expertise and while we definitely support science, there aren’t a lot of projects where we are actually leading the science or the fieldwork that’s happening. To be able to understand where the scientific priorities are and to assign support to them, and also to interpret the results in the context of what this means for a population or this species or the greater Arctic ecosystem, I think having that prior experience is really beneficial. It

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

91

increases credibility probably with scientists, having a PhD, having publications in a field which means that people may have come across you before definitely, I think, helps with credibility. I’m sure you can attest that going to conferences and starting dialogue with experts in these kinds of fields, it is definitely helpful to have credibility. I think with the other element, conservation of endangered species, having that interaction with government representatives, either state or federal, has also helped familiarize me with some of the work that we do as an observer at the Arctic Council and when we observe at other intergovernmental forums. Even though we are working across multiple federal governments [the different national offices that make up WWF Arctic], I think I have some idea of how governments work and I think that particularly with conservation and the challenges there are, that’s probably helpful.18

As the above personal reflections acknowledge, the WWF approach to using science and scientific engagement influences the type of people that want to work for the organization. The connections, however, go further since not only does the scientific engagement influence employee recruitment but it also impacts audience types and receptiveness to messaging and ability to participate in various venues from academic conferences to international institutions and forums. The link between the WWF style of working and who it appeals to connects this chapter’s discussion to the one previously presented in Chapter 3 about networking. It speaks to the degree to which ‘like talking to like’ occurs in WWF work and the primary regional audiences for its diplomatic engagement. Additionally, the science-based identity and approach also tie into the previous chapter’s discussion about the compatibility challenges that arise for WWF sometimes when it tries to bring together traditional scientific research with local traditional knowledge and ITK in reports and recommendations.19 In one WWF representative’s experience, finding ways to bridge the knowledge gap between ITK and western-based science is lacking. The key reason highlighted for the gap in the WWF organization was a lack of individuals with sufficient skills in both who are willing and available to work with them as go-between experts in the two knowledge systems. The view was expressed by one WWF member that the organization is still working to improve its incorporation of traditional knowledge, especially ITK, in its work in a way

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

92

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

that will lead to practical, implementable outputs that all parties in negotiations can agree upon. It’s something that we always reflect on. It is very difficult to engage. We had a budget for it [traditional knowledge] in the MPA [marine protected area] project [for example] and we were unsuccessful in getting people to actually join us, which was extremely unfortunately because we are missing a component. It would have been great if there had been Indigenous representatives who could consult with the data as we were going through but … I had a very hard time following [the MPA discussions] and I’d say that I would be concerned that you would need some degree of biology [training] to be able to understand the process because it was very western science heavy … You’d need someone with a mixture of the traditional knowledge with a Masters in biology to follow the discussions.20

Another representative, however, felt that: In general I think we are quite well known and we work in cooperation with various partners. We are in a good position to continue the work and to change results. Since we position ourselves as the organization which bases our work on a background of best available [scientific] knowledge, science, experience that we can find … I think in this way we do our best. People support us.21

As the extent to which engagement with traditional knowledge grows from a perceived nicety to an operational and diplomatic necessity in Arctic engagement, however, WWF and all IENGOs and Arctic states will have to continue to work with Indigenous actors to find more in-depth ways to bring ITK, as well as local traditional knowledge more broadly, into discussions, negotiations and the implementation of plans and ideas. There is often willingness on the part of corporate, state and Indigenous actors to hear what WWF has to say, and sometimes work with them, on Arctic and northern environmental issues. The style in which WWF conducts its work appears to be a big part of the receptiveness audiences have when approached, as clearly articulated by one representative: There is a track record of this organization to actually try and stay reasonable and to stay fact-based. I have seen places where we have actually had higher expectations … where our expectations for the quality of the science are higher than even for parts of the scientific

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

93

process because we know very well that things are going to be scrutinized and seen by policy makers. I think we have track record of applying and engaging with science in a good way. I cannot speak for the entire network since the entire network has so many facets and aspects of showing professionality, and so many people that I don’t know … For where I am working in the Arctic and in the global climate arena, we are just seen to be very professional. We make an effort to know more than any given person involved in the process and then do actually work also through helping people engaged particularly in processes … that require wider knowledge. So I think it is both a way of how we work, a track record that we have established, and the way how we appear, the professionality that comes through that. That’s my personal opinion and my personal experience … I have often experienced that people were looking to us, asking, ‘We are stuck, can you say something, can you help us?’ Sometimes not explicitly but certainly implicitly.22

Overall, WWF representatives believe that their work is science-based and the organization has cultivated a recognized brand and reputation of being an IENGO whose work is based in science. There is an intimate link between the organization’s science-based approach and its attractiveness as a credible and trustworthy actor with the audiences that the organization seeks to engage with. At times, as alluded to in Chapter 3, the commitment to a science-based approach can impact the capacity of the organization to grow its networks, as the concept of being science-based (using academic/ Westernized methods) can, at times, conflict with the growing commitment in the Arctic region to include acknowledgement and use of traditional knowledge (local and Indigenous) in decision-making. Generally, however, the mantra and evidence of WWF’s science-based approach are projected well and well received. In contrast with a more emotional and/or moral messaging, the perception that WWF’s brand and outputs are grounded in science helps the organization appeal to its core target audiences throughout the Arctic region and the North.

Questioning the WWF use of science in the Arctic It is worth noting that the WWF use of science is sometimes called into question. One example that came up was the link between

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

94

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

WWF’s projections about polar bear behaviour in its project The Last Ice Area (WWF Arctic, n.d., ‘Last Ice Area’; WWF Arctic, 2018; WWF Arctic, 2014). An issue was raised by an Arctic Council Permanent Participant representative with the WWF Arctic Last Ice Area project, specifically WWF’s claim to know how polar bears are going to act in order to make predictions to recommend actions to policy decision-makers. The Last Ice Area project focuses on the impact of climate change on ‘the size and duration of summer Arctic sea ice’ and according to WWF its predictions of the Last Ice Area in the Arctic are based on ‘scientific projections [which] show it will last the longest above Canada and Greenland’ (WWF Arctic, n.d., ‘Last Ice Area’; WWF Arctic, 2018; also see Stirling and Derocher, 2012). WWF’s argument is that ‘[t]he latest scientific projections agree that summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean will be largely gone within a generation. This will undercut a whole ecosystem dependent on sea ice’ (WWF Arctic, n.d., ‘Last Ice Area’; also see WWF Arctic, 2017b; AMAP, 2017). According to Clive Tesar, WWF’s Last Ice Area lead in 2014, ‘climate and ice modellers believe that the ice will remain above Canada’s High Arctic Islands, and above Northern Greenland for many more decades’ (WWF Arctic, 2014: 7, 85).23 On its website, WWF references the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) working group Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) report which was ‘written by more than 90 scientists’ to support its expression of concerns about the impact of climate change on the Arctic region and its ice conditions (WWF Arctic, 2017b; AMAP, 2017). Some of the SWIPA report findings are that: ‘Sea ice thickness in the central Arctic Ocean declined by 65% over the period 1975–2012’; ‘Except for the coldest northern regions of the Arctic Ocean, the average number of days with sea ice cover in the Arctic declined at a rate of 10–20 days per decade over the period 1979–2013, with some areas seeing much larger declines’; ‘In recent years, June snow area in the North American and Eurasian Arctic has typically been about 50% below values observed before 2000’ (AMAP, 2017: 4); and The decline in sea ice thickness and extent, along with changes in the timing of ice melt, are affecting marine ecosystems and biodiversity;

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

95

changing the ranges of Arctic species; increasing the occurrence of algal blooms; leading to changes in diet among marine mammals; and altering predator-prey relationships, habitat uses, and migration patterns. (AMAP, 2017: 5)

These are just some of the findings from the report, but they do indicate the detected severity of climate change in the Arctic region. The SWIPA report also goes on to use models to project the continued impact of global warming on the Arctic environment and the world. Some of the report projections include: ‘Warming trends will continue’ with autumn and winter temperatures increasing to ‘4–5°C above late twentieth-century values before mid-century, under either a medium or high greenhouse gas concentration scenario’; ‘The Arctic Ocean may be ice-free sooner than expected’; ‘Declines in snow and permafrost will continue’; and ‘Arctic ecosystems will face significant stresses and disruptions’ with the sea ice changes ‘expected to affect populations of polar bears, ice-dependent species of seals and, in some areas, walrus, which rely on sea ice for survival and reproduction’ (AMAP, 2017: 5). In the Last Ice Area project, WWF Arctic proposes that polar bear habitat is being destroyed by the effects of climate change and this includes access to sea ice to traverse the Arctic tundra and other landscapes. WWF Arctic states that: thick multiyear ice will be replaced by annual ice, which is associated with greater productivity, and may create more favourable habitats for polar bears over the short term (in the next three to four decades), acting as potential refugia. However, this region is also predicted to become ice-free during summer in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, LIA will remain the best habitat available for polar bears as this region will retain ice the longest. The long-term viability of polar bears is uncertain. (Emphasis added; WWF Arctic, 2014: 65)

The issue that arises in the project as outlined above in italic text is the assumption that the Last Ice Area would likely become a polar bear refuge based on the underlying suggestion that polar bears would naturally gravitate to the protected area. This type of projection about animal behaviour and habitat is one of the reasons given by a Permanent Participant representative for their reservations about WWF’s interpretation of science and their proposals.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

96

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

I think some of their science is actually suspect, myself. They have had something going for a while, the Last Ice Area. They have scientists claim that this [stands and shows me on a wall-mounted map] is the Last Ice Area and all the ice is gone. This will be the only area where ice hangs in and this place should be set aside as a refuge for polar bears and they had a thing on the go with Coca-Cola to designate the areas [around the northeast of Ellesmere Island and the northwest of Greenland] because that is where all the polar bears will come to because it will be the last area where ice will be and it has to be protected … And how can they propose to speak that the polar bears will actually do that, go there? (see Burke, 2019a: 154)24

While this point of view regarding the WWF use of science and its contributions to the Arctic Council was a minority view in the interviews conducted for, and related to, the research projects which inform this book, it is a view worth highlighting as a potential area for further future research on WWF and IENGOs, and the inclusion and incorporation of local (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) traditional knowledge in their research, reports and recommendations. In particular, the book is limited in the extent to which the research underpinning it was able to include a wide range of Indigenous perspectives. It may be possible, upon a more extensive future study of Indigenous perspectives at a later date, to situate the opinion above within a more representative sample of views to assess how commonly held such views are amongst different Indigenous peoples’ leadership and in different parts of the Arctic and wider North. Similarly, the scepticism voiced by the above individual might correlate with the acknowledged networking challenges raised in Chapter 3 and the integration of ITK in particular with scientific research in WWF engagement, as referenced in Chapter 1.25 More detail on perceptions of WWF’s Arctic engagement is provided in Chapter 6, which gives a snapshot discussion regarding the general reception of WWF on Arctic matters from the perspective of some Arctic state representatives and Permanent Participants. It is not a broad survey of Indigenous opinions of WWF at the Arctic Council level, nor do the reflections included in Chapter 6 focus on scientific engagement.26 The opinions presented, however, do provide an introductory overview of some general impressions about WWF and help to give a preliminary triangulation of the self-perceptions that WWF representatives have of their organization and why they

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

97

believe their overarching organization is often well received in the Arctic Council and throughout the Arctic and North.

Science and conservationism: scientific engagement with Arctic actors and stakeholders In the Arctic, WWF continues its trend of basing its engagement in science as a way to add its voice to issues.27 It has cultivated its international Arctic track record since its time in the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), the environment-focused predecessor to the Arctic Council (Scrivener, 1999: 56), and its subsequent transition into the Arctic Council when the AEPS was subsumed into the forum in 1998 (Arctic Council, 2020). According to one experienced researcher’s observation of WWF Arctic’s early contributions to the Arctic Council: The progress to acceptance and legitimacy of the WWF was relatively fast because of their contribution to the some of the working groups and because they did not have a declarative stance that was antisustainable development in principle, and thirdly because they did work very closely work some of the Indigenous peoples, such as the Gwich’in on reindeer herding, which they did with them to help them. So they demonstrated their specialist knowledge and not just of straight environmental issues but also of what you can call socio-environmental and cultural-environmental issues and they have indulged in the link between Indigenous peoples and protected areas, ideas about tourism and sacred religious rights [of] Indigenous groups and kind of engaged with, if you like, less controversial economic development prospects in a way that was of practical value to Indigenous peoples in a way that would not delegitimize them in the eyes of their own domestic environmental supporters.28

The scientific engagement approach is seen to try to incorporate scientific research and cultural and social awareness at the same time. Furthermore, this approach toward working with Indigenous and non-Indigenous Arctic actors, contributing to the Arctic Council working groups and being open to sustainable development continues to endear the organization to Arctic Council audiences. For example, the Arctic Council now has a procedure in which every four years observers to the Arctic Council must provide a

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

98

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

report outlining exactly how they have contributed to the Arctic Council for assessment by the Arctic states and Permanent Participants for re-accreditation of their observer status (Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019; Arctic Council, 2018). This did not exist when WWF Arctic started its observer membership at the Arctic Council. The re-affirmation of the accreditation process is a vital new mechanism for the Arctic Council as it now formalizes a procedure to expel observers who are not participating or who have lost interest in the Arctic Council, since observer membership of the Arctic Council is not permanent (Burke, 2019a: 11–13). This process started in 2016 and WWF Arctic was part of the first wave of observers required to submit a report for re-evaluation and re-accreditation since it is one of the longest serving observer members on the forum. Table 4.1 breaks down the WWF Arctic report submitted in 2016 into the different forms of participation that WWF Arctic argues it adds or has added to the Arctic Council’s proceedings (Shestakov, 2016). Many of the WWF’s contributions to the Arctic Council that are explicitly outlined in the report focus on aspects of scientific engagement, from being a data provider to the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) and Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working groups on MPAs in Russia, coauthoring scientific reports, participating in meetings, membership on teams and fundraising for scientific activities. The WWF Arctic re-accreditation proceeded smoothly (Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019). It stands to reason that the claims it made in its report were largely, if not completely, verified by the Arctic state and Permanent Participant representatives who all had to sign off on the organization’s continued observer status.29 At the national level, WWF national branches also capitalized on their science-based reputation, capacity and credentials to foster partnerships and complete projects focused on the Arctic and North. Two good examples are WWF Denmark (and Greenland) and their work with Danish supermarkets, governments and participants at all levels of the fishing industry to influence the seafood chain process from ocean to table in Denmark and WWF Russia’s work with Greenpeace’s Russian branch to co-author a report on the Prirazlomnaya offshore oil platform. WWF Denmark, and its Greenland satellite office in Nuuk, do work focused on sustainable Arctic and northern fishing which aims

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

99

Table 4.1  WWF Arctic contribution to the Arctic Council: 2016 observer report* Level of involvement Participant and contributor

Member

Area of involvement

• Task Force on Arctic Marine Cooperation (TFAMC): submitted to the Arctic Council on the WWF position on ‘Whys and hows’ for managing Arctic marine environment; Options paper to TFAMC Heads of Delegations, SAO and PPs about the WWF vision for Arctic marine environment corporation* • CAFF Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) strategy for coastal diversity planning workshop • Perspective contributor to all regional and final circumpolar reports – Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic (AACA) • Arctic Council Resilience Framework (ARF) committee • PAME Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Marine Activities (MEMA) project • Comments to PAME on the prioritization of shipping-related work • EPPR presentation on the ‘Modelling oil spills in the Last Ice Area’ project • Presentation for the Marine Oil Spill Response exercise • Spill Variability Analysis (COSRVA) scoping workshop – added ‘general assumptions, methodology, response systems and metocean data’ • AACA Project Integration Team • Arctic Resilience Report/Assessment Team • Planning group member: PAME conference on the Ecosystem Approach (EA) approach for the Arctic Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) • Planning group member for the Marine Oil Spill Response exercise; submitted comments and recommendations for the final scenario • Expert group member for the PAME conference

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

100

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Table 4.1  WWF Arctic contribution to the Arctic Council: 2016 observer report (Continued) Level of involvement

Area of involvement

Author* and presenter

• Regional Report co-author: ‘AACA: Barents Sea and Davis Strait/Baffin Bay’ report • Proposal writer and commenter to PAME about mitigation of risks associated with Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) use and carriage in the Arctic • Co-led the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Arctic Scoping Study with Sweden, partnering with CAFF, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and its office, and GRID-Arendal. • ‘Analysis of options for future cooperation outlining synergies between WWF Arctic Strategic Plan and CAFF Actions for Arctic Biodiversity’ submission and presentation to the CAFF board • Presentation on conservation progress reporting methodology to help provide suggestions on methodology for future CAFF work • The Circle magazine to explore Arctic marine environment cooperation • Supporting existing work on legal requirements for Russian decision-making for marine-based activities as part of the PAME MEMA project ($7,500 CAD) • Majority fundraiser for the TEEB Arctic Scoping Study ($243,000 CAD) • CAFF and PAME inventory work on existing marine protected areas in the Russian Arctic

Special edition Organizer and financer

Data provider

*The data in this table is derived from the WWF Arctic 2016 observer review report written for the organization by Alexander Shestakov (Shestakov, 2016).

to balance local economic interests, global product demand and sustainable species management and use.30 The work in Greenland is linked to WWF’s global work on sustainable use of marine species through the establishment of the Marine Stewardship Council

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

101

(MSC) in 1996 (MSC, n.d.; White, 2016). According to one WWF representative: The cold-water West Greenlandic shrimp is MSC certified and that was a pretty hard process, but it went through and after that we are following the management plan and the politicians are keeping their hands off the quotas and it’s a sunshine story for Greenland. And last year we had the offshore West Greenlandic halibut MSC certified with a management plan. The Greenlandic halibut fishery was the first halibut fisheries MSC certified in the world. It was last year [2017] and it’s a great story. They are following the scientific advice in the management plan for the shrimp and the Greenlandic halibut offshore.31

The Greenlandic work is directly linked with the efforts of the Danish office to influence consumer behaviour and enact change in sustainable consumption along the supply chain. For example, in 2013 WWF Denmark entered into a corporate partnership with Dansk Supermarked, which includes grocery stores in Denmark such as Netto, Føtex and Bilka, to help inform Danish consumers about the seafood products in their stores and ‘to provide expertise on sustainable seafood sourcing and to map the sustainability of seafood products across Dansk Supermarked’s entire product portfolio (45–50 species)’ (WWF Denmark, 2016: 4).32 An aim of the partnership for WWF Denmark is to help facilitate ‘a gradual shift in the Danish and international seafood sector toward having more sustainable products in their assortment’ (WWF Denmark, 2016: 4). The benefit for the Danish supermarkets is that ‘allowing companies to rely on the solid capital of trust – which NGOs possess – enables them to establish their reputations and enhance their images’ (Berlie, 2010: 25). Furthermore, ‘[n]etworks present a valuable source of information for the company. An alliance with an NGO is an excellent way to gain access to information which circulates in an NGO’s environment’ (Berlie, 2010: 35). In this case, WWF Denmark’s expertise on fisheries management issues, fish stock decline and the long-term economic benefits of changes in sourcing and consumption patterns potentially helps corporations by informing them how to make adjustments in their current supply purchasing habits to enable long-term cost-effective supply of seafood for their consumers while

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

102

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

contributing to, and enhancing, their image for helping with environmental protection at the same time. The work in Greenland providing scientific expertise to plan ways to sustainably source fish complements the efforts in Denmark encouraging suppliers and consumers to make informed choices to seek out and purchase products known to be sustainably sourced. Work to develop a certification system, such as MSC, further helps to identify product sources in environmentally friendly ways, to help inform consumers about which corporations are trying to balance profitability and environmental protection and which products they can purchase to help positively reinforce this type of decision-making and help the environment simultaneously. In Russia, WWF has worked with Greenpeace Russia to lobby the Russian government on environmental issues. For example, in 2012 ‘Greenpeace Russia and WWF Russia released an independent report commissioned from experts at the Russian center Informatica Riska, who developed a computerised risk model of oil spill scenarios on the platform Prirazlomnaya’ (Greenpeace, 2012; also see WWF, 2013b). As for how partnerships are formed between WWF and Greenpeace in Russia, one representative stated that ‘Greenpeace in Russia and WWF in Russia work together quite regularly on a case-by-case [basis]’ with the ‘study done by WWF and Greenpeace about the drilling rig … [and] models of oil spills’ being one example.33 It must be noted that the political landscape for NGOs in Russia is very different from that in the other seven Arctic states. According to a 2014 article in the Moscow Times featuring a joint interview with Igor Chestin of WWF Russia and Ivan Blokov of Greenpeace Russia: ‘both Greenpeace and the WWF are so far going strong (both dodged the ‘foreign agent’ tag), even though they differ in approach and reputation in Russia, as everywhere’ (Eremenko, 2014).34 While Greenpeace and WWF typically are not partners in other Arctic contexts, what makes the case-by-case partnerships doubly interesting in Russia is that the partnerships have the potential to bring together the strengths of both organizations in the world’s largest country governed under a quite different political system and cultural landscape from that which the other WWF national branches in the Arctic states must operate under.35 For their part, one WWF representative believes that WWF Russia brings a lot of credibility, networks and a trusted reputation to the

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

103

table in its efforts to engage Russian actors and stakeholders, such as the Russian government: what I observe is that we have a kind of a dualistic relationship with the government of Russia, which is changing and getting harder these days, whereby we have tremendous influence on law-making at the federal level; the oil pollution act was written by my colleague at WWF Russia and we brought it into the Duma through a petition signed by 130,000 Russians, making use of the call by Putin that if there is any proposed law a petition signed by 130,000 people has to be discussed in the Duma, so we did that a few times and both of our propositions were accepted and are now law. On the one hand, WWF Russia is often flagged and slapped in the face in the Duma and by government officials. On the other hand, they do see our propositions as not foolish.36

However, there are limitations to the typical WWF style of engagement, just as there are limitations to the Greenpeace style of engagement. In Russia, there is an effort, given their mutual struggles to get heard and listened to in that political landscape, to work together and to help each other overcome their individual limitations. As one WWF representative noted about what WWF might learn from Greenpeace: They are surely the better communicators … They are really nifty when it comes to good communication with a public audience. We are trying to make it our strength and in some countries we are better than in others … which reflects on how we work. We work at the tables and we work to a lesser degree as a kind of grassroots organization, an organization from the streets. We could learn to be a bit more pointed in our communications.37

In Russia, WWF and Greenpeace together find ways to merge the WWF expertise of science-driven cause selection, recommendations and behind-the-scenes lobbying with Greenpeace’s skill at generating attention-grabbing communication and framing issues in easy to understand, bite-size chunks for generalized audience consumption.

Conclusion WWF’s approach to scientific engagement is one of the four pillars it uses to foster trust in its work in the Arctic and North. As WWF

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

104

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

representatives have attested, having their work perceived as grounded in science attracts world-class talent to their organization and helps its recommendations be taken seriously by the top-level actors. Sometimes there are questions about WWF’s use of science to generate models and their predictive value, and this issue ties into the ongoing work and challenges associated with finding more effective ways to bring traditional knowledge into discussions, recommendations and decision-making. However, WWF is participating extensively at the Arctic Council and in the Arctic states in trying to engage audiences, using science, to find ways to coordinate their messaging and protect the environment and encourage conservation. There is growing acknowledgement that the needs and interests of other actors such as fishers, corporations, states and consumers must be taken into account if conservation efforts are going to work in the long run. Its science-based approach helps foster credibility with these different actors and stakeholders but it is not enough on its own to make WWF trusted and seen as a legitimate actor in regional decision-making. The organization’s legacy and networks play important roles in tandem with scientific engagement. And, as the next chapter will more explicitly illustrate, communication style is also an important part of WWF’s ability to appeal to, and resonate with, northern audiences.

Notes 1 For example, interviews with Arctic state representative 3; Arctic state representative 4. 2 Omona and Mukuye (2013: 316) state that ‘NGO credibility rests on key factors such as accountability, transparency, legitimacy, networking, ICT [information and communication technology], and effectiveness’. 3 According to Paço et al. (2014: 12), ‘brand is linked to the organisation’s reputation, identity and image, in the eyes of stakeholders and the community. Thus, a strong brand can be a valuable asset for NGOs.’ 4 According to Larson and Shevchenko, ‘status is based on a group’s standing on some trait valued by society. Status is a positional good, meaning that one group’s status can improve only if another’s declines’ (2010: 69). Røren (2019: 2) notes that ‘status is – along with its etymological relatives standing, rank, reputation, honor, and prestige – very often a consciously sought by-product’. This pursuit of status is because

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

5 6 7

8 9

105

‘status matters both for the status-seeker and the perceiver’ (Larson et al., 2014: 17). In fact, Larson et al. argue that a benefit of higher status is that it ‘enhances collective self-esteem, derived from pride in one’s membership and social identity [and] brings with it deference to a state’s interests and concerns’ (2014: 18). The same logic applied to the state pursuit of status can be applied to NGOs of all types; higher status can help an organization get different audiences to pay attention to its interests and concerns. As a result, an organization or state will engage in status-seeking behaviours when ‘prompted by unfavorable comparisons to a reference group, stimulating the desire to improve one’s position. The group may want to pursue an identity management strategy to achieve a more positive, distinctive identity’ (Larson and Shevchenko, 2010: 70). Evidence of this sort of identity management is present in Chapter 2 and in the discussion around WWF’s legacy and the situation of that legacy in the North and Arctic within regional experiences with IENGOs, the impact of their campaigns on local peoples and WWF’s efforts to distinguish itself from the negative perception of IENGOs in the region. Interview with WWF representative 4. Interview with WWF representative 4. See discussion in the previous chapter on the factors which impact messaging differences between WWF Finland and WWF Russia as it pertains to stances on sustainable development and oil and gas exploration. Interview with Arctic state official 1. Since 1990, Greenpeace has started to hire directors of science for its national organizations, beginning with Greenpeace UK, in recognition ‘that some of the environmental issues had become increasingly intricate and dependent on scientific data’ (Cherfas, 1990: 1288). Greenpeace’s use of science to support its campaigns has come under fire in the past. The best known example of Greenpeace’s use of science being questioned was during the 1995 Shell Oil Brent Spar platform dispute. The dispute was over the disposal of the Shell Oil Brent Spar oil platform, which the company wanted to sink offshore after its operational use had ended. Greenpeace opposed the proposal using the argument that an estimated 5,500 tonnes of toxic waste in the oil platform tanks would pollute the environment if the offshore disposal plan for the platform was approved. Its campaigning using these scientific findings gained a lot of public support and media attention. Later, however, Peter Melchett, UK director for Greenpeace, admitted that the activist group was incorrect in its estimates about the toxic waste: ‘Greenpeace arrived at that figure by extrapolating sample concentrations from only one of the platform’s six storage tanks. Now, the activist group says, these

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

106

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

samples came, not from the tank itself, but from piping leading to the tank’ (Fouhy, 1995: 51). 10 Interview with an Arctic state official, 2018. To retain the impact of the quotation, potentially identifiable information could not be removed; therefore, the exact number of the interview will not be provided to help conceal their identity. Please note that the recollections of the Greenpeace–Norwegian Coast Guard confrontation, which occurred in May 1999, are disputed. The Greenpeace perspective on the instance is ‘the coastguard boat rammed its rival’, which Greenpeace argues was its vessel, the Rainbow Warrior (Mompó, 2014: 58). 11 This outsider approach can also have long-term implications when organizational priorities shift and past actions come back to cause difficulties for organizational evolution and appeal to actors that are now strategically valuable, as Greenpeace has discovered from the fallout of the anti-sealing movement on its reception in the North American North. 12 According to Arts (2001: 199) ‘[l]obbying refers to informal contacts between NGOs and authorities behind the scenes, whereas advocacy refers to formally accepted and visible promotional activities of NGOs in political arenas’. 13 Interview with WWF representative 5. 14 Interview with WWF representative 5. 15 Interview with WWF representative 7. 16 Interview with WWF representative 1. 17 Interview with WWF representative 3. 18 Interview with WWF representative 4. 19 Interview with WWF representative 10. 20 Interview with WWF representative 10. 21 Interview with WWF representative 7. 22 Interview with WWF representative 3. 23 The WWF Arctic (2014: 84–5) report includes an overview of the Last Ice Area proposal. This area includes many existing protected areas within the Last Ice Area. These protected areas include: North-East Greenland National Park, Melville Bay Nature Reserve, Quttinirpaaq National Park, Sirmilk National Park, Aulavik National Park, Nirjutiqavvik National Wildlife Area (Coburg Island), Polar Bear Pass National Wildlife Area (Bathurst Island), Prince Leopold Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Seymour Island Migratory Bird Sanctuary (2014, 85–7). An update from 2018 includes Greenland’s North Water polynya/Pikialasorsuaq as an area recommended for declaration as a protected area by the Pikialasorsuaq Commission. The update also acknowledges the plans (since established) for the Tallurutiup Imanga/Lancaster Sound national

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



24 25 26

27

28 29

WWF and scientific engagement

107

marine conservation area in Nunavut, Canada (WWF Arctic, 2018: 1). The update also includes a revised map of the proposed Last Ice Area (2018: 2). Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 2. The question of Indigenous scepticism about WWF use of science was not a focus for this research, but it is an area of potential future research. There are limitations to the generalizability of the feedback on WWF provided in Chapter 6. If the research project underpinning this book and its fieldwork took a narrower approach to questioning interviewees about their specific views of WWF proposals and use of science, and if the project resources and timeframe permitted a more expansive number of interviews with Permanent Participant and Indigenous government representatives throughout the Arctic region, it is possible that more critique of WWF science may have arisen. However, the primary research in Chapter 6 is informed by interviews with five Permanent Participant representatives and ten Arctic state representatives and their views on WWF were expressed within the context of their general impressions of the organization, its Arctic-focused work and engagement, its status as an observer within the Arctic Council and a comparison of its approach to campaigning with that of other IENGOs, namely Greenpeace. One global example of WWF’s style of engagement includes its work establishing and supporting the Forest Stewardship Council (Forest Stewardship Council, n.d.; Nilsen, 2018; WWF Canada, 2011b). Interview with an experienced Arctic governance researcher, 2018. In line with the details from the 2016 WWF observer report provided in Table 4.1, WWF representative 3 arguably provided the most detailed reflections of all the WWF representatives spoken to on the various ways and depth of WWF Arctic participation at the Arctic Council: ‘The Arctic Council, and this is already five years back, tasked one particularly working group in the Arctic Council, PAME (the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment working group) to come up with the Arctic Council’s Marine Strategic Plan which is a ten-years plan across all Arctic Council working groups that describes strategically where it should be going. PAME, in the meeting where the terms of reference were designed, looked at WWF and asked, “Can you write the first draft of that? Because we in PAME really don’t know as well as you what is going on across the Arctic Council working groups, and you also have the global and pan-Arctic vision where things should be going, given trends and so on.” So that’s what we did. We wrote the zero-order draft, then the countries, of course, changed it, but this is one of the examples … We see our work at the Arctic Council to

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

108

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

be an opening for our national organizations and our partners and colleagues at the national level to actually work this through at the national level so that it can result in implementation of the Marine Strategic Plan … In the aftermath of the first biodiversity assessment, not only did we influence work from it, we offered the Conservation of Flora and Fauna working group [CAFF] to lead a project, co-led it with them, that followed up on one of the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment’s recommendations. [This] led us to actually met with, carry out, lead and coordinate the TEEB for the Arctic Scoping Study (TEEB stands for Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), which is basically a scoping study on what should be done next and what principles and approaches would work for working on ecosystem services in the Arctic.’ 30 Denmark and Greenland are not the only places where WWF is working with national and local actors to make fishing more sustainable. WWF also works with fishermen and governments in Russia on the implementation of the voluntary MSC principles. WWF representative 7 noted that, in Russia, ‘we partner with fishermen, for example, for the protection of vulnerable bottom habitats in the Barents Sea. One of the projects that we have developed now is the modernization of the bottom trawlers for less impact on bottom habitats. That also involves sustainable fisheries principles and MSC certification, which is currently an important tool for voluntary certification of fisheries recognized around the world. Fishermen are really good partners for us because they are interested in that management and the better condition of the ecosystems.’ 31 Interview with WWF representative 1. 32 According to WWF representative 8, the approach being taken in Denmark/Greenland for engaging corporations about sustainable seafood industry reform is widespread in WWF national branches. The representative reflected that: ‘I would say that on the fishing side there has been a lot of work with Arctic fisheries to achieve Marine Stewardship Council certification and many of them have, especially – depending on your definition of the Arctic – in the Bering Sea and most of the Bering Sea fisheries are fairly sustainable. The Barents Sea cod, for example, and some of the Greenland fisheries. That’s one example, but that’s been driven more by the international seafood markets of companies like Tesco, Metro in Germany, or Walmart committing to that and those producers wanting to meet that. We have been reaching out to the shipping industry.’ 33 Interview with WWF representative 5. 34 In the interview Igor Chestin of WWF Russia stated in reply to the question ‘what is your relationship with the authorities and corporations?’:

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



WWF and scientific engagement

109

‘With the authorities, it’s a working relationship. There are some people we’re friends with, and others we have to work with even if it’s not nice. There are people in both business and government that just don’t want to work with environmentalists. They only do so because they have to. With what happened with the Arctic Sunrise, now some people have an excuse to cut Greenpeace out of any negotiations.’ The article also notes that ‘Greenpeace Russia, which only accepts private donations, has a reputation as a troublemaker over its runs-in with authorities. Even their most innocent stunts, such as an activist dressed up as a polar bear sailing down the Moscow River on a fake “chunk of ice,” do not go unnoticed … The WWF, on the other hand, accepts corporate funding, is promoted by Russian music stars, and its panda logo appears on high-profile state-backed conservation projects. They differ, too, in their estimate of how bad the state of Russia’s environmental protection is, though not by much’ (Eremenko, 2014). 35 Currently, WWF Russia and Greenpeace Russia are working together on a new campaign to save Russian forests and salmon. This campaign involves a petition to be handed to President Vladimir Putin to save 50 million hectares of the riparian forest and its rivers, which are important spawning areas for salmon and other fish species. The campaign is in response to government law changes which abolish existing protective forest and spawning areas. According to WWF Russia (2019a), ‘[u]nder the new law, the size of such spawning protection forest belts is reduced from 1 km to 50–200 meters. As a result, the total area of spawning protection forest belts will be reduced by at least five times, which will lead to the degradation of the spawning grounds of the Pacific salmon, Atlantic salmon, sturgeon, whitefish, and other valuable fish species’ (also see WWF Russia, 2019b). 36 Interview with WWF representative 5. 37 Interview with WWF representative 3.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

5 Getting your point across: the WWF communication style

It is impossible to separate how WWF engages with audiences about the Arctic and the North from how WWF as a whole tends to operate. Communication style was highlighted by WWF representatives interviewed as one of the key dimensions that support their ability to work effectively in, and on, Arctic and northern issues. WWF’s communication style is characterized by its insider approach toward conservationism and features lobbying and engagement through reports, presentations, meeting participation and fundraising with a focus on charismatic fauna. This pillar is so important because it strikes at the heart of how WWF outwardly engages with actors, and how it wishes to be seen as engaging. It is not possible to discuss the WWF communication style as a completely separate thing from the other three pillars of the organization’s approach to its work. The legacy of the organization, its process of building, maintaining and using its networks and the process of grounding WWF’s work in science are all informed by and linked to the way in which WWF approaches its communication. Using its communication tools such as its websites, reports and strategy documents, The Circle magazine and public platforms such as the Arctic Council, WWF attempts to communicate about its work in a way that spurs awareness, debate and change while being very careful about the causes it chooses to become involved in and minimize controversial suggestions for outcomes and solutions to problems or issues it has identified.1 The branches of the WWF organization are keen to avoid overt position contradictions when possible to limit the confusion that conflicting messages can cause and the diplomatic issues they can create, as occurred during the 1998 Arctic Council observer membership bid because of WWF

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



The WWF communication style

111

South Africa’s position against whaling (see Chapter 2), though WWF is not always able to avoid contradictions (see the oil and gas discussion). Additionally, the entities that operate under the WWF banner try to communicate hardline stances when it comes to partnerships (e.g. no formal partnerships with companies in the oil and gas industry) and foster a belief in WWF’s diplomatic discretion (see Chapter 3). Finally, WWF makes a deliberate effort to convey the belief that its work is grounded in science. As a result, communication on what WWF offices and programmes see as national and global issues to audiences outside of its organization are informed by the science-based approach that it uses, even if the science and extrapolations of future outcomes are sometimes debated by other actors (see the discussion of the Last Ice Area in Chapter 4).

Transparency and legitimacy Transparency is a major issue for environmental and animal rights organizations, and in the NGO literature issues of transparency and its impact on perceptions of organizational legitimacy are often discussed (e.g. Hudson, 2001; Ossewaarde et al., 2008; Atack, 1999).2 Discussion about NGO transparency within the literature is situated within wider debates over other NGO legitimacy issues such as who exactly they represent; how effective NGOs are and how effectiveness can be measured; and to whom are NGOs accountable (e.g. Lister, 2003; Thrandardottir, 2013; Atack, 1999).3 Transparency is a part of the legitimatization process, but it is not synonymous with legitimacy. According to Alan Hudson, ‘legitimacy is about an NGO’s ability to justify and explain where the values that it promotes come from’ (2001: 340). Whereas, Hudson argues, transparency ‘focuses attention on the ways in which legitimacy is constructed through meaningful social relations … what legitimacy is – will be shaped by, and vary in, different historical and geographical contexts’ (2001: 341). Thomas Hale echoes the importance of transparency for NGOs, arguing that transparency mechanisms help to promote accountability and help to strengthen the role that actors with a reputation for accountability can play in global governance (Hale, 2008: 90–1).

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

112

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

With the concepts of transparency and legitimacy tied together, WWF’s efforts to communicate and present itself as transparent about its work are important for conveying the message that it wants to be seen as a rightful actor to participate in Arctic governance discussions and decision-making processes. When it comes to transparency there is a delicate balancing act that all NGOs must manage, and for an IENGO of the size, reputation, influence and wealth of WWF, with its desire to be accepted at the elite level in backroom confidential meetings as well as on the ground in local communities, it is tough to navigate the need for transparency. On the one hand, there is a desire to be seen as open to the public by being forthcoming with information about how the organization works, is funded and what it wants to do, as well as to be seen as approachable and helpful to others with their goals. On the other hand, there is an overwhelming desire for control over messaging about itself4 and a practical need to be closed off in some ways to protect the organization’s brand and reputation while strategically planning how to handle issues and considering next steps; to create spaces for internal debate and disagreement before finalizing a position to put forth to the public without appearing divided; and to be successful with the pursuit of WWF conservation aims, which requires a degree of information control, oversight and withholding to maintain and pursue agendas, particularly when navigating confidential diplomatic circles. WWF is not unique in being questioned about its transparency and legitimacy. IENGOs are coming under increased scrutiny in recent years regarding things like their motives, methods, finances, accountability mechanisms and representativeness (e.g. Keating and Thrandardottir, 2017; Li and Wang, 2020; Ossewaarde et al., 2008; Hale, 2008). The scrutiny of WWF’s communication about its interests, concerns, positions, actions (or lack thereof) and associations is illustrated through investigations and revelations like those made in the Cameroon scandal regarding alleged WWF involvement in the gross mistreatment of the Baka Indigenous people, discussed in Chapter 2. The scandal exposure and association with the actions underpinning the scandal itself are damaging to the overarching WWF brand and reputation and, by extension, its legitimacy and the trust placed in it by others.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



The WWF communication style

113

The Cameroon scandal reveals incongruences that can sometimes exist between the stated ways in which an organization flying the WWF flag claims to operate and how it may actually operate in certain contexts. Such revelations have the potential to damage the WWF brand for all WWF organizations and programmes, whether they participate in or know about misconduct or not. Finding ways of communicating that the actions and attitudes of a few do not reflect the actions and attitudes of the many is a big part of how the organization combats PR and human rights disasters such as the one alleged to have occurred in Cameroon and refocuses national and international attention on WWF’s priorities and positive aims and contributions to global conservationism.

Simple, uncontroversial and grounded in science Simple, generally uncontroversial messages which are grounded in science have come to characterize WWF’s communication style. Its work is not typically characterized by or associated with tactics such as direct action stunts or other more controversial image events, such as those deployed by other high-profile environmental and animal rights organizations like PETA, IFAW, Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd. For example, you will never find WWF representatives dangling off the side of an oil rig (Greenpeace direct action; BBC News, 2010) or a WWF ship ramming a whaling vessel to stop hunting (Sea Shepherd has a history of ramming vessels as part of its direct action; Adamson, 2016).5 Avoiding these tactics may make WWF less likely to grab headlines on the front page of a newspaper but avoiding such measures to get attention for causes is also a big reason for WWF’s longevity, appeal and success in diplomatic circles. WWF’s typical outreach efforts are not flashy although, as will be discussed later in this chapter, there is a tendency to gravitate toward charismatic fauna in its fundraising and promotional material. The WWF writing style generally uses plain language when communicating scientific information and organizational strategy so a reader does not need to have a PhD-level education to understand their summary points about climate change and ecosystem loss. A reader can feel reasonably assured that the points being made are

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

114

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

derived by experts using scientific research, with minimal explicit emotional overtones. To communicate its Strategic Plan for Conservation, for example, the organization wrote an open-access report which is available for download on its website. From the beginning, the plan states, ‘[o]ur global conservation framework is a science-based plan’, which primes readers to know that the text is informed by scientific research (WWF International, 2008). In the report WWF International clearly articulates that at the international level WWF will focus its conservation work around the following framework: (1) saving biodiversity; (2) reducing humanity’s ecological footprint; (3) tackling threats and drivers; (4) pulling it all together (WWF International, 2008). Furthermore, it divides its work into priority areas/places and priority species. It communicates that its priority places have been selected on the basis of biodiversity goals. These areas are thematically subdivided: • • • • • • •

‘The most intact remaining rainforests’; ‘The most species-rich rainforests’; ‘The richest places for rare endemic plants and animals’; ‘The richest large river systems and the world’s oldest river’; ‘The most unique and diverse deserts’; ‘The most diverse tropical grasslands, savannas and woodlands’; ‘The tallest grasslands filled with the highest densities of tigers and rhinos’; • ‘The most outstanding montane areas’; • ‘The most diverse coral reefs’; and • ‘The most productive seas’. (WWF International, 2008) These thematic biodiversity goals focus on particular areas of the world. These areas include, but are not limited to, the Southern Ocean, Northern Great Plains, Black Sea Basin, Himalayas, Atlantic Forests and Arctic Seas (WWF International, 2020; WWF International, 2008). In the Strategic Plan for Conservation document, like most of WWF’s documents about its work, the organization tries to communicate the complexity of its work by packaging its messages and focus areas in accessible, delineated groups which are comprehensible for a wide range of people with various levels of education, priorities, concerns and interests. For example, as of 2020, WWF is broadly communicating on its website that its work now focuses around six goals: climate, food,

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



The WWF communication style

115

forests, freshwater, oceans and wildlife (WWF International, n.d., ‘About us’). While this short list does not provide a reader with much information up front, the general goal areas are presented in a straightforward manner, as was the case with the priority areas and biodiversity goals outlined in the 2008 strategy plan. Taking a global agenda and distilling it into such a short list, like the six goals list, is very difficult to coordinate with national organizations, associate offices and multinational programmes around the world and takes a lot of effort to maintain.6 There are nuances in conservation efforts in the various locales and frequently WWF branches compromise in order to help create awareness of its plans, cultivate receptiveness to them and make some headway in their work on a local/national level. As one WWF representative reflected: We as WWF are often in our positioning not as black and white which makes it easier for governments and local people and companies to talk with us … Our members also like black and white stories and it is not always like that so for our communications it can be difficult to explain … our positions sometimes.7

As mentioned, WWF generally avoids flashy and controversial strategies and tactics to communicate its messaging and bring attention to its causes, but there is one area where it does gravitate toward a more media friendly, eye-catching and emotional communication approach to get attention for its work: the use of charismatic fauna, also known in plain language as photogenic animals and marine life. WWF uses photogenic animals, such as polar bears, pandas, tigers, snow leopards and meerkats (Veríssimo and Smith, 2017; also see Veríssimo et al., 2017), in three ways: (1) to generate awareness about issues faced by the animals themselves (e.g. loss of habitat, endangered species awareness, poaching dangers); (2) to use the animal as a representation of a region of the world facing wider issues (e.g. the use of polar bears as the symbol of Arctic climate change and the loss of multi-year ice); and (3) to fundraise (e.g. through animal ‘adoptions’).8 The use of photogenic animals in promotional and fundraising communication material and reports by environmental and animal rights organizations is not without criticism. In particular, the practice of using cute and dynamic animals

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

116

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

and marine life has come under scrutiny because conservationists ‘often complain animals that are important to save can get ignored’, according to Diogo Veríssimo and Bob Smith (2017). Veríssimo and Smith (2017) argue that lesser-known or photogenic animals tend to get ignored by the conservation organizations themselves despite their calls to action. In their work, Veríssimo and Smith (2017) examined WWF US donor choices and they found that two factors influenced donors: ‘the animals’ appeal and the degree of the threat of their extinction. Marketing efforts played no role. No matter how they were described or presented, the most appealing species always drew more donations. This was probably because people already knew and liked them.’ However, in their study Veríssimo and Smith found that ‘[w]ith no marketing effort, our model predicted that the most appealing species would raise 10 times more money than the least appealing animals’ but ‘[i]f the group highlighted the least appealing species by making them prominent on its website, our model predicted a 26-fold increase in donations for those specific animals’ (Veríssimo and Smith, 2017; also see Veríssimo et al., 2017). As a result, the recommendation of Veríssimo and Smith is for conservationists to ‘stop complaining and start marketing’ for less appealing animals in need of conservation protections. This conclusion comes from their study on why conservationists cannot seem to raise money to save unglamorous animals by ‘measuring the links between marketing efforts and conservation fundraising success’ (Veríssimo and Smith, 2017; also see Veríssimo et al., 2017). One contemporary Arctic example of a WWF national office in the Arctic using communication tools to highlight an obscure species is the work that has been done to increase the profile of the Saimaa ringed seal in Finland (WWF Finland, 2016; Harfenist, 2016). One WWF representative reflected that the media prefers to cover big, splashing events and this can challenge WWF as its tries to communicate its messaging with its scientific grounding because it can be bland for the media. When WWF occasionally does work highlighting the need to protect attractive animals the media does show interest, as in the case of the Saimaa ringed seal where interest was encouraged through WWF’s strategy of using a live online feed to allow the public to watch the animal in its natural habitat:

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



The WWF communication style

117

The Saimaa ringed seal is a very rare seal that only lives in a lake, so we put a camera there and basically just put live feed and that was a massive success. There were like 3 million hits and it was in the New York Times, you name it. People just loved it. It got a lot of attention.

In reply to the following up question – ‘Why do you think the seal work got attention?’ – the individual elaborated that ‘it might be just that it was so cute and simple and appealing; furry animals are always appealing rather than a report that we may have written and put in a lot of effort. So I think it is a simple message.’ 9 The outcome of WWF Finland’s work to increase the profile of the unique and rare Saimaa ringed seal population supports the conclusions of Veríssimo and Smith (2017) on donor habits and the need to highlight lesser-known animal populations if the protection of the species is indeed an organizational priority (Veríssimo et al., 2017). Efforts to highlight the seal species benefited from WWF Finland’s media-friendly communication manner with simple messaging that transcended national boundaries, cultures and language barriers. Like other animals WWF frequently draws attention to, however, the Saimaa ringed seal still had many of the charismatic traits that make its more mainstream animals for conservation so appealing – polar bears, pandas, elephants and tigers.

Compromise and a place at the table Lastly, compromise is part of the WWF alliance and partnership approach and is a big reason why diplomats find the organization generally reasonable to work with (see Chapter 6). However, having a compromise approach style impacts how WWF organizations, offices and programmes communicate on the work it does with other actors: ‘All around the world research and science institutions work with us and we will get the funding and we will have some kind of agreement about how to make the communication. We work together with scientific organizations all over the world.’ 10 An implication of WWF’s willingness to compromise with potential partners, stakeholders and negotiating parties is that the organization is often viewed as a mainstream environmental group; this was

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

118

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

something that some WWF representatives working on Arctic issues conveyed. When one representative was asked why they thought their organization was a little mainstream after they raised the point, they replied: We are the Walmart of environmental organizations and I think it’s really funny [the parallels with Walmart greeters] and I am not offended at all but it’s like that sometimes. We could be a bit sharper in our communications because we are talking about climate change which is a major threat. It’s the biggest threat. We should be more vocal about it and we haven’t been and I think it’s a shame. So we are too mainstream in our way of communicating, for example, on climate change. We know because we have a scientific background. We know what’s going on so that’s one of the things that’s frustrating.11

This sense of frustration was echoed by another representative who expressed that the reputation for compromise is a challenge as much as a benefit for WWF. The individual stated: Personally, I would say that too often we enter conversations and negotiations with a compromise. We should enter instead with a stronger ask because everybody knows we are working toward a compromise. It could really change things … It is certainly something that would make us stronger, and potentially the outcome stronger, to not enter conversations by saying, ‘This is a compromise and I am asking you to take a compromise.’ 12

WWF’s reputation for compromising to reach an agreement with those it is engaging or working with is part of what makes the organization so palatable to government actors; there is a view that the organization can be reasoned with in a diplomatic manner (for more on this view see Chapter 6). Within the overarching WWF organization, however, there are some individuals who look to the communication style of Greenpeace as an example of an organization that does a more effective job of conveying its views in a clear, catchy manner at times and that is more willing to take risks to pursue its work with a less compromising position.13 The fact that the WWF approach to compromise is different from Greenpeace’s and appeals to the organization’s target audiences for partnerships, alliances and discourse is not something to dismiss or undervalue despite the frustrations it may sometimes cause.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



The WWF communication style

119

A good example of staying true to the WWF brand and its associated communication and diplomatic style was noted by an individual who remembered a time when they witnessed Greenpeace doing a direct action event. The direct action event targeted a closed-room meeting and at the time an oil company representative was presenting, with state and corporate actors in attendance. WWF was represented there as well: I have an example from the energy summit where our experts have several presentations about renewables in Canada and Russia, etc. and Greenpeace went there and there was a representative from Statoil and they [Greenpeace protesters] had a recorder or tape and they went with that behind their [Statoil representatives who were talking] backs and started to play it in the middle of a presentation and started to [play a Fleetwood Mac song] ‘Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies’ and they [the Greenpeace protesters] were taken away from the room and the next one [Greenpeace protester] came and did the same. I was personally like, okay, this is a good example of how we work differently. They kind of did this show, but we were there with our colleagues and we discussed renewable energy sources in the Arctic.14

Unlike Greenpeace, WWF has a more diplomatic style to its work and its communication, and typically avoids protesting or advocacy, preferring to lobby and have a seat at the table at closed-door meetings with other actors. According to Bas Arts (2001), the distinction between the types of actions which would characterize protest, advocacy and lobbying are as follows. Protest includes the organization of sit-ins, marches, ludicrous actions, petitions and disturbances. Advocacy includes the publication of eco-journals and reports, as well as the dissemination of position papers, written statements and scientific data in addition to the presentation of oral statements and the organization of conferences, workshops, lectures, round table discussions, press conferences and stands. Lobbying includes the presentation of oral statements, written statements, concrete proposals, draft texts, legal or technical advice, deals and compromises, and contacting/networking with other delegates (Arts, 2001: 200). WWF predominantly focuses on a communication style characterized by actions that would be best classified as lobbying, as defined by Arts (2001), with occasional limited advocacy elements as well. The Greenpeace media event referenced above by the WWF

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

120

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

representative, however, is more akin to talking at, rather than to, the actors attending the meeting for the benefit of audiences not in the room. If WWF started communicating like Greenpeace, the actors and audiences that currently find WWF appealing would likely start to re-evaluate their support for the organization and their willingness to have them in backroom discussions. One WWF member emphasized that something all IENGOs wishing to engage high-level actors need to remember is that: When you communicate you have to be constructive, that is one of the things, and positive because the system makers get so much bad feedback that’s negative that it’s good to sometimes have positive [feedback] and also say some good things. So constructive criticism but also have an alternative [approach to an issue] that you can provide, so you don’t say, ‘Now we need to stop all oil and gas everywhere in the world’ and then what? You have to kind of accept that they are all actors and you give an alternative for [something you want to change] and then after that more alternatives [can be discussed until] when you reach the next step. In this way, you will always have an alternative for something [they] want to deny. I think it’s [a] pretty rational and realistic approach. That is something that I really like in WWF.15

This representative’s observation about actors, particularly IENGOs, trying to get heard by decision-makers is grounded in their experience that when they work it can be beneficial to think beyond the immediate desire to stop or criticize something. This is a valuable observation that hints at the underlining mentality for communication upon which WWF has styled its approach to interaction with different audiences. Over the past sixty-plus years WWF has deliberately worked to slowly contribute to the building of things: designated conservation areas; regulations for renewable resource quotas; international institutions to create standards for sustainable resource management; and safety practices to limit undesired human–wildlife encounters in towns and villages. Its approach to achieving these ends can be debated and in some parts of the world is potentially questionable, as the ongoing investigation into the Cameroon scandal has highlighted, but it rarely communicates about what it is hoping to achieve in a negative fashion; it tries to frame its actions as a positive toward a desirable end, rather than framing its work as against someone

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



The WWF communication style

121

else’s practices, positions or policies.16 This WWF communication feature was noted in detail by one representative who credits the positive tone dimension and a ‘we can help’ attitude for gaining traction with other actors, particularly with government and corporate actors. One individual spoke at length to point out: First of all, we are not the only NGO working with big brands – Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy … they all have corporate relationships … I think these companies have been made aware over the last thirty years of some of the roles that they play in environmental degradation and damage and other issues. Sometimes they have been made aware of that in a really combative, in a let’s say a [IENGO like] Greenpeace using a shame and blame approach which then drives them to say we have got the solve this problem … It’s an ecosystem and the work that organizations like Greenpeace do to highlight the issue, for example, is critical work, but then the companies won’t necessarily [want to partner with Greenpeace to find solutions] … but what they [the company] will do is search out somebody [a different type of IENGO or consultant] that they can talk to about this; how serious [the problem] is and what might be done about it. One of the things that WWF has particularly specialized in over the past two decades has been the world of voluntary standards, voluntary private standards. Like the Marine Stewardship Council or the Forest Stewardship Council or the round table on sustainable palm oil, you name it. There is now literally dozens. These are basically international voluntary standards that have been created using good science that we use as guide posts for corporate partners so if someone says, ‘We want to source sustainable forest products’ we’ll say that the Forest Stewardship Council is the approved international standard for that. We will work with you to both help you change your sourcing over to FSC [Forest Stewardship Council standards] and to also work with your current suppliers to meet that standard. So it becomes a way to transform production outside of the purview of governments, where governments bar requirements may not be and are almost never as high as these private, voluntary standards. These kind of set the top of the market and you start to drive production toward these through these standards. That’s been a very powerful niche of WWF and a very powerful transformation change approach.17

The observation of the WWF member not only highlights their perspective on their organization’s niche skill set and what their

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

122

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

organization brings to the table for international actors seeking ways to help protect the environment or manage or repair their image through making improvements in their environmental footprint but also highlights the fact that other organizations with differing approaches, like Greenpeace, play an important role in the ecosystem of environmental conservation. WWF is exploring ways to sharpen its communication on Arctic conservation-focused environmental concerns to be more forceful in how it gets its points across to the Arctic states. There is a secondary aim to make WWF’s messaging more appealing to the media in the hope of wider coverage of its conservation critiques and goals.18 A prime example of WWF sharpening its messaging on Arctic environmental issues is its introduction of the ‘WWF Arctic Council Scorecard’ (WWF Arctic, 2017a). WWF started its Arctic Scorecard in 2017 and it is a deviation from WWF’s tendency toward writing reports, giving presentations and participating in backroom dialogue. The scorecard leans toward a sharper form of advocacy, with a slight naming and shaming tone targeted at the Arctic states. WWF Arctic has stated that the rationale behind the scorecard is that: The success or failure of the Arctic Council depends upon each nation state’s ability to effectively implement the Council’s recommendations at home. WWF has produced this Scorecard to shed light on the Council’s ability to deliver good governance, greater environmental protection and sustainable development in the Arctic. (WWF Arctic, 2019a)

In the scorecard the organization assesses the eight Arctic states19 – with grades ranging from A to D – on their performance in biodiversity, ecosystem-based management, oil spills, conservation areas, black carbon and methane, and shipping (WWF Arctic, 2019a).20 While WWF is not likely to adopt many of the approaches to communicating used by organizations that use a more outsider or hybrid strategy like Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, IFAW or PETA, its small-scale naming and shaming of the Arctic states through its scorecard is a reflection of WWF Arctic’s recognition that some of the strategies and tactics used by other organizations may be useful to spur change that WWF Arctic and national offices in the Arctic

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



The WWF communication style

123

states have been unable to achieve to date through its traditional communication and lobbying repertoire. One of WWF’s niches as an organization is that it excels in communicating with corporate and government actors behind the scenes. Unless WWF as a whole makes the decision to shift its brand toward a more advocacy-based communication approach, it is unlikely that WWF Arctic’s minor venture into naming and shaming with the scorecard will escalate into its other work in the North. If WWF were to make a large-scale overhaul of its communication style, the whole organization would start to look and behave quite differently. The result would probably be that WWF would risk undercutting its own niche in environmental conservationism, alienating its support base and finding itself competing for audiences and funding with well-established organizations like Greenpeace, IFAW and Sea Shepherd who excel at edgier and riskier communication styles and supporting tactics. The general appeal of WWF’s existing communication style to state and corporate actors is illustrated by the receptiveness to WWF representatives when they attend the Arctic Council meetings (e.g. Gamble and Shadian, 2017: 150). From the perspective of WWF Arctic members that attend the Arctic Council’s meetings, their impression is quite positive in terms of how they think they and their organization are perceived by others in attendance. As one representative noted: WWF is well respected as an observer and as a serious interlocutor and I also have personal connections with people who work in that world so the receptions I get are depended on my own relationships and also the respect within the Arctic Council and its working groups for the WWF and its long-term commitment, serious commitment, that it has brought to the Arctic Council.21

As stated at the beginning of the chapter, the value of WWF’s overarching communication style in fostering trust in the organization for its work in the Arctic, and the North more broadly, cannot be looked at in isolation from the other three pillars examined in this book or from the wider WWF expectations about how national organizations, associate offices and programmes conduct themselves. At the same time, at least one individual felt that, when they started to attend the Arctic Council and were relatively unknown

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

124

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

to the people there, the global influence and position of WWF influenced how others reacted to them at meetings. I am [at meetings representing] WWF so I suspect that, especially when I started, that maybe there was a bit of wariness to engage from heads of delegations from particular governments. There may have been a bit of wariness or a bit of guardedness, I’m not sure but I got that sense, but it may have also been because I am [at the time] a new person, to engage [with me] and maybe people were wondering what our agenda was when we were asking questions or when I’ve asked questions or made comments.22

The same individual also noted that their impression of wariness toward them and their colleagues as WWF Arctic representatives varied depending upon personal experience and the dynamics of the various meeting groups in question. For example, the individual noted that ‘the CAFF working group has been extremely open to input from WWF and has been open to saying that to me as well’, but it depended upon which country was chairing the different working groups.23 The general impression, however, from most WWF representatives spoken to for this research was that receptiveness to them and how they communicated at various Arctic Council meetings was positive and that being seen as a member of WWF encouraged the actors in attendance to listen seriously to the presentations, suggestions and contributions they made. As one representative reflected, in their experience at the Arctic Council when they were a new member first attending the forum on behalf of WWF, the weight of the WWF organizational recognition helped: Me as an individual, I was not known … I felt like WWF was well respected and that the door was open in order to be a constructive player there … Part of our way we work is to try and maintain good communication with most of the people that work there, regardless of whether we are in full agreement or disagreement with each of them [in order to] have a dialogue. It also helped us for a while, quite a while actually, to have a native Russian leading that programme. We have now hired a person from Sweden. It is good to have multiple cultural backgrounds in the [Arctic] programme. That also helps. It’s not just seen as a US organization, which some of the other observers … are … although some of them are changing as well.24

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



The WWF communication style

125

Again, the experience of this representative points to the role that the networks of WWF’s national organizations, WWF Arctic and the individual representatives plays in receptiveness to WWF as a brand, how the organization is seen to communicate stylistically and the points it is trying to make. If WWF were to adopt a new pan-organization policy of changing its communication style to make it more confrontational, however, the representatives of the organization and how they are received in closed-room discussions, like those at the Arctic Council, will likely change and not necessarily for the betterment of WWF, its agendas and its receptiveness amongst actors and audiences with which it currently has a relatively good standing.

Conclusion The WWF communication style is interwoven with the organization’s legacy, networks and use of science to complete its work. The organization’s trademark communication style is characterized by its lobbying approach toward conservationism with some minor advocacy elements, which includes the extensive use of scientific research to: write reports, call for action (e.g. the creation of conservation areas), promote species and ecosystem conservationism, attend meetings, give presentations and hold membership in international forums and institutions. This approach toward communicating with external audiences has served WWF well for about sixty years and it is what its target audiences and the actors it works with have come to expect when interacting with the organization. Nonetheless, in recent years there has been an effort to sharpen the organization’s messaging techniques in order to put greater pressure on governance actors to make changes more quickly and generate media attention to help with the effort. WWF Arctic’s Arctic Council Scorecard is one example of WWF strategically flirting with naming and shaming. WWF Russia’s alliance with Greenpeace Russia on specific campaigns arguably also counts as another example of a WWF office in the North venturing into an alliance with the express aim of taking advantage of its ally’s communication expertise. There are limits, however, to how far WWF offices and programmes can travel down the road of communicating

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

126

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

with methods and using styles that move away from lobbying and toward advocacy before they shift the organization from the ways that have helped it to build and maintain the WWF reputation with audiences and actors that they wish to view them as legitimate and trustworthy. At the moment, WWF representatives report that they are well received at the Arctic Council. WWF’s deliberate focus on framing its global messages in positive terms and looking for ways to be a value-added contributor to corporate change and Arctic diplomacy help reinforce WWF’s overarching niche in environmentalism and global conservationism. Only time will tell how the organization navigates any new directions in its national, Arctic and/or international communication styles that the organization, its national offices and programmes may choose to adopt.

Notes 1 According to one interviewee questioned about WWF’s communication methods: ‘We have press releases … It’s pretty ad hoc in a way. We discuss whether the news or whether the information is relevant to who and how and they decide what to do. It’s really difficult. It really depends on the issue that we are dealing with, I’d say. Of course, we have the publishing of the scorecard, which is our own report on Arctic Council considerations and we make a media plan and we plan ahead ten months in advance before it’s published. We are thinking about how, and what, and when and we have a professional to do that. Also we have a communicator that basically checks our messages are in line and she is facilitating the international communication. But we discuss a lot how a new issue that comes up, what is our position so we don’t just react to something. There is always a thinking process behind it, I think’ (Interview with WWF representative 3). 2 According to Alan Hudson, ‘there is a lot of confusion in the NGO sector around issues of “legitimacy”, with the word often standing in for issues such as representation, transparency, accountability, compliance with legal frameworks, effectiveness and authority’ (Hudson, 2001: 332). 3 Iain Atack, for example, in their work on the relationship between northern-based (as in northern hemisphere) development NGOs and audiences and areas in the South (as in the southern hemisphere) argues

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



The WWF communication style

127

that: ‘Northern-based development NGOs can still achieve a measure of representativeness through being accountable to and dealing transparently with their constituencies, partners or beneficiaries in the South, even though they are not membership organizations’ (1999, 858). 4 See Appendix A for more first-hand experience details. 5 WWF does not operate vessels, but Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd do. 6 According to WWF representative 6, one of the ways WWF Arctic works in order to keep the internal flow of information and ideas going amongst its international members and to help coordinate work and messaging is: ‘Basically we have weekly team meetings and we discuss all the issues that might be [relevant]. It is very good that it is every week and that we are all participating. We also have in the team spirit that we are answering to each other, like accountable in a way, and that we are helping each other on issues that are not necessarily our own area of work.’ 7 Interview with WWF representative 5. 8 WWF has a symbolic species adoption scheme which enables individuals to donate to the organization’s protection efforts for specific species. There is a long list of species that people can pick from to adopt and all species on the list are accompanied by a prominent, eye-catching photograph. From the list, sorted by popularity, the top fifteen species from the WWF International website as of 14 July 2020 are: (1) African Elephant; (2) African Elephant Calf; (3) Polar Bear; (4) Koala; (5) Panda; (6) Three-toed Sloth; (7) Red Panda; (8) Snow Leopard; (9) Giraffe; (10) Great White Shark; (11) Tiger; (12) Sea Turtle Hatchling; (13) Gray Wolf; (14) Blue-footed Booby; and (15) Dolphin (WWF International, n.d., ‘Symbolic species adoptions’). Individual WWF national offices also have pages for wildlife adoption. WWF Canada, for example, has a page for wildlife adoption where you can ‘adopt’ animals such as a giant panda family or an Arctic fox family for $100 CAD; a grey wolf, snowy owl or a walrus for $55 CAD; or a polar bear or Canada Lynx for $45 CAD (WWF Canada, n.d., ‘Wildlife Adoption’). 9 Interview with a WWF representative; owing to the specific nature of discussion about WWF Finland’s work on the Saimaa ringed seal and the quotation used in this discussion, the number of the representative will not be included in order to help protect their identity. 10 Interview with WWF representative 1. 11 Interview with WWF representative 6. 12 Interview with WWF representative 3. 13 Interview with WWF representative 3; for more on WWF–Greenpeace case-by-case cooperation in Russia see Chapter 4.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

128

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

14 Interview with WWF representative; owing to the specific nature of the quotation, the number of the representative will not be included in order to further ensure the protection of their identity. 15 Interview with WWF representative 6. 16 In the interview with WWF representative 6, they elaborated on their perception of the WWF style of framing its messaging in a positive way as much as possible: ‘We don’t use the word criticism. We use the word encourage. We encourage a government to do something … If there is really a chance to be critical we will, but usually we like to encourage organizations, businesses, or governments to do something. But if they do persist in doing something that is bad, we do [use the word criticize]. It’s the use of a positive rather than a negative word. That is kind of what we try to do in general; to be a little bit more positive.’ 17 Interview with WWF representative 8. 18 Interview with WWF representative 6. 19 The 2017 scorecard also included an assessment and grades for the Arctic Council in addition to the eight Arctic states, but an Arctic Council assessment is not on the chart for the 2019 scorecard. 20 It is not clear if a ‘F’ grade can be received since it has not happened in the two scorecards published so far as of the completion of the manuscript in January 2021. 21 Interview with WWF representative 2. 22 Interview with WWF representative 4. 23 Interview with WWF representative; owing to the specific nature of the quotation, the number of the representative will not be included in order to further ensure the protection of their identity. 24 Interview with WWF representative 8.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

6 Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic

For NGOs, ‘[r]elationships are the building blocks of networks and are key to their effectiveness. Although an NGO will struggle to be legitimate in the eyes of all of its stakeholders, the quality of its relationships remains important’ (Hudson, 2001: 332). Given the importance of relationships in NGO work, this chapter seeks to offer a brief triangulation of the views expressed by WWF representatives about their organization and why it is generally well received in Arctic and northern governance discussions. In particular, this chapter focuses on WWF Arctic’s reception in the Arctic Council. This chapter is not a holistic exploration of the reception in the Arctic states but rather a snapshot introductory exploration of the perceptions of some Arctic state and Permanent Participant (PP) representatives’ impressions of WWF’s work. This chapter illustrates that for the most part the Arctic state and PP representatives spoken to for this research expressed the view that WWF Arctic’s entrance and participation in the Arctic Council has helped regional cooperation. Amongst Arctic state officials spoken to, the perception is strong that WWF Arctic and WWF in general is a positive value contributor to the Arctic and the Arctic Council. The few PP opinions obtained during research which contributed to this book were a bit more nuanced. While the organization has been more successful than many IENGOs in building and establishing constructive inroads into the Circumpolar North, the issue of transparency was raised. In particular, some individuals expressed caution regarding whose interests WWF and other IENGOs are trying to, and claiming to, represent when pursuing agendas in the region.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

130

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

‘You can disagree but have a rational discussion’: state representative perceptions of WWF The WWF brand has strong currency at the Arctic Council; WWF Arctic is trusted in the forum in the sense that many Arctic state representatives feel like they know what they are getting into when dealing with the organization and its representatives. This does not mean that the Arctic state representatives or their nation states always agree with WWF Arctic or the national offices on their views and suggestions for changes in Arctic environmental governance; quite the opposite. However, there is a sense that WWF is an environmental organization which state representatives can talk to and work with. Therefore, to understand the appeal of WWF to states and their representatives, it is useful to consider that ‘[t]he empowerment of NGOs in society, through the sector’s focus on developing strong brand identities and greater sophistication in strategies, is one of the main drivers behind the business community’s growing interest in partnering with NGOs’ (Pedersen and Pedersen, 2013: 7). Just as IENGOs have become increasingly attractive to the business community, states are also aware of the strength of some IENGO brands and skill sets and the power that some of their strategies and tactics can have in forwarding their national and international agendas. The WWF brand is very strong and entrenched in public awareness about environmental conservation around the world. As one state official remembered, ‘When I grew up I remember that their brand was so visible. It sort of created, from childhood, a sort of bond with the organization – the panda bear.’ 1 The value of a strong brand is that it helps to convey a set of expectations about what WWF is, whether we want what they are offering and how we can recognize when something is being done in the WWF name in order to help distinguish it from the work and opinions of other groups. The panda logo and what it signifies to some have helped the organization to distinguish itself from other IENGOs by creating boundaries about what kind of work WWF does and is willing to do, and these boundaries help create and support expectations about WWF’s broad approach toward its work, actors and audiences.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic

131

As such, a key element of WWF that state representatives reported in the interviews was their impression that WWF appears to be open to dialogue with them on Arctic and northern issues, either through WWF Arctic or national organizations. The impression of an open-minded and long-standing commitment to participation was repeatedly mentioned and often spoken of in contrast with the experiences that some representatives had with other IENGOs seeking to engage on an issue in the Arctic or elsewhere. As one individual said: With WWF we are sort of used to having them around and part of the discussion. We always have, a least it has been my experience, very informative and enlightening discussions with them. You can have these exchanges of views and listen to them and they will listen to you. [This] is … not the case with [some] other [IENGOs]…. They act like they know everything best and their opinion is the right one.2

Another representative similarly reflected on their working relationship with WWF: ‘You can disagree but have a rational discussion [with WWF] about your disagreements.’ 3 The belief that you can enter into dialogue with WWF stems, in part, from a positive view of the organization’s approach toward international conservationism which is built on its history of connections to elite members of society, such as former politicians and royalty, as high-ranking members of the organization and of having world-leading scientists as experts within its ranks; the people that make up WWF include many wellconnected and highly educated individuals and the status attributed to these individuals has, to some extent, been transferred to the organization as a whole.4 WWF representatives are also seen as knowledgeable and professional, understanding the constraints of time, resources and political agendas that Arctic state representatives must navigate. This comprehension and implicit acknowledgement of the diplomatic environment and its challenges are appreciated by the state representatives. The perception of WWF organizational understanding of the diplomatic challenges that state representatives must manage gives state representatives the impression that WWF Arctic and its personnel are open to helping the Arctic states find ways to develop workable

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

132

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

solutions to regional issues without immediately resorting to shaming tactics or publicly disclosing backroom confidences as pressure tactics to get what they want at the expense of their counterparts. This statecraft-like communication style is credited with helping the organization navigate the murky waters of the IENGO legacy in the Circumpolar North which resulted from the anti-sealing and anti-whaling movements and the more contemporary anti-Arctic oil and gas movement (see Chapters 1 and 2). The broader IENGO legacy clouds many interactions that Arctic states and northern peoples have with IENGOs on matters pertaining to the Arctic and North more broadly in the Arctic Council and wider regional dialogue (e.g. see Burke and Phelps Bondaroff, 2019). One example is in Greenland. One representative observed that: WWF has actually been able to rehabilitate themselves, sort of. There is sort of an opening and they were initially seen as aligned with Greenpeace but now the Greenland government cooperates with WWF, for example up in the northeast Greenland … there is a polar bear infestation and the WWF has helped them in establishing polar bear patrols so that the school children don’t get eaten on their way to school.5

Through WWF’s national organizations in the Kingdom of Denmark, Canada and Russia, the organization runs polar bear patrol programmes. These programmes involve long-running efforts to build on close collaboration, consultation and consideration of local peoples’ experiences – often Indigenous. The WWF national offices work with locals who live with polar bears and the associated dangers to find a balance between the daily reality of cohabitation in a region with wildlife and the conservation of the species.6 The polar bear patrol projects have helped with the image rehabilitation of WWF as a whole in the Arctic and North. The patrol programmes illustrate WWF’s continued work to distance itself from past actions taken, and outcomes caused, by IENGOs at the expense of northern and rural Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and stand as a reminder of a successful concerted effort to let local needs and interests play a leading role in driving the WWF agenda and solutions in balancing Arctic conservationism work with the reality that the Arctic and the North are home to many different peoples and cultures.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic

133

WWF is also seen as having a more helpful, positive approach toward regional critique and problem-solving. Speaking about why WWF is seen as an organization that a state can work with, one individual stated, ‘I think it’s because it’s based on science more than on emotions and they have been more “you shouldn’t do this, you should do that” so they have been more helpful in coming up with solutions and being much more instrumental in participating in the development of stuff.’ 7 IENGOs vary quite a bit in type, size, philosophy, aim and approach. Other more radical organizations communicate in different ways compared with WWF and some government officials are less likely or willing to engage with this approach. As one state official reflected when comparing Greenpeace’s and WWF’s approach to Arctic engagement: Maybe Greenpeace, in the environmental NGO world, they are revolutionaries and WWF, they are the reformist. WWF, I think they see the need for working with people who are in charge of things and try to influence things. Maybe they [WWF] have a longer time perspective so they try to influence by trying to work with governments and businesses and people in charge while Greenpeace, maybe they want immediate change and they don’t really have the patience to do what WWF is doing.8

Furthermore, the individual quoted above also had the perception that ‘WWF has found a very good way of balancing their environmental cause with their need to work with decision-makers and businesses and the people in charge and by doing that, [they] are influencing according to their own agenda from the inside out.’ 9 Actions by organizations that engage in interrupting meetings with media stunts, throwing fake blood on politicians and public figures or harassing representatives, researchers, company employees or hunters as they work (e.g. interfering with sealing on the ice or ramming vessels) (e.g. Patey, 1990; Roswell, 1977; Woods, 1986) typically leave state representatives with the impression that members of these organizations are not actually interested in dialogue. One representative observed that over the years: [Greenpeace] have at times sought to partner with governments but much of what they are known for and some of the reasons why governments distance themselves from Greenpeace are because of the

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

134

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

approaches that Greenpeace has taken over the years. One of the examples in the Arctic is when the Arctic Sunrise came to a Russian oil development and the Russians forcibly removed them and held onto the vessel for a long time and it led to an international court case, but it would be very difficult to image WWF engaging in an activity like that.10

Another state official summed up their impression of WWF’s overall approach toward political engagement and why it resonates with state actors: ‘I think in general [the perception of WWF] is quite good … They lead with science. They lead with policy contributions.’ 11 When asked their opinion on what makes WWF Arctic stand out at the Arctic Council, the same representative said: ‘I think it’s because they come at it [the Arctic] from a science perspective first which is … the Arctic Council’s currency.’ 12 At the Arctic Council, WWF Arctic has distinguished itself through its participation in the working groups and task forces, where much of the daily work of the forum unfolds. One representative posited that: ‘I think it is fair to say that among the NGO observers at the Arctic Council … WWF is almost certainly the most active and engaged.’ 13 Another representative stated that: ‘I think if someone were to do a study or paper on which observer has provided the most to the workings of the Arctic Council, I think you would find WWF ahead of many states.’ 14 In fact, according to research done by Sebastian Knecht (2017) on levels of stakeholder engagement at the Arctic Council, the only observers who have attended more than 50 per cent of the Arctic Council working group meetings are South Korea and the WWF (Knecht, 2017: 170). Knecht’s research reveals that South Korea has attended 79 per cent of the Arctic Council’s various meetings and WWF has attended 61 per cent (Knecht, 2017: 172). In the interviews with state representatives, the most commonly used words to describe WWF were ‘professional’ and ‘prepared’ and the impressions of WWF Arctic’s contributions were quite high. One official noted that they and their delegation had ‘a very good experience with WWF’. In particular: They have been very, I must say, important for the Arctic Council work and they have been very active, they have participated and they

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic

135

have something to say and contribute into the work. They participate also in the working groups and also in task forces. They are always prepared when they come to the meetings … they put a lot of effort in it and a lot of manpower into their participation in the Arctic Council. They are willing and contributing in a very positive and meaningful way.15

It was the opinion of some state representatives spoken to that it was common for state representatives to have disagreements with WWF representatives during dialogue in working groups and task forces. However, state representatives have the impression that these disagreements typically lead to a healthy and fruitful debate which pushes Arctic state officials in their thinking about certain topics, in large part because of WWF Arctic’s approach toward cooperation and compromise. As such, WWF came across as being just pushy enough to the state representatives to move their thinking on issues a bit further without the organization’s actions being viewed as repellent or unhelpful. The skills of WWF Arctic’s representatives, the resources they have at their disposal and their self-restraint in keeping many of their disagreements behind the scenes and limiting negative press when discussion on issues are still in flux16 enable some state officials to feel relatively comfortable participating in frank conversation with WWF representatives. At the same time, the ability of WWF to lead with science and policy contributions is directly linked in the minds of some state officials to the WWF networks that it has amassed over the decades. The trusted scientific underpinning, rather than leading with emotion or media pressure, lends a lot of weight to discursive pushing on Arctic matters by the organization and its representatives. On one level, the trust can be attributed in part to the experience and perception that ‘WWF wants to cooperate with governments and corporations’,17 so states and their representatives feel that they know that WWF will only push so far because they want working relationships to last beyond the immediate topic of discussion. On another level, state representatives are acutely aware of how far WWF’s networks extend and the strength of its brand. These networks and brand power both empower the organization to push on subjects it is particularly focused on and entice states to work

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

136

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

with the organization in order to access these networks and their associated resources, capacity and credibility: It’s a global and recognized organization which has clear goals, which is very connected to governments, other NGOs, scientific and business communities. They have a network of their own which is very influential. If you want to be connected to an NGO that has anything to do with environmental protection or climate issues, it’s the WWF.18

The sheer size and scope of the WWF network, in the Arctic and beyond, mean that state officials are aware that WWF has a degree of access, awareness, knowledge and earned public trust that can make it a very useful partner. As such, the Arctic states and their representatives are interested in tapping into WWF’s broad network and public trust to get some things done in the Arctic region. At the individual representative level in the Arctic, experiences with representatives from WWF Arctic are also a factor in the trust that Arctic state representatives are willing to place in the organization. Reflecting on their own working relationships, one state official commented that: I certainly have [long-]standing relationships with a lot of WWF people who have been there for many years. Yes, they do have some turnover, every organization does, but they have quite a few people who have been at this for a while and often have been at it longer than the individual Senior Arctic Officials and other government officials who rotate on a more regular basis among jobs in their respective governments. So the WWF has an impressive institutional memory about how things have gone in the past and can be a source of advice, informally, to people like me in that sense.19

Another official summarized the experience working with the WWF Arctic and its representatives: ‘I just expect that when WWF says something it is probably their honest opinion and probably based on some fact or science.’ 20 This view of WWF is probably based on the fact that: ‘There is a level of respect and give and take with WWF … WWF is trying to be a player in the policy game in an overtly constructive way.’ 21 Overall, the impression of WWF Arctic amongst representatives of the Arctic states at the Arctic Council is quite good. The WWF, through its networks, representatives and scientific expertise, has

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic

137

built a reputation as a positive contributor to regional work and fostered a perception amongst state representatives at the Arctic Council that WWF should be represented at the forum in some capacity as a result. The organization’s overall approach toward the Arctic and its foundation in high-level science and communication led by educated experts have cultivated trust in what WWF Arctic and Arctic state national organizations are talking about amongst the state representatives, many of whom are not scientists. The fact that WWF has a communication style that the representatives feel comfortable engaging with and far-reaching international networks to tap into in order to get access to the scientific data and experts needed to make informed assessments and to disseminate its work contributes to the overall impression that WWF Arctic’s involvement in the Arctic Council is good.

Indigenous peoples: Permanent Participant representatives In addition to the Arctic states, the Indigenous peoples throughout the Arctic region are also vital and leading players in regional politics. WWF routinely encounters Indigenous peoples’ representatives in different aspects of their work.22 At the Arctic Council, Indigenous peoples are represented through the six PP organizations that have permanent positions, alongside the eight Arctic states, in the forum. These six PP organizations are: Aleut International Association; Arctic Athabaskan Council; Gwich’in Council International; ICC; RAIPON; and Saami Council (Arctic Council, 2022b). WWF Arctic’s interactions with the PP members at the Arctic Council feed into the regional reception of the organization. This section reflects views expressed during interviews with five PP members conducted between 2016 and 201823 and they reveal that, at least on the personal level for some, their experiences with WWF left them with a generally good impression of the organization and its work to date, though there are reservations. The five interviews provide an introductory snapshot of some PP perspectives on WWF in the Arctic but more interviews with a focus on PP/Indigenous peoples–WWF relations are needed for a fuller exploration of the evolution of WWF’s involvement in the Circumpolar North at the local, national, regional and international levels.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

138

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Of the PPs spoken to, the key aspects highlighted which contribute to their impression of WWF centred upon: WWF Arctic’s willingness to help PPs raise awareness of the need for independent Indigenous funds at the Arctic Council and their willingness to provide support to PPs so they can operationalize this ambition; WWF Arctic’s developing cultural awareness; and WWF Arctic’s growing willingness to listen to, and plan around, Indigenous needs. These perceptions are not held by all those spoken to, with one representative calling into question some of the WWF’s decision-making and motivations and another expressing concern about the impact of organizational size on its messaging consistency. A key area that WWF is viewed as stepping up for PPs is funding, which is a major challenge faced by all the PPs. All PPs, except RAIPON, represent peoples that live in multiple countries; RAIPON represents various Indigenous peoples throughout the Russian Federation (Arctic Council, 2022b). The PPs have national offices and peoples to represent throughout the Arctic countries and they have to cover large international areas to do their work (Burke, 2019a: 62–6). The work they must do to represent their peoples at the Arctic Council means that their representatives need to travel to various meetings throughout the Arctic states, be able to travel internally within their homeland to consult with local peoples and communities as well as do research to prepare for meetings, reports, memos, media communication and other administrative tasks, pay for office space and staff, and much more. Furthermore, the PP representatives’ ability to connect with some of their communities via distance technology (e.g. online, telephone) has added challenges, with some parts of the Arctic (e.g. Greenland and Scandinavia) being better digitally connected through fibre-optic cables, mobile phone masts and affordable internet than others (e.g. parts of northern Canada and northern Russia). As such, funding for PP work is a constant challenge (Gamble and Shadian, 2017). The issue of funding is compounded for PPs, given that funding mechanisms for the national branches of international organizations vary greatly between the Arctic states and different Indigenous peoples (Nord, 2016; Burke, 2019a). To help with this funding gap, the observers to the Arctic Council, which include non-Arctic states, intergovernmental organizations and parliamentary committees, and non-governmental committees, have been called

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic

139

upon to do more to help. Some are answering the call to support the PPs, such as Singapore with its Singapore-Arctic Council Permanent Participants Cooperation Package which offers free education opportunities in Singapore for Arctic Indigenous people (Burke and Saramago, 2018). However, there are limits to the usefulness of ‘in-kind’ support like Singapore’s educational opportunities. A big problem with the in-kind financial support approach that observers seem to prefer is that straight financial assistance provides more flexibility (see Burke, 2019a: 62–6 for discussion of in-kind financial support). While all support can have its benefits, in-kind support does not help facilitate the immediate independent decisionmaking of PPs or help them to ‘keep the lights on’ in the sense of giving them the freedom to spend funds where they need money to do their job.24 WWF has tried a different approach.25 For example, WWF has worked with the PPs, the Arctic Funders Collaborative, Institute of the North and Government of Canada to support the establishment of the Álgu Fund (Indigenous People’s Secretariat, 2016; Staalesen, 2017a; Gamble and Shadian, 2017: 154). The Álgu Fund will take the form of a Foundation, which will be based in Sweden and able to accept contributions from around the world and distribute funds to all Permanent Participants. The Fund will be capitalized as an endowment to provide financial resources annually to all Permanent Participants on an equal basis, thereby increasing their ability to support the work of the Arctic Council. Payments will be set at a percentage of the endowment to ensure its long-term viability. In addition, The Álgu Fund will help Permanent Participants to partner with each other and other organizations on Arctic Council projects through project-specific funding capabilities. (Indigenous People’s Secretariat, 2016)

The fund aims to raise help raise 20–30 million US dollars annually to distribute to PPs to help address the direct funding problems these organizations face when trying to represent their people internationally in the Arctic Council (Gwich’in Council International, n.d.). WWF’s involvement in helping to establish the Álgu Fund left a positive impression on some, as it illustrates that WWF is not only engaging with Indigenous peoples but also listening to what they are saying as well.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

140

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Listening and not just hearing is paramount, as one Permanent Participant reflected on their experience: I have one contact within that organization [WWF] and he is very, very good and I like him very much. He has been with the Arctic Council for a long time and he knows his business. That is one of the good experiences that I have had with them, but otherwise in [my country] they are quite quiet so we don’t really notice them much, but they are not interfering with our way of life either. I don’t think they are doing anything that opposes our way of life or our beliefs or anything like that.26

To listen, however, also requires that one be present and WWF is seen to be making the effort to be present year-round in the Arctic and the Arctic Council. There is awareness that WWF has tried to be on the ground by having associate offices and representatives in northern areas year-round. WWF has branch offices in areas such as northern Canada (Iqaluit) and Greenland (Nuuk), for example, in order to help the organization be present locally, and has personnel who hear and learn on the job what is happening at the community level, who are available to discuss issues and topics with Indigenous leadership in person (WWF, 2012; WWF, 2015). At the Arctic Council, two PP representatives observed how WWF operates there and saw their approach as positive and adding value to the forum’s work. They observed during their time at the Arctic Council that the WWF is: very active in Arctic affairs, they put a lot of funding into research and they are very active in the working groups…. They work a lot with the Permanent Participants, so they very much fulfil the criteria. They are an example of an observer that has really stepped up to the plate. Not just observe the meetings, but very much been involved in the work and there are examples of non-Arctic states that have done that too.27 On a personal level, I have a long experience working with the WWF, not so much with the programme [WWF Arctic] that they have but more with the individuals at the meetings. Very knowledgeable and are, to a great extent, contributing to the working group agendas with their projects and expertise.28

While WWF has its strengths in Arctic engagement, some believe that they can overstep the mark on occasion, with representatives

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic

141

not always leaving the impression with Indigenous peoples that they had intended. The WWF approach to nature and conservation, however, is not always well received and some perceived it as against their cultural understanding of and relationship with nature. One individual I spoke to felt strongly that the WWF style of monetizing nature in its campaign material was not only poorly thought through but culturally disconnected from the lived experience of the people that the PP spoken to represents. They [WWF] … embarked upon a system where you basically monetize nature. I saw something where a polar [bear] was said to be worth 13 million dollars and they look at all kinds of ways why that is and they have been pushing the concept, that we should approach it this way, because they think that, and this is just my opinion, I think they think it will appeal to business people … We don’t even begin to understand where they are coming from. It’s so anti what we believe as Inuit. What’s a bowhead whale worth? What’s a culture worth? What’s a language worth? Come on, let’s get real here. There are some things to some people that you can’t monetize…. Most of this comes from social values and cultural perspective and guess what, we don’t all think the same. Even in this country.29

Throughout the long career of this individual, their impression of WWF was reinforced for them by the organization’s marketing strategy and their impression of how some WWF representatives have approached the sustainable development debate (also see Burke, 2019a). One encounter with a WWF representative and the attitude the representative conveyed about sustainable development, in particular, stood out. I was talking to someone from the WWF about shutting down the Chukchi Sea oil exploration and of course they were dancing in the streets when Shell pulled out and so I was talking with this person and this person was complaining that Obama has actually had future plans for oil leases, a couple in Alaska in the Beaufort or Cook Inlet, or whatever, they were listed and she was complaining and it seemed that as far as she should see sustainable development means no development. I said, ‘Let’s say technology evolved and this could evolve and it [oil exploration] could be done then, would you be against it?’ ‘Oh yeah’, so she’d still be against it. So then I asked a

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

142

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

question, ‘What about all these people, particularly in the rural parts of Alaska, how are they going to get energy?’ and she started talking about we could do the wind or we could do all that, so I said, ‘Show me! How fast is that actually moving? When is this going to happen?’ So it’s kind of like shutting something down without having a replacement, but it’s still back to we’re going to control nature rather than what we think which is live with and within nature. It’s quite different and environmental[ists] would proclaim that that’s what they believe in but it’s not true.30

While the experiences of this interviewee were not shared by the other four Indigenous representatives spoken to, they raise an important point and one that some WWF representatives spoken to acknowledged: the hypocrisy of environment groups and environmentalists in trying to hold back Indigenous peoples’ right to improve their standard of living and path to self-governance using the natural resources at their disposal in their homelands (see Chapter 2).31 Furthermore, WWF is a huge organization with WWF Arctic and national organizations, so that members sometimes risk conveying mixed messages when they state positions or personal views on topics, even though the pooling of much of the formal international communication and representation of Arctic work through WWF Arctic does help to mitigate some of this challenge (e.g. see the South Africa whaling discussion in Chapter 2). But completely eliminating mixed messages is hard and their presence can shake trust. A PP representative, for example, noted that the issue of mixed messages by IENGOs such as WWF is something they have heard of from colleagues. The PP representative specifically relayed a conversation they had with another PP representative from ICC: [WWF] might have individuals that have a great understanding into Arctic Indigenous issues and they have a well-defined Arctic Programme, but it is a big organization that has a chapter in Denmark or a chapter in Oslo that might pop up with something that is outside the Arctic Programme and in that sense can harm the Indigenous cultures and that is the risk with big organizations.32

The individual provided WWF’s approach toward polar bears as an illustration. In the Arctic countries’ national organizations, as well as within WWF Arctic, there is an acute awareness that hunting

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic

143

and living with polar bears play an important, and sometimes deadly, part in the daily lives of some Indigenous peoples, such as Inuit. This is a key reason why the WWF has been involved through different national offices in Canada, Greenland and Russia with establishing the polar bear patrol programmes that help local people to sustainably and safely coexist with polar bears in their shared living environments. In other parts of the wider WWF organization and their national offices, such as in national organizations based in non-Arctic western European countries, WWF supporters see the organization’s use of the image of the polar bear as the quintessential charismatic fauna (photogenic animal) typifying the negative impact of climate change on the planet. The implication has been, in the view of the PP representative spoken to, that some PPs are cautious about WWF support for polar bear hunting in the Arctic. There is a general perception that in urban western European locations the polar bear gets prioritized as an animal that must be protected at all costs over the role that the bear plays in the cultural and economic life and safety of Indigenous peoples who must interact with them continuously.33 As the PP representative remembered: ‘I heard it from an ICC Greenland representative that the Arctic Programme of WWF might be respecting Indigenous peoples’ rights but all of a sudden you have the members … [in national offices] against the same principle.’ 34 The perceived inconsistency in the strength of WWF’s stance to support polar bear hunting sows the seed of doubt about local statements of support for Inuit killing of bears by some national organizations. For Inuit living in remote Arctic locations, a complex relationship exists with polar bears and the relationship is very serious. While the right to traditional hunting is one aspect of the relationship, the threat that polar bears can pose to people and communities is also very real – a reality far removed from the lives of most environmental or animal rights organizations’ dues-paying members or their larger donors and media outlets. In August 2018, for example, a Canadian Inuit hunter, Darryl Kaunak, was killed by a polar bear and two others were injured near Naujaat, Nunavut, Canada when they were out hunting caribou and narwhal, the second death that year from a polar bear attack (Canadian Press, 2018). Furthermore, reports of increasing bear sightings near some Arctic communities in Canada are causing concern, with the fallout of

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

144

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Darryl Kaunak’s death resulting in a Naujaat resident and respected local hunter, Laurent Kringayark, stating that: ‘We’re captives in our own town now – because of bears’ (Hutchins, 2019). This sort of experience – having to bury loved ones killed by polar bears, needing armed guards to protect school children from bear attacks and being a resident of a community feeling trapped by bears lurking around your community’s perimeter – is not something that many of those who see polar bears as cuddly and a climate change symbol to be protected at all costs will ever have to consider or deal with. Therefore, when an organization like WWF exhibits inconsistencies with regard to such a nuanced and visceral topic as the relationship that exists between polar bears and northern peoples, especially Indigenous peoples like Inuit, the inconsistencies cast doubts on the organization and their trustworthiness as a partner or ally to help in the long run to manage bear–human interaction and also respect Indigenous hunting rights, culture and community safety concerns.

Conclusion WWF Arctic and its representatives work hard to maintain a positive reception amongst state officials and to build better relations with Indigenous peoples. Trust in WWF’s brand and its contributions to Arctic diplomacy and cooperation have taken many years to cultivate. The use of an insider strategy and associated techniques is a key part of the WWF’s approach, which is reflected in how WWF Arctic participates in dialogue and decision-making in the Arctic, especially within the Arctic Council. The legacies of the anti-sealing and anti-whaling movements linger, however, and the anti-oil and gas movement is reinforcing some of the negative impressions about external non-state actors telling Indigenous peoples how to use and govern their homelands, without these campaigners having to live directly with the reality of the outcomes of their policies and recommendations. As such, PP reflections suggest that there may be room for WWF to grow in its organizational relationships with PPs and Indigenous peoples at large. Resolving real and perceived issues of messaging consistency on subjects sensitive to northern people is seen as a good place for

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Perceptions of WWF in the Arctic

145

WWF Arctic and WWF’s Arctic state national organizations and associate offices to start.

Notes 1 Interview with Arctic state official 3. 2 Interview with Arctic state official 2. 3 Interview with Arctic state official 3. 4 Interview with Arctic state official 3. 5 Interview with Arctic state official 6. 6 The work processes needed to run the patrol programs stand as an example of WWF taking seriously the Arctic Council observer requirement that observers find ways to help contribute to the work of the Permanent Participants. 7 Interview with Arctic state official 6. 8 Interview with Arctic state official 3. 9 Interview with Arctic state official 3. 10 Interview with Arctic state official 5. 11 Interview with Arctic state official 4. 12 Interview with Arctic state official 4. 13 Interview with Arctic state official 5. 14 Interview with Arctic state official 4. 15 Interview with Arctic state official 2. 16 While the WWF Arctic Council Scorecard technically falls within the parameters of naming and shaming, during the interviews no interviewee expressed any opinion about whether they perceived the scorecard as negative messaging or an especially problematic issue in bilateral relations between WWF Arctic and the Arctic Council or the Arctic states. However, as the interviews were not conducted with any particular focus on the scorecard or perceptions of it, it was not an issue about which Arctic state officials were asked any detailed questions. A couple of the interviewees mentioned awareness of it and acknowledged it as yet another way in which WWF communicates its opinions on Arctic environmental matters. 17 Interview with Arctic state official 1. 18 Interview with Arctic state official 1. 19 Interview with Arctic state official 5. 20 Interview with Arctic state official 3. 21 Interview with Arctic state official 5. 22 Arctic state official 5 reflected on WWF–Indigenous relations as follows: ‘I believe that there is some good interaction between the Aleut International

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

146

23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

Association and WWF on Bering Sea related issues so there is probably a good working relationship there. I think WWF in the various WWF organizations in Scandinavia have pretty good working relationships with the Saami Council. I cannot speak to any particular relationship that the Gwich’in or the Athabaskans have with WWF, I just didn’t see it myself. WWF Russia has a very large programme and it probably has engaged at least somewhat constructively with RAIPON.’ I made the judgement call not to contact Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON). They have been constrained by the political situation in Russia, such as being shut down in November 2012 by the national government. As a non-Russian without any prior contacts in the RAIPON organization before doing fieldwork, I did not want to potentially compromise any member of the organization through discussion about politics as part of involvement in this research. The lack of input from RAIPON is a limitation of this section of the book, and on the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives of WWF as a whole in this research. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 5. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 5. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 3. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 1. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 4. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 2. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 2. Interview with WWF representative 5. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 4. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 4. Interview with Permanent Participant Representative 4.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Conclusion

Through the exploration of the questions ‘How does WWF approach working in the Arctic?’ and ‘How is this approach generally received by target regional audiences?’, four inter-related pillars emerge from the primary research to help us understand WWF’s success: legacy, networks, scientific engagement and communication style. These pillars form a framework of the foundational characteristics for how to understand an NGO/IENGO in order to examine their evolution, their internalized self-image and the extent to which they appeal to potential members and external actors and audiences. By embedding the framework of the foundational characteristics of NGOs/IENGOs within a wider exploration of research on NGO/ IENGO legitimacy, stigma/stigmatization, trust, audiences and reputation and brand management, the framework can be used to study the evolution of different organizations and how and why they approach subjects the way that they do while both navigating and cultivating expectations of how the organization operates, what it is and what it represents. Within the context of the study explored in this book, the four pillars framework helps to provide some insight into key reasoning behind how WWF has been able to cultivate a relatively good reputation in the Arctic region at different levels of engagement with key regional audiences and the challenges associated with maintaining the organization’s relatively good standing with key regional actors. However, the exploration in the chapters does not encompass an exhaustive list of all the ways that WWF Arctic, WWF national organizations and associate (regional) offices in the Arctic states have engaged in the Arctic region or the strategies and tactics employed in order to be successful in each local, national, regional

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

148

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

and international context in which WWF programmes and offices operate. What this book does provide is initial insights into how WWF has aimed to be successful in its northern and Arctic conservationism, while triangulating the WWF members’ self-reflection with input from Arctic state representatives and Indigenous organization representatives on their opinions about WWF and its engagement in the Arctic region. While Arctic state representatives were generally receptive to WWF and see the organization as a positive addition to the Arctic Council in the form of WWF Arctic, the opinions expressed by the Indigenous representatives were a bit more nuanced. A view was expressed, for example, that WWF could do more to include ITK – a point that some WWF representatives have also acknowledged as an area where the organization is trying to grow. Another issue raised by Indigenous peoples was communication contradictions amongst the different arms of the WWF organization. A key example noted was Indigenous polar bear hunting, which appears to be supported by some national offices of the WWF organization but not all, thereby leading to mixed messaging to various national audiences about the extent to which WWF stands by Indigenous traditional rights.

Other considerations While I provide an introduction to WWF and its approach to the Arctic and the Circumpolar North, this book is a first step in examining the overarching and nuanced ways in which WWF and other IENGOS engage in regional discussions and debates. The role and approach of IENGOs, and WWF in particular, is an under-explored dimension of Arctic politics and international relations and is an area where a lot more work can, and should, be done. IENGOs are common third-party political actors, some with large donor bases and far-reaching social and political influence, but they are also unelected entities that frequently make claims to speak on behalf of causes, people and wildlife – claims that rarely get rigorously explored and challenged and often get taken at face value by many politicians and people involved in the media. Given the influence and impact of IENGOs in politics in general, and their growing

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Conclusion 149 involvement in and impact on discussions about the North and Arctic specifically, more in-depth exploration is required to question and re-question the legitimacy, accountability and transparency of NGO actors who can directly influence the lives of peoples often unrepresented or under-represented in discourses being pushed by NGO/IENGOs. The legacies of the anti-sealing and anti-whaling movements are a case in point for the need to question and evaluate critically the legitimacy, accountability and transparency of unelected actors inserting themselves into the politics and lives of peoples and regions where many IENGOs have little involvement or connection with the local peoples and cultures that their causes will directly affect. The long-term harm caused by the anti-sealing movement for example looms large in Arctic and northern politics and is a legacy of a lack of NGO/IENGO legitimacy, accountability and transparency in campaigning – a situation where many governments, media and researchers failed to rigorously balance both sides of the debate, accounting for the asymmetrical power dynamics between local peoples and IENGO organizations, before casting aspersions. The book touches upon the reception of WWF’s approach to the Arctic but further examination into the nuances of different Arctic states’ experiences with, and attitudes toward, environmental and animal rights organizations would provide more in-depth understanding of the ways in which WWF national organizations and WWF Arctic navigate their environmental conservation agendas and priorities within different cultural, traditional, political, geographic, economic and linguistic arenas. To what extent does an office being in an Arctic coastal state influence how WWF national offices frame their national Arctic priorities and no-go areas (e.g. come out against certain forms of economic development, such as oil and gas)? And to what extent does the dominant national language of WWF communication influence the likelihood of national topics being picked up by international and English-focused media (e.g. WWF US and WWF Canada operate largely in English whereas WWF Finland operates in Finnish and WWF Russia operates in Russian)? Further examination of questions like these could provide insight into the influence of various Arctic state cultural preferences, histories and current challenges, sensibilities and preferences on the work of the WWF national organizations and on WWF Arctic’s priority areas and agendas. The examination of other questions, such as why there is

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

150

WWF and Arctic environmentalism

no WWF Iceland office or a branch office from WWF Denmark for the Faroe Islands or from WWF Norway for Svalbard,1 could also help us better understand the constraints (e.g. capacity), priorities and internal dynamics and negotiations associated with WWF’s overall Arctic engagement. Another avenue for investigation that could help advance the study of NGOs/IENGOs in the Arctic and North more broadly is an exploration of Indigenous perspectives on WWF, and IENGOs in general. This book provides a small sample of first-person Indigenous opinions, which amounts to a tantalizing glimpse into some Indigenous perspectives. Hopefully, this preview entices other scholars to work more closely with Indigenous peoples and organizations to paint a more robust portrait of Indigenous views from different peoples and countries on the role of IENGOs like WWF national organizations and WWF Arctic in the politics and future of their homelands.

Final thoughts on WWF in the Circumpolar North Generally speaking, WWF Arctic and WWF national organizations in the Arctic states have stood out in a positive way in modern environmental conservationism in the Circumpolar North. The organization appears to always have an eye toward the future and is playing the long game by avoiding flashy trends in how it operates. WWF offices and representatives generally avoid hyperbole in their communication style. They recognize that communicating important information from in-depth scientific studies to the general public and politicians requires that they take the work out of the language of academia and put it into plain speaking while making every effort to avoid undercutting the scientific foundation of the arguments they want to communicate. WWF does a relatively effective job of translating dense scientific data, which helps WWF Arctic and the national organizations to make information more accessible to a wider range of audiences but no less scientific. The actions of some WWF organizations unrelated to the Arctic, however, illustrate the risks associated with IENGO work and the challenges of maintaining trust and legitimacy earned by WWF branches connected to the region. The manner in which WWF Arctic

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Conclusion 151 was affected by WWF South Africa’s anti-whaling campaigning in 1998 during the WWF Arctic bid for Arctic Council observer membership highlights this point (see Chapter 2). But the decentralized nature of WWF offices helps the various parts of the organization to protect trust and institutional integrity. It goes without saying that WWF is not for everyone. Other well-established groups such as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are often miles away from the WWF philosophy, approach toward the environment and priority areas, though occasionally common ground is found, as has occurred on occasion between WWF Russia and Greenpeace Russia. Where WWF seeks to work closely behind the scenes with governments and big business and is open to accepting donations from many state and corporate actors, other environmental and animal rights-focused organizations can see this approach as a conflict of interest. Regardless, WWF has developed a way of engaging with environmental issues that is generally well received by actors it seeks to engage with in and working on the Arctic. WWF has carved out a place for itself in Arctic and northern diplomacy by maintaining awareness of what makes it successful and appealing there through decades of fostering its diplomatic skills and expertise, exercising self-restraint and patience, and navigating regional histories, cultures, wants and needs.

Note 1 During the interviews conducted in 2018, on a few occasions questions were posed about why there was no WWF national office in Iceland or an associated office for WWF Denmark in the Faroe Islands and no WWF representative asked had an answer to these questions.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Appendix A Data collection

This book is informed by research from my project ‘Breaking the ice: INGOs as Arctic Council observer status applicants (ACOSA)’, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and invocation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 746312. For this project I conducted semi-structured interviews with thirty-seven people between April 2018 and March 2019. Additionally, interview data collected in 2016 and 2017 for my project funded by the Carlsberg Foundation on Arctic Council diplomacy (Burke, 2019b), which inspired the Marie Curie project and interviews conducted with Permanent Participant representatives during the Carlsberg project, were also used in this book.1 Finally, additional supplementary research was also included in this book from archival research from the Centre for Newfoundland Studies (CNS),2 collected in spring–summer 2020, and the Ferriss Hodgett Library, Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN) Corner Brook Campus.3 This research is related to my research project ‘Amending the EU seal product ban’, supported by a J. R. Smallwood Foundation Fellowship (2020–22). The research project explored the impact of environmental and animal rights organizations during the anti-sealing movement on rural peoples in Newfoundland and Labrador and focused on the legacy of cultural, psychological and economic violence inflicted on sealing cultures. The interview data used in this book primarily reflects on the responses from interviews conducted in 2018–19 with: Arctic Council officials that have, or had, been involved in observer application assessments; representatives from the World Wide Fund for Nature/ World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – both national office representatives that do work within their country’s North/Arctic and members of

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Appendix A

153

WWF Arctic; Permanent Participant and Indigenous community representatives; 4 other individuals such as a consultant to the Arctic Council with years of Arctic advocacy experience; and a couple of academics, including a retired academic with over twenty years of experience researching and who had consulted for the Arctic Council.5 The conversations and interviews were conducted in person in various locations throughout the Arctic states and a select number of other locations, as well as a few interviews by telephone and over Skype. As part of the fieldwork, which primarily took place between September 2018 and January 2019, I travelled to seven of the eight Arctic states, Switzerland and the Netherlands.6 In total, eleven people were spoken to as part of this project from WWF who are either part of WWF Arctic and/or work on Arctic issues at the national offices.7 I also spoke to nine Arctic state officials closely involved, or formerly involved, in their state’s assessment of observers and representation at the Arctic Council. Furthermore, five interviews with Permanent Participant representatives conducted between 2016 and 2018 are reflected in this book. In the book most of the interviews are anonymized but broad acknowledgement is given to their affiliation to give weight to their reflections – e.g. WWF representative, Arctic state representative and Permanent Participant representative. Numbers are assigned to the interviewees in the endnotes to denote different people with the same broad affiliation and to help avoid confusion about quotations and references for multiple sources with the same organization/label/ group. On occasion, however, individuals are not credited to even their interview number when the subject matter they are speaking about is specific and to attribute the interview number, in conjunction with other quotations used from the interviews, may risk revealing their identity. In these instances, endnotes explain the rationale behind the lack of reference to a specifically numbered interviewee. Some individuals, however, consented to the use of their identity in the primary research project from which this book draws its primary interview material. Interviewees such as Halldór Jóhannsson (Director of the Arctic Portal),8 Jerry Natanine (Mayor of Clyde River/ Kanngiqtugaapik) and academic Warren Bernauer all consented to the use of their names in this project. Most WWF interviewees had

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

154

Appendix A

originally consented to the use of their names in the project. Three individuals, however, requested that their names not be attributed to their comments but were comfortable being identified as associated with WWF and four requested to approve quotations before publication. To accommodate the range of participation levels and to protect identities, particularly as the Global Arctic Programme is a finite and identifiable group (see Appendix B), all WWF interviews are given the generic title of WWF representative. To distinguish between the different interviews, they are also assigned numbers – e.g. WWF representative 1.9

Notes 1 In total sixty-six interviews were conducted for the Carlsberg project, seven of which were research design and advisory conversations. A consolidation of this research can be found in my book Diplomacy and the Arctic Council, published by McGill-Queens University Press in 2019. 2 The CNS is located at the Queen Elizabeth 2nd Library at Memorial University of Newfoundland’s St. John’s Campus. 3 Special thanks to Colleen Field for her help, and that of her colleagues, with data collection at the CNS and to Nicole Holloway of the Ferriss Hodgett Library, Grenfell Campus, MUN for their assistance accessing library resources during the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. 4 There is no WWF office in Iceland and there is no regional associate office in the Faroe Islands, though WWF Denmark has an office in Greenland. Also, an invitation to participate in the project was extended to the Russian SAO office but no response was received. 5 All interviewees were asked to reflect on their personal experiences and opinions, and they are not speaking officially on behalf of their states or organizations. 6 I did not travel to Russia for this project but I did speak to individuals doing work for various organizations in Russia. After considering the potential risks and gains for myself and for my project participants, given some of the politically-charged subject matter being discussed, I decided to do interviews with Russian representatives by telephone and Skype. 7 This research also included interviews with representatives of Greenpeace, but this dimension of the research project is only reflected minimally in this book. One interview I conducted with a Greenpeace member, Mads Flarup Christensen for Greenpeace Nordic, is referenced in this book.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document



Appendix A

155

8 You can learn more about the Arctic Portal on their website (Arctic Portal, n.d.). 9 To further protect the identities of the WWF interviewees no exact date is given for these interviews. All interviewees were emailed and notified after the decision was made to not use their identities in the project. This decision was made in consultation with legal counsel and leadership within the International Politics Section of the Department of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern Denmark after an experience at a conference in which a WWF Arctic member pressed me to give them a list of my interviewees. When I declined the request, I was subsequently contacted by a programme member I spoke to and they requested a change in the nature of their participation in the project, with the individual who approached me at the conference being copied on the correspondence. The interviewee transferred editorial rights to their interview to the individual who approached me at the conference. To protect my interviewees and the integrity of the project, I concealed the names of all interviewees and have declined to reference the interview that the individual who approached me now has editorial rights for from the interviewee to edit on their behalf. I have also declined to directly reference specifics from my conversation with the individual from the conference, except to acknowledge broadly what occurred and its implications on the project. Upon the advice of the University of Southern Denmark Legal Services, I was advised not to reveal the name of the individual who approached me, the conference or the country in which it was held in this book.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Appendix B WWF Global Arctic Programme personnel

The data in this table was compiled in March 2019. The membership and information on the members in this list reflect data publicly available in the profile pages for the individual members at the time of its compilation in March 2019 and may not be reflective of current information as listed on the WWF Arctic Programme website about its team members and leadership roles within the programme.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Name David Aplin Tom Arnbom Elena Agarkova Belov Nils Harley Boisen Mark Brooks

Specialization Resource management and history Arctic and marine issues Environmental law

Education

Occupational experience

Country office

Masters

No Data

US

No Data JD (Juris Doctor) Masters

No Data No Data

Sweden US

Lived 16 years in Norway

Norway

No Data

With WWF since March 2017 (2 years)

Canada

No Data

Former government advisor; no specific dates provided

Canada

Masters

20 years’ experience with non-profits, media, government and universities

Canada*

Paul Crowley

Ecology and natural resources Arctic oil and gas specialist, economics and environmental studies Sustainable fisheries and rural economic development Communications, journalism, political science Sustainable development

No Data

Canada

Rob Downie

Chief advisor**

No Data

20 years’ experience on aspects of sustainable development in the Arctic and internationally 20 years on polar regions, first with British Antarctic Survey; 6 years with WWF

Doug Chiasson

Leanne Clare

UK

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Name Andrew Dumbrille Mette Frost Martine Giangioppi Kaare Winther Hansen Femke Hilderink Erin Keenan

Ekaterina Khmeleva Alexey Knizhnikov

Specialization

Education

Arctic shipping, climate change, oceans governance Senior advisor, Greenland and the Arctic** Geomorphology Project coordinator

No Data

Human–wildlife conflict

No Data

Global development and environmental studies, marine management and conservation Environmental law

Masters

Nature conservation

No Data

Occupational experience

Country office

No Data

25 years in the environmental NGO sector

Canada

No Data

No Data

Denmark

Masters

15 years as an oceans advisor with Fisheries and Oceans Canada No Data

Canada

PhD

2011 literature study of human-polar bear; 2017 co-coordinator of WWF Human– Wildlife Conflict working group Joined in 2017

Almost 20 years as an environmental NGO lawyer before joining WWF Doing scientific expeditions since age 14; nature conservation since the 1990s

Denmark (Greenland) Netherlands

Canada

Russia Russia

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Alexey Kokorin***

Climate change expert

PhD

Elisabeth Kruger

Arctic conservation, marine ecosystems, impact of climate change and coastal communities Wildlife biology, animal nutrition and metabolism, and changing climate effects on polar bear diets Conservation biology and genetics Renewable energy industry and photovoltaic engineering Geography, Arctic governance, natural resource polities and climate change Geography and environmental studies

No Data

Brandon Laforest

Melanie Lancaster Martha Lenio

Lotta Manninen

Melissa Nacke

Either the principal investigator or a key expert in over 20 projects about problems associated with climate change Irkutsk for four years before joining WWF

Russia

US

PhD

Last 3 years (from undisclosed publication date) in Iqaluit, NU with WWF

Canada

PhD

No Data

Canada*

PhD

No Data

Canada

PhD

Over 10 years of professional Arctic experience

Finland*

Masters

No Data

Canada

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Name Monique Newton

Colleen Parker

Gert Polet Sergey Rafanov Liisa Rohweder Martin Sommerkorn Mikhail Stishov

Specialization

Education

Occupational experience

Country office

Helping to design and run a funding programme focused on capacity and accountability Leads WWF Canada’s conservation projects for the Beaufort Sea region; MA in geography in food security Human–wildlife conflict management Head, Kamchatka-Bering Sea Ecoregional office** Sustainable development Resilience approaches to nature conservation and resource management Geographer; nature reserve and studied polar bears and other Arctic species

Masters + trained mediator

20 years of non-project and NGO sector experience

Canada*

Masters

Lives in Inuvik, NT

Canada

No Data

With WWF since 2007

Netherlands

No Data

No Data

Russia

PhD No Data

No Data No Data

Finland Norway*

No Data

20 years living on Wrangel Island

Russia

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Oleg Sutkaitis

Conservation of natural diversity of the Barents, White and Kara Seas

No Data

Sybille Klenzendorf

PhD

Margaret Williams

Intellectual and operational leadership on polar bear conservation issues with a focus on polar bear– human conflict and population ecology and management WWF US Arctic Field Program, Anchorage**

Peter Winsor

Oceanographer

No Data

PhD

Joined WWF in 2004. 10 years of civil service experience prior to WWF where he was responsible for the development of natural protected areas and conservation of rare and endangered species From 2007–2013 Managing director for WWF US Species conservation and wildlife trade programmes; came to the United States in 1991 and has continued to work internationally finding innovative solutions in wildlife conservation Joined WWF in 1997; before joining the WWF, consultant to the World Bank on biodiversity projects in Russia and Central Asia 20 years as an oceanography professor

Russia

US

US

US*

*WWF Arctic Coordinating Team; the Director of the WWF Arctic Programme is Peter Winsor. ** No exact specialization is given in the online profile; included is their title. *** Dr Kokorin ‘participated to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for popularization of climate science’. Source: WWF Arctic, 2019b.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

References

Adamson, Thomas. (2016). ‘Meet the fugitive on Interpol’s red list ramming whaling ships’. Insider, 28 May. www.businessinsider.com/ap-sea-shepherdfounder-paul-watson-rams-whalers-for-a-living-2016-5 (accessed 17 July 2020). Álgu Fund. (n.d.). ‘The Álgu Fund’. www.algufund.org/ (accessed 23 February 2019). Allen, Jeremiah. (1979). ‘Anti-sealing as an industry’. Journal of Political Economy 87: 423–8. Altherr, Sandra. (n.d.). ‘Iceland’s whaling comeback: preparations for the resumption of whaling’. The Humane Society of the United States. www. humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/archive/assets/pdfs/Iceland_report_pt1. pdf (accessed 30 November 2020). Amagoh, Francis. (2015). ‘Improving the credibility and effectiveness of non-governmental organizations’. Progress in Development Studies 15(3): 221–39. AMAP. (2017). ‘Snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic: summary for policy-makers’. Arctic Council. www.amap.no/documents/download/2888/ inline (accessed 19 June 2020). Arctic Council. (2013a). ‘Arctic Council rules of procedure as revised by the Arctic Council at the 8th Arctic Council ministerial meeting’. Kiruna, Sweden, 15 May 2013. Tromsø: Arctic Council Secretariat. http://hdl.handle.net/11374/940 (accessed 1 June 2020). Arctic Council. (2013b). ‘Observer manual for subsidiary bodies as adopted by the Arctic Council at the 8th Arctic Council ministerial meeting’. Kiruna, Sweden, 15 May 2013. Tromsø: Arctic Council Secretariat. http://hdl.handle.net/11374/939 (accessed 1 June 2020). Arctic Council. (2015). ‘Arctic Council observer manual for subsidiary bodies: Addendum’. Tromsø: Arctic Council Secretariat. http:// hdl.handle.net/11374/939 (accessed 1 June 2020). Arctic Council. (2018). ‘Arctic Council SAO executive meeting 31 October 2018, Rovaniemi, Finland’. http://hdl.handle.net/11374/2419 (accessed 19 June 2020).

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

References 163 Arctic Council. (2020). ‘World Wide Fund for Nature, Arctic Programme (WWF)’. https://arctic-council.org/en/about/observers/non-governmentalorganizations/wwf/ (accessed 1 December 2020). Arctic Council. (2022a). ‘Observers’. https://arctic-council.org/about/ observers/ (accessed 29 September 2019). Arctic Council. (2022b). ‘Permanent Participants’. https://arctic-council.org/ about/permanent-participants/ (accessed 30 November 2017). Arctic Portal. (n.d.). ‘About us’. https://arcticportal.org/about-us (accessed 23 April 2017). Arts, Bas. (2001). ‘The impact of environmental NGOs on international conventions’. In Non-State Actors in International Relations, edited by Bas Arts, Math Noortmann and Bob Reinalda. Aldershot: Ashgate. Atack, Iain. (1999). ‘Four criteria of development NGO legitimacy’. World Development 27(5): 855–64. Barents Euro-Arctic Region. (2016). ‘Joint Barents transport plan: proposals for development of transport route’. www.barentsinfo.fi/beac/docs/ JointBarentsTransport_Plan_15_06_2016_eng.pdf (accessed 1 June 2020). Barents Euro-Arctic Region. (2017). ‘Joint Barents transport plan: revised draft, main report’. Swedish Chairmanship, 2017–19. www.barentsinfo.fi/ beac/docs/JBTP2019_MAIN_REPORT_190910.pdf (accessed 1 June 2020). Barkham, Patrick. (2017). ‘Human rights abuses complaint against WWF to be examined by OECD’. The Guardian, 5 January. www.theguardian.com/ environment/2017/jan/05/oecd-to-examine-complaint-against-wwf-overhuman-rights-abuses-in-cameroon (accessed 29 September 2019). Baur, D. and G. Palazzo. (2011). ‘The moral legitimacy of NGOs as partners of corporations’. Business Ethics Quarterly 21(4): 579–604. BBC News. (2010). ‘Greenpeace Cairn rig activists arrested off Greenland’. 2 September. www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland11163225 (accessed 9 April 2020). BBC News. (2015). ‘“Paddle in Seattle” Arctic oil drilling protect’. 17 May. www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32770382 (accessed 29 September 2019). BBC News. (2019). ‘WWF accused of funding guards who torture and kill in poaching war’. 4 March. www.bbc.com/news/world-47444297 (accessed 29 September 2019). Berlie, Laurence Schwesinger. (2010). Alliances for Sustainable Development: Business and NGO Partnerships. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Betsill, Michele M. and Elisabeth Corell. (2008). ‘Introduction to NGO diplomacy’. In NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations, edited by Michele M. Betsill and Elisabeth Corell. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

164 References Booth, John A. and Patricia Bayer Richard. (2012). ‘Untangling social and political capital in Latin American democracies’. Latin American Politics and Society 54(3): 33–64. Brugger, Philipp, Andreas Hasenclever and Lukas Kasten. (2017). ‘Trust among international organizations’. In Palgrave Handbook of Interorganizational Relations in World Politics, edited by Joachim A. Koops and Rafael Biermann. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Burke, Danita Catherine. (2018). International Disputes and Cultural Ideas in the Canadian Arctic: Arctic Sovereignty in the National Consciousness. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Burke, Danita Catherine. (2019a). Diplomacy and the Arctic Council. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press. Burke, Danita Catherine. (2019b). ‘Diplomatic nimbleness of Arctic Council prevails over the Crimea conflict’. Carlsberg Foundation, 21 June. www.carlsbergfondet.dk/en/Forskningsaktiviteter/Research-Projects/ Other-Research-Projects/Danita-Catherine-Burke_Arctic-Council (accessed 15 December 2021). Burke, Danita Catherine. (2020a). ‘Re-establishing legitimacy after stigmatization: Greenpeace in the North American North’. Polar Record 56(e26): 1–12. Burke, Danita Catherine. (2020b). ‘Santa Claus: a northern icon’. Chatter Marks: Anchorage Museum. www.anchoragemuseum.org/major-projects/ projects/chatter-marks/articles/santa-claus-a-northern-icon/ (accessed 1 December 2020). Burke, Danita Catherine. (2020c). ‘Trust and the WWF in the Arctic’. In Non-Human Nature in World Politics: Theory and Practice, edited by Joana Castro Pereira and André Saramago. Cham: Springer. Burke, Danita Catherine. (2021a). ‘A case for a Newfoundland and Labrador northern strategy’. The Polar Journal. https://doi.org/10.108 0/2154896X.2021.1970269 (accessed 15 December 2021). Burke, Danita Catherine. (2021b). ‘The case for a Greenpeace apology to Newfoundland and Labrador’. The Northern Review 51: 173–87. Burke, Danita Catherine and André Saramago. (2018). ‘Singapore’s use of education as a soft power tool in Arctic cooperation’. Asian Survey 58(5): 920–41. Burke, Danita Catherine and Teale N. Phelps Bondaroff. (2019). ‘Becoming an Arctic Council NGO observer’. Polar Record 54 (5–6): 349–59. Cameron, S. D. (2009). ‘Paul Watson: the journey of Sea Shepherd’. The Green Interview. https://thegreeninterview.com/interview/watson-paul/ (accessed 1 June 2020). Canadian Press. (2018). ‘Inuit hunter killed, two injured in polar bear attach in Nunavut’. 28 August. https://globalnews.ca/news/4415128/ inuit-hunter-killed-polar-bear-attack-nunavut/ (accessed 23 February 2019).

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

References 165 Carmin, JoAnn. (2010). ‘NGO capacity and environmental governance in Central and Eastern Europe’. Acta Politica 45(1/2): 183–202. Carter, Neil. (2001). The Politics of the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, Neil. (2007). The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CBC The Broadcast with Jane Adey. (2021). ‘Sealer reacts to call for Greenpeace to apologize to sealers in NL’. CBC Radio, 2 June. www.cbc.ca/ listen/live-radio/1–122-the-broadcast/clip/15847237-sealer-reacts-callgreenpeace-apologize-sealers-n.l (accessed 1 April 2022). Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie and Janet Welsh Brown. (2014). Global Environmental Politics. Sixth edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Cherfas, Jeremy. (1990). ‘Greenpeace and science: oil and water?’ Science: New Series 247(4948): 1288–90. Chorush, Jacquelyn. (2019). ‘Seattle City Council takes a firm stance against Arctic drilling, weakens Indigenous rights in the process’. High North News, 26 September. www.highnorthnews.com/en/arctic-oil-boycott-cherrypicking-indigenous-perspectives-all-too-common-among-southerners-expert (accessed 9 April 2020). CITES. (n.d.). ‘The CITES Appendices’. www.cites.org/eng/app/index.php (accessed 20 April 2020). Coburn, Laura, Gloria Riviera, Durrell Dawson and Lauren Effron. (2018). ‘In Iceland, activists, industry are waging war over commercial whaling’. ABC News, 17 October. https://abcnews.go.com/International/icelandactivists-industry-raging-war-commercial-whaling/story?id=58561835 (accessed 30 November 2020). Cochrane, J. A. and A. W. Parsons. (1949). The Story of Newfoundland. Toronto: Ginn and Company. Coffey, John W. and Robert R. Hoffman. (2003). ‘Knowledge modeling for the preservation of institutional memory’. Journal of Knowledge Management 7(3): 38–52. Cunningham, Paul A., Edward H. Huijbens and Stephen L. Wearing. (2012). ‘From whaling to whale watching: examining sustainability and cultural rhetoric’. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(1): 143–61. Dale, S. (1996). McLuhan’s Children: The Greenpeace Message and the Media. Toronto: Between the Lines. Darby, A. (2007). Harpoon: Into the Heart of Whaling. New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Elliot-Meisel, Elizabeth B. (1998). Arctic Diplomacy: Canada and the United States in the Northwest Passage. New York: Peter Lang. Eremenko, Alexey. (2014). ‘Q&A: WWF, Greenpeace: a tale of two environmental giants’. The Moscow Times, 11 December. www.themoscowtimes.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

166 References com/2014/12/11/qa-wwf-greenpeace-a-tale-of-two-environmental-giantsa42225 (accessed 22 June 2020). Fogarty, Edward A. (2011). ‘Nothing succeeds like access? NGO strategies towards multilateral institutions’. Journal of Civil Society 7(2): 207–27. Forest Stewardship Council. (n.d.). ‘World Wildlife Fund Canada’. https:// ca.fsc.org/en-ca/web-page-/world-wildlife-fund-canada (accessed 22 June 2020). Fouhy, Ken. (1995). ‘Greenpeace admits it erred in Brent Spar analysis’. Chemical Engineering 102(10): 51. Gamble, Jim and Jessica M. Shadian. (2017). ‘One Arctic … but uneven capacity: the Arctic Council Permanent Participants’. In One Arctic: The Arctic Council and Circumpolar Governance, edited by P. Whitney Lackenbauer, Heather Nicol and Wilfrid Greaves. Ottawa: Canadian Arctic Resource Committee. Gardner, C. and W. Gronfein. (2014). ‘Tribal stigma’. In Encyclopedia of Social Deviance, edited by C. J. Forsyth and H. Copes. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice. Gordon Foundation: Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program. (2015). ‘Rethinking the top of the world: Arctic public opinion survey, vol. 2’. http://gordonfoundation.ca/resource/rethinking-the-top-of-the-world-arcticpublic-opinion-survey-vol-2/ (accessed 23 February 2019). Government of the Faroe Islands. (2018). ‘Whaling in the Faroe Islands’. www.government.fo/en/foreign-relations/whaling-in-the-faroe-islands/ (accessed 23 February 2019). Grace, Sherrill. E. (2001). Canada and the Idea of North. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Graczyk, Piotr. (2011). ‘Observers in the Arctic Council – evolution and prospects’. The Yearbook of Polar Law Online 3(1): 575–633. Grant, Shelagh. (1989). ‘Myths of the north in the Canadian ethos’. The Northern Review 3/4 (Summer/Winter): 15–41. Greenpeace. (n.d.). ‘Commercial whaling banned’. www.greenpeace.org/ usa/victories/commercial-whaling-banned/ (accessed 30 November 2020). Greenpeace. (2012). ‘U.S. activist and head of Greenpeace board Gazprom Arctic oil platform’. 24 August. www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/us-activistand-head-of-greenpeace-board-gazprom-arctic-oil-platform/ (accessed 22 June 2020). Greenpeace International. (n.d.). ‘Save the Arctic’. www.greenpeace.org/ international/act/save-the-arctic/ (accessed 30 November 2020). Gulbrandsen, Lars H. and Steinar Andresen. (2004). ‘NGO influence in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: compliance, flexibility mechanisms, and sinks’. Global Environmental Politics 4(4): 54–75.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

References 167 Gwich’in Council. (n.d.). ‘The Álgu fund’. https://gwichincouncil.com/%C3% A1lgu-fund (accessed 31 May 2020). Hale, Thomas N. (2008). ‘Transparency, accountability and global governance’. Global Governance 14: 73–94. Hampel, C. and P. Tracey. (2019). ‘Introducing a spectrum of moral evaluation: integrating organizational stigmatization and moral legitimacy’. Journal of Management Inquiry 28(1): 11–15. Hardin, Russell. (2006). Trust. Cambridge: Polity Press. Harfenist, Ethan. (2016). ‘Rare Finnish seal is webcamming – to save its life’. Vocativ, 17 May. www.vocativ.com/319579/rare-finnish-seal-iswebcamming-to-save-its-life/ (accessed 2 December 2020). Harter, John-Henry. (2004). ‘Environmental justice for whom? Class, new social movements, and the environment: a case study of Greenpeace Canada, 1971–2000’. Labour/Le Travail 54(2004): 83–119. Holland, Eva. (2018). ‘Training the polar bear patrol’. Hakai Magazine, 8 May. www.hakaimagazine.com/features/training-the-polar-bear-patrol/ (accessed 11 April 2022). Hudson, Alan. (2001). ‘NGOs’ transnational advocacy networks: from “legitimacy” to “political responsibility”?’ Global Networks 1(4): 331–52. Hunter, Robert. (2009). The Greenpeace to Amchitka: An Environmental Odyssey. N.p.: Arsenal Pulp Press. Hutchins, Aaron. (2019). ‘To kill a polar bear’. Macleans, 15 April. www.macleans.ca/to-kill-polar-bear/ (accessed 30 July 2019). Indigenous People’s Secretariat. (2016). ‘The Álgu Fund’. https://oaarchive. arctic-council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/1812/EDOCS-3816-v1AACSAOUS203_Portland_2016_7–2_Algu_Fund.PDF?sequence=1&isAl lowed=y (accessed 18 July 2020). Johnson, Eric M. and Alex Dobuzinskis. (2015). ‘Arctic oil rig departs Seattle-area port despite protest’. Reuters, June 30. www.reuters.com/ article/us-usa-shell-arctic/arctic-oil-rig-departs-seattle-area-port-despiteprotest-idUSKCN0PA10X20150630 (accessed 11 April 2022). Kamenetz, Anya. (2008). ‘Clorox goes green’. Fast Company, 9 January. www.fastcompany.com/958579/clorox-goes-green (accessed 15 April 2018). Karvonen, Andrew and Ralf Brand. (2016). ‘Expertise: specialized knowledge in environmental politics and sustainability’. In Routledge Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, edited by Paul G. Harris. New York: Routledge. Keating, Vincent and Erla Thrandardottir. (2017). ‘NGOs, trust, and the accountability agenda’. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19(1): 134–51. Keck, M. E. and K. Sikkink. (1999). ‘Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics’. International Social Science Journal 51(159): 89–101.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

168 References Kerr, Joanna. (2014). ‘Greenpeace apology to Inuit for impacts of seal campaign’. Greenpeace, 24 June. www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/ story/5473/greenpeace-apology-to-inuit-for-impacts-of-seal-campaign/ (accessed 19 August 2020). Knecht, Sebastian. (2017). ‘Exploring different levels of stakeholder activity in international institutions: late bloomers, regular visitors, and overachievers in Arctic Council working groups’. In Governing Arctic Change: Global Perspectives, edited by Kathrin Keil and Sebastian Knecht. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Koivurova, Timo, E. Carina, H. Keskitalo and Nigel Bankes. (2009). Climate Governance in the Arctic. N,p,: Springer. Larson, Deborah Welch, T. V. Paul and William C. Wohlforth. (2014). ‘Status and world order’. In Status in World Politics, edited by T. V. Paul, Deborah Welch Larson and William C. Wohlforth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Larson, Deborah Welch and Alexei Shevchenko. (2010). ‘Status seekers: Chinese and Russian responses to U.S. primacy’. International Security 34(4): 63–95. Lee, M. (1995). Earth First! Environmental Apocalypse. New York: Syracuse University Press. Li, Shuoyan and Xiaonan Wang. (2020). ‘Seeking credibility from uncertainty: how formal cooptation institution unleashes outspoken NGOs’. Voluntas 31(2020): 711–21. Link, B. G. and J. C. Phelan. (2001). ‘Conceptualizing stigma’. Annual Review of Sociology 27(2001): 363–85. Lister, Sarah. (2003). ‘NGO legitimacy: technical issue or social construct?’ Critique of Anthropology 23(2): 175–92. Liu, Gordon, Teck-Yong Eng and Yasmin Kaur Sekhon. (2013). ‘Managing branding and legitimacy: a study of charity retail sector’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(4): 629–51. McBeath, Jerry and Jonathan Rosenberg. (2006). Comparative Environmental Politics. Dordrecht: Springer. MacDonald, Ian. (1998). ‘You can help stop the slaughter at sea’. WWF South Africa, June 1998. Two-page letter to WWF supporters from the chief executive of WWF South Africa. McDonald, Matt. (2016). ‘Bourdieu, environmental NGOs, and Australian climate politics’. Environmental Politics 25(6): 1058–78. McVeigh, Karen. (2019). ‘WWF accused of funding guards who “tortured and killed scores of people”’. The Guardian, 4 March. www. theguardian.com/global-development/2019/mar/04/wwf-accused-of-fundingguards-who-allegedly-tortured-killed-scores-of-people (accessed 23 February 2020).

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

References 169 Mitchell, George E. and Sarah S. Stroup. (2016). ‘The reputation of NGOs: peer evaluations of effectiveness’. Review of International Organisations 3(12): 397–419. Mompó, Maite. (2014). Rainbow Warriors: Legendary Stories from Greenpeace Ships. Oxford: New Internationalist. Montague, Peter. (2008). ‘Sierra Club removes leadership of its Florida chapter’. Grist, 29 March. https://grist.org/article/the-clorox-debaclecontinues/ (accessed 30 November 2019). MSC. (n.d.). ‘What is the MSC?’ www.msc.org/about-the-msc/what-is-the-msc (accessed 28 May 2020). Næss, A. (1973). ‘Shallow and deep long-range ecology movements’. Inquiry 16: 95–100. National Geographic. (2016). ‘Arctic’. www.nationalgeographic.org/ encyclopedia/arctic/ (accessed 11 April 2022). Nilsen, Thomas. (2018). ‘WWF urges Norway to protect its Arctic forests to help fight climate change’. Eye on the Arctic, 11 September. www.rcinet.ca/ eye-on-the-arctic/2018/09/11/norway-taiga-boreal-forest-conservationenvironment-pasvik-valley-arctic-climate-change-wwf-action/ (accessed 22 June 2020). Nord, Douglas. (2016). The Arctic Council: Governance within the Far North. London and New York: Routledge. Oberthür, S., M. Buck, S. Müller, S. Pfahl, R. G. Tarasofsky, J. Werksman and A. Palmer. (2002). Participation of Non-Governmental Organisations in International Environmental Governance: Legal Basis and Practical Experience. Berlin: Ecologic-Institute for International and European Environmental Policy. Oceana Europe. (n.d.). ‘Arctic: overview’. https://eu.oceana.org/en/eu/ourwork/habitats-protection/rest-of-the-world/arctic/overview (accessed 11 April 2022). Oceana USA. (n.d.). ‘The Arctic: preserving special places’. https://usa.oceana. org/our-campaigns/arctic/campaign (accessed 22 June 2020). OECD Watch. (2017). ‘Survival International vs. WWF’. https://complaints. oecdwatch.org/cases/Case_457 (accessed 22 June 2020). Omona, Julius and Ronard Mukuye. (2013). ‘Problems of credibility of NGOs in Uganda: implications for theory and practice’. Voluntas 24: 311–34. Ossewaarde, Ringo, André Nuhof and Liesbet Heyse. (2008). ‘Dynamics of NGO legitimacy: how organising betrays core missions of INGOs’. Public Administration and Development 28: 42–53. Paço, Arminda do, Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues and Luis Rodrigues. (2014). ‘Branding in NGOs – its influence on the intention to donate’. Economics and Sociology 7(3): 11–21. Page, Robert. (1984). Stigma. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

170 References Patey, Francis. (1990). A Battle Lost: An Unsuccessful Attempt to Save the Seal Hunt. Grand Falls: Robinson-Blackmore Printing and Publishing. Pedersen, Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum and Janni Thusgaard Pedersen. (2013). ‘Introduction: the rise of business-NGO partnerships’. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 50: 6–19. Phelps Bondaroff, Teale N. (2020) ‘A typology of direct action at sea’. In Non-Human Nature in World Politics, edited by Joana Castro Pereira and André Saramago. Cham: Springer. Phelps Bondaroff, Teale N. and Danita Catherine Burke. (2014). ‘Bridging troubled waters: history as political opportunity structure’. Journal of Civil Society 10(2): 165–83. Prater, Danny. (2017). ‘To make more money, fur farmers in Finland did this to foxes’. PETA, August 22. www.peta.org/blog/undercover-photosarctic-foxes-finland-fur-farms/ (accessed 31 May 2020). Rabin, Matthew and Joel L. Schrag. (1999). ‘First impressions matter: a model of confirmatory bias’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(1): 37–82. Raustiala, Kal. (1997). ‘States, NGOs, and international environmental institutions’. International Studies Quarterly 41(4): 719–40. Reinalda, Bob. (2001). ‘Private in form, public in purpose: NGOs in international relations theory’. In Non-State Actors in International Relations, edited by Bas Arts, Math Noortmann and Bob Reinalda. Aldershot: Ashgate. Roddick, David. (2017). ‘A changing Arctic Council: interview with Saami representative Gunn-Britt Retter’. Northern Public Affairs, 13 June. www.northernpublicaffairs.ca/index/a-changing-arctic-council-interviewwith-saami-representative-gunn-britt-retter/ (accessed 31 May 2020). Røren, Pål. (2019). ‘Status seeking in the friendly Nordic neighborhood’. Cooperation and Conflict 54(4): 1–18. Roswell, Harry C. (1977). ‘1977 sealing activities by Newfoundland landsmen and ships on the front: a report to the committee on seals and sealing and the Canadian federation of humane societies’. Memorial University of Newfoundland, Queen Elizabeth 2nd Library. Centre for Newfoundland Studies Stacks SH363.R69. Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing Industry in Canada. (1985). ‘Brief to the Royal Commission on sealing’. Memorial University of Newfoundland, Queen Elizabeth 2nd Library. Centre for Newfoundland Studies Stacks SH362.R7v.49. Ruskin, Liz. (2019). ‘Seattle council votes to withhold business from oil companies that explore Arctic Refuge’. Alaska Public Media, 17 September. www.alaskapublic.org/2019/09/17/seattle-council-votes-to-withholdbusiness-from-oil-companies-that-explore-arctic-refuge/ (accessed 31 May 2020).

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

References 171 Sandford, Daniel. (2013). ‘Russia’s Arctic: mission to protect wildlife’. BBC News, 26 August. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23794232 (accessed 1 June 2020). Scarce, R. (2006). Eco-warriors: Understanding the Radical Environmental Movement. California: Left Coast Press. Scrivener, David. (1999). ‘Arctic environmental cooperation in transition’. Polar Record 35(192): 51–8. Sea Shepherd. (n.d.). ‘Operation Bloody Fjords: pilot whale defense campaign in the Faroe Islands and Denmark’. www.seashepherdglobal.org/ourcampaigns/bloody-fjords/ (accessed 11 April 2022). SECO – State Secretariat for Economic Affairs. (2019). ‘National contact point of Switzerland’. www.seco.admin.ch/seco/en/home/Aussenwirtschaftspolitik_ Wirtschaftliche_Zusammenarbeit/Wirtschaftsbeziehungen/NKP.html (accessed 15 December 2019). Shestakov, Alexander. (2016). ‘WWF observer report to the Arctic Council’. WWF Global Arctic Programme, 1 June. Arctic Council Open Repository. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/ 1882/EDOCS-3643-v1A-2016-06-01_WWF_Observer_Review-Report. PDF?sequence=1%26isAllowed=y (accessed 8 June 2020). Simke, Ariella. (2020). ‘Iceland to stop killing whales in 2020, choosing to watch them instead’. Forbes, 10 May. www.forbes.com/sites/ ariellasimke/2020/05/10/iceland-to-stop-killing-whales-in-2020-choosingto-watch-them-instead/?sh=475ca03e3d0d (accessed 30 November 2020). Staalesen, Atle. (2017a). ‘Establishment of $30 million Álgu Fund marks new beginning in Arctic Council, indigenous peoples say’. The Barents Observer, 12 May. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/life-andpublic/2017/05/establishment-30-million-algu-fund-marks-new-beginningarctic-council (accessed 18 July 2020). Staalesen, Atle. (2017b). ‘Norway positive to Finland’s Arctic railway plan’. Eye on the Arctic, 12 April. www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2017/ 04/12/norway-positive-to-finlands-arctic-railway-plan/ (accessed 1 June 2020). Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. (2006). ‘Tuesday, November 7, 2006’. Number 022, 1st session, 39th Parliament. House of Commons Canada. www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/39-1/FOPO/meeting-22/ evidence (accessed 25 June 2021). Steinbach, Alison W. (2016). ‘The World Wildlife Fund: innovative private sector partnerships and the road ahead, an interview with Carter Roberts’. Harvard International Review 37(4): 61–5. Stirling, I. and A. E. Derocher. (2012). ‘Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the evidence’. Global Change Biology 18: 2694–706. Stone, K. H. (1954). ‘Human geographic research in the North American northern lands’. Arctic 7: 321–35.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

172 References Suchman, M. C. (1995). ‘Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches’. Academy of Management Review 20: 571–610. Survival International. (2016). ‘Survival International accuses WWF of involvement in violence and abuse’. 10 February. www.survivalinternational.org/ news/11107 (accessed 31 May 2020). Survival International. (2017). ‘Survival-WWF OECD talks break down over tribal consent’. 5 September. www.survivalinternational.org/news/11800 (accessed 31 May 2020). Thrandardottir, Erla. (2013). ‘NGO legitimacy: four models’. City University of London. http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/2818/ (accessed 13 January 2017). Townsend, Lori. (2018). ‘Former Iditarod champion reflects on animal rights activists’. Eye on the Arctic, 5 March. www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/ tag/peta/ (accessed 24 February 2019). Unlay, Nina. (2020). ‘WWF still bashing Marine Stewardship Council over bluefin tuna certification process’. IntraFish, 27 February. www.intrafish. com/sustainability/wwf-still-bashing-marine-stewardship-council-overbluefin-tuna-certification-process/2-1-763952 (accessed 27 May 2020). Veríssimo, Diogo and Bob Smith. (2017). ‘When it comes to conservation, are ugly animals a lost cause?’ Smithsonian Magazine, 27 June. www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-ugly-animals-lostcause-180963807/ (accessed 17 July 2020). Veríssimo, Diogo, Greg Vaughan, Martin Ridout, Carly Waterman, Douglas Macmillan and Robert J. Smith. (2017). ‘Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species’. Biological Conservation 211: 95–101. Virki, Tarmo. (2019). ‘Finland-Norway rail link planned to fit Arctic sea routes’. Reuters, 9 May. www.reuters.com/article/arctic-railways/ finland-norway-rail-link-planned-to-fit-arctic-sea-routes-idUSL5N22L2ZA (accessed 1 June 2020). Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, LA and London: University of California Press. Weyler, Rex. (2004). Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World. Vancouver: Raincoast Books. White, Cliff. (2016). ‘Leaked WWF report levels harsh criticism of MSC’. SeafoodSource, 6 December. www.seafoodsource.com/news/environmentsustainability/leaked-wwf-report-levels-harsh-criticism-of-msc (accessed 27 May 2020). Willetts, P. (1996). ‘From Stockholm to Rio and beyond: the impact of the environmental movement on the United Nations consultative arrangements for NGOs’. Review of International Studies 22: 57–80. Wohlforth, Charles. (2017). ‘Sea Shepherd and others attacking native whaling are allies of conquest’. Alaska Dispatch News (republished

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

References 173 in Arctic Today), 10 May. www.arctictoday.com/sea-shepherd-andothers-attacking-native-whaling-are-allies-of-conquest/ (accessed 27 May 2020). Woods, S. J. (1986). ‘The wolf at the door: the anti-harvest campaign strikes at the heart of north aboriginal economies’. Northern Perspectives 14(2): 1–8. WWF. (n.d.). ‘The Arctic’. https://arcticwwf.org/ (accessed 27 May 2020). WWF. (n.d.). ‘The Circle’. https://arcticwwf.org/newsroom/the-circle/ (accessed 27 May 2020). WWF. (2012). ‘WWF opens Iqaluit office’. 1 August. www.wwf.ca/?11101/ wwf-opens-iqaluit-office (accessed 23 February 2019). WWF. (2013a). ‘Polar bears, WWF and CITES trade bans’. 14 March. http:// wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?207907/Polar-bears-WWF-and-CITES (accessed 23 February 2019). WWF. (2013b). ‘WWF calls for the immediate release of Greenpeace members’. 22 September. https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?210711/ WWF-calls-for-the-immediate-release-of-greenpeace-members (accessed 22 June 2020). WWF. (2013c). ‘Partnering to protect our freshwater resources’. Annual Review 2013. https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/708/ files/original/2013-coca-cola-and-wwf-annual-partnership-reviewbasic.PDF?1405106064 (accessed 31 May 2020). WWF. (2015). ‘WWF Verdensnaturfonden åbner kontor i Grønland’. 9 October. www.wwf.dk/?14460 (accessed 23 February 2019). WWF. (2019a). ‘About us: who we are’. www.worldwildlife.org/about (accessed 13 March 2019). WWF. (2019b). ‘History’. www.worldwildlife.org/about/history (accessed 13 March 2019). WWF. (2019c). ‘How is WWF run?’ https://wwf.panda.org/organization/ (accessed 13 March 2019). WWF. (2019d). ‘Statement on safeguarding human rights in conservation, and addressing allegations of human rights abuse’. 10 July. https://wwf. panda.org/wwf_news/wwf_independent_review_/?349754/Statement-onsafeguarding-human-rights-in-conservation-and-addressing-allegations-ofhuman-rights-abuse (accessed 12 March 2019). WWF Arctic. (n.d.). ‘The Last Ice Area’. https://arcticwwf.org/places/lastice-area/ (accessed 19 June 2020). WWF Arctic. (n.d.). ‘What WWF is doing for polar bears’. https:// arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/wwf/ (accessed 31 May 2020). WWF Arctic. (2014). ‘Last Ice Area biophysical reader’. https://arcticwwf.org/ newsroom/publications/last-ice-area-biophysical-reader/ (accessed 22 June 2020).

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

174 References WWF Arctic. (2017a). ‘2017 WWF Arctic Council Conservation Scorecard: overview’. http://wwf-ap.org/apps/acscorecard/ (accessed 17 July 2020). WWF Arctic. (2017b). ‘Changed Arctic, changed world’. https://arcticwwf.org/ newsroom/stories/changed-arctic-changed-world/?it=about/stories/changedarctic-changed-world/ (accessed 19 June 2020). WWF Arctic. (2018). ‘Last Ice Area Similijuaq’. https://arcticwwf.org/site/ assets/files/2021/lia-brochure.pdf (accessed 20 June 2020). WWF Arctic. (2019a). ‘Arctic Council Scorecard 2019’. https://arcticwwf.org/ work/governance/acscorecard19/ (accessed 17 July 2020). WWF Arctic. (2019b). ‘How we work: the WWF Arctic Programme’. https:// arcticwwf.org/work/team/ (accessed 15 February 2019). WWF Canada. (n.d.). ‘Wildlife adoption’. https://shop.wwf.ca/collections/ adoptions (accessed 14 July 2020). WWF Canada. (2011a). ‘Polar bears inspire Coca-Cola to turn red cans white for WWF’. 25 October. www.wwf.ca/?10041/POLAR-BEARS-INSPIRECOCA-COLA–TO-TURN-RED-CANS-WHITE-FOR-WWF (accessed 31 May 2020). WWF Canada. (2011b). ‘WWF-Canada annual review’. http://d2akrl9rvxl3z3. cloudfront.net/downloads/wwfcanada_annualreport2011_1.pdf (accessed 22 June 2020). WWF Denmark. (2016). ‘Corporate partnerships report: overview of WWF-Denmark’s corporate partnerships 2016’. https://d1qkbvpvihpfr5. cloudfront.net/downloads/wwf_corporate_partnerships_report_2016.pdf (accessed 22 June 2020). WWF Finland. (2016). ‘Saimaa ringed seal’. https://wwf.fi/en/saimaa-ringedseal/ (accessed 2 December 2020). WWF Finland. (2018). ‘WWF Finland: International Development programme’. https://wwf.fi/app/uploads/d/3/l/tc3nrawiucipwfyz8gx1ef/wwf-finland_ programme_annual-report-2018_oikea.pdf (accessed 1 June 2020). WWF International (n.d.). ‘Symbolic species adoptions’. https://gifts. worldwildlife.org/gift-center/gifts/species-adoptions.aspx (accessed 14 July 2020). WWF International (n.d.). ‘About us’. www.worldwildlife.org/about#:~:text= How%20We%20Work,restore%20species%20and%20their%20habitats (accessed 13 July 2020). WWF International. (2008). A Roadmap for a Living Planet. https:// wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/roadmap_sign_off_fin.pdf (accessed 13 July 2020). WWF International. (2010). ‘Statutes’. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/ about_wwf/how_were_run/statutes/ (accessed 13 December 2020). WWF International. (2011). ‘Report supports resilience and sustainable development in the Arctic’. https://wwf.panda.org/?199466/Report-

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

References 175 supports-resilience-and-sustainable-development-in-the-Arctic (accessed 14 December 2020). WWF International. (2020). ‘Priority places’. https://wwf.panda.org/ knowledge_hub/where_we_work/ (accessed 13 July 2020). WWF Russia. (2019a). ‘WWF and Greenpeace asked the Russians to save the forests and salmon’. 30 April. https://wwf.ru/en/resources/news/lesa/ zashchitit-les-i-spasti-lososya/ (accessed 22 June 2020). WWF Russia. (2019b). ‘WWF and Greenpeace: starting from 1 July, Russia will start losing protected forests and fish resources’. 21 March. https:// wwf.ru/en/resources/news/lesa/wwf-i-grinpis-s-1-iyulya-rossiya-nachnetteryat-zashchitnye-lesa-i-rybnye-resursy-/ (accessed 22 June 2020). WWF Russia. (2020a). ‘Atlantic walrus: what threatens walruses?’ https:// wwf.ru/en/regions/the-barents-branch/atlanticheskiy-morzh/ (accessed 1 June 2020). WWF Russia. (2020b). ‘The environmental rating of oil and gas companies – WWF and Creon joint project’. https://wwf.ru/en/what-we-do/greeneconomy/ekologicheskiy-reyting-neftegazovykh-kompaniy-rf-sovmestnyyproekt-wwf-i-kreon/ (accessed 1 June 2020). WWF US. (2018). ‘Toward water security for all: 2018 partnership highlights’. https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/1253/files/ original/2018_Water_Highlights_WWF_TCCC.pdf?1567091626 (accessed 31 May 2020). WWF US. (2019). ‘WWF-US annual report’. http://assets.worldwildlife.org/ financial_reports/37/reports/original/WWF-AR2019-FINALPAGES. pdf?1582917951 (accessed 13 December 2020). Young, Oran R. (1989). ‘The politics of animal rights: preservationists vs. consumptive users in the North’. Inuit Studies 13(1): 43–59.

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Index

AEPS (Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy) 55; 97 Álgu Fund 68–9; 79; 139 AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme) 94–5 anti-Arctic oil and gas campaigning 43–4; 73; 113; 119–20; 132; 141–2; 144 no drilling stance 44; 141–2 anti-sealing movement 4; 14–21; 24–5; 27–8; 36–43; 52–3; 55; 63; 87; 106; 132–3; 144; 149 Canadian Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans 16 Newfoundland and Labrador 16–17; 24–5; 36–7; 40 Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing Industry in Canada 17–18 anti-whaling movement 4; 25; 27–8; 36–7; 40–1; 49–50; 52–4; 63; 87; 111; 113; 132; 142; 144; 149; 151 Faroe Islands 24; 40–1; 52; 63; 150–1; 154 see also Kingdom of Denmark Jóhannsson, Halldór 37

Bernauer, Warren 38–9; 45; 54–5; 153 CAFF (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna) 98–100; 108; 124 Cameroon 47–9; 82; 120–1 Survival International 43; 47–8 Baka Indigenous People 47–8; 112–13; 120 Canada 4; 6; 9–10; 17–20; 24; 28–9; 33; 37; 40–5; 53; 67; 72; 77; 79–80; 94; 107; 119; 132; 138–40; 143–4; 157–60 Newfoundland and Labrador, see anti-sealing movement Northwest Territories 23; 37 Resolute 37 Nunavut 23; 36–7; 53; 107; 143 Iqaluit 4; 50; 53; 66; 140; 159 Kanngiqtugaapik/Clyde River 36; 38; 54; 153 Kaunak, Darryl 144 Naujaat 143–4 Qamani’tuaq/Baker Lake 38 Ottawa (59) see also WWF Canada CITES (Convention on International Trade in

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Index 177 Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) 45–6; 80 climate change 8–11; 18; 30; 42; 44–5; 94–5; 113; 115; 118; 143–4; 158–9 Coca-Cola 60–1; 64; 79–80; 96 Denmark 4; 9–11; 23–4; 98; 101–2; 108; 142; 158 see also WWF Denmark EPPR (Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response) 99 European Economic Community (EEC) 37 Finland 6; 9–11; 20; 23; 66; 82; 116–17; 159–60 see also WWF Finland Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 107; 121 funding 47–8; 60–5; 69; 86; 89; 109; 117; 123; 138–40; 160 in-kind support 64; 68; 80; 139 grassroots 36; 53; 84; 103 Greenland 4; 24; 28; 37–9; 41; 44; 66–7; 77; 79; 81; 90; 94; 96; 98; 100–2; 106; 108; 132; 138; 140; 143–4; 154; 158 Ittoqqortoormiit 66 Nuuk 4; 98; 140 see also Kingdom of Denmark, WWF Denmark Greenpeace 8; 14; 16; 18; 21; 24–5; 30; 37–9; 42–4; 62–4; 85–6; 98; 102–3; 105–7; 109; 113; 118–23; 125; 127; 132–4; 151; 154

Arctic Sunrise 109; 134 Brent Spar 105–6 Christensen, Mads Flarup 18 Greenpeace Canada 14 Greenpeace Russia 102; 109; 125; 151 observer membership application 21; 25; 86 Rainbow Warrior 85; 106 Iceland 3; 6; 9–11; 20; 23; 33; 37; 40; 49–51; 57; 150–1; 154 Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITK) 148 International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) 21; 25; 113; 122–3 Inuit 14; 20–1; 28; 36–8; 43–6; 53; 59; 80; 90; 141; 143–4 polar bear hunting 14; 45–6; 53; 80; 84–5; 142–4; 148 Kingdom of Denmark 6; 9; 20; 23; 132 see also WWF Denmark Last Ice Area 94–6; 99; 106–7; 111 Marine Protected Area (MPA) 92; 100 Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) 80; 100; 108; 121 Natanine, Jerry 36; 54 see also Kanngiqtugaapik/Clyde River Norway 3; 6–7; 9–11; 20; 23; 33; 38; 40; 49–51; 53; 66; 157; 160 Oslo 59; 142 see also WWF Norway

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

178 Index Observer Members 2; 4; 20–1; 25–6; 33; 49–51; 68; 86; 91; 97–100; 107; 110–11; 123–4; 134; 140; 145 China 23; 81 National Geographic Society 8–9; 21 North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) 50–1 Oceana 8–9; 21 Red Cross 21; 25–6 Singapore 81; 139 South Korea 81; 134 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 47–8; 55 PAME (Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment) 98–100; 107 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) 8; 25; 30; 113; 122–3 permafrost 9; 94–5 Permanent Participants 25–6; 68–9; 81; 94–8; 107; 129; 137–46; 144; 148; 153 Aleut International Association 20; 137; 145–6 Arctic Athabaskan Council 20; 137 Gwich’in Council International 20; 137; 139 Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) 20; 137; 142–4 see also Inuit RAIPON (Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North) 20; 69; 137–8; 146 Saami Council 20; 69; 137; 146 Retter, Gunn-Britt 69 Polar Bear Protection Programme 6; 66–7; 79; 84; 132; 145

Russia 4; 6; 9–11; 20; 23; 33; 53–4; 65; 67; 72–3; 77; 79; 82; 98; 100; 102–3; 108–9; 119; 124; 127; 132–4; 138; 141; 143; 146; 154; 158–61 Arkhangelsk 4 Soviet Union 53 see also WWF Russia Sámi/Saami 66; 69; 137 Sea Shepherd Conservation Society 8; 21; 40; 54; 63–4; 113; 122–3; 127; 151 Operation Bloody Fjords 40 Watson, Paul 63 scorecard 122–3; 125–6; 128; 145 Sierra Club 62–3 Sweden 6; 9–11; 20; 23; 100; 124; 139; 157 United States 6; 9; 20; 31; 62; 161 Alaska 9–11; 23; 36–7; 62; 141–2 Amchitka 62 see also WWF US Winter, James 16 WWF Canada 43; 45–6; 53; 60; 66; 80; 107; 127; 149; 159–60 WWF Denmark 66–7; 98; 101–2; 108; 140; 142; 150; 151; 154 sustainable seafood 101–2; 108 WWF Finland 66; 73; 82; 105; 116–17; 127; 149 Saimaa ringed seal 116–17; 127 WWF International 32–3; 46–8; 64–5; 76; 81; 114–15; 127 WWF Norway 150

Downloaded from manchesterhive © Copyright protected It is illegal to copy or distribute this document

Index 179 WWF Russia 53–4; 65–6; 72–3; 82; 98; 102–3; 105; 108–9; 125; 146; 149; 151; 158 Greenpeace alliance 102–3; 108–9; 125

Prirazlomnaya 98; 102 WWF South Africa 4; 49–50; 151 WWF US 60; 64; 80; 116; 149; 159; 161