Climate Change and the Worldwide Fund for Nature in Canada, Australia, and United Kingdom - Case Study Example

Student’s name Course code+name Professor’s name University name Date of submission Introduction The World Wildlife Fund, now the Worldwide Fund for Nature has a view of maintaining ecological processes and biodiversity. This has been achieved through selecting priority biomes, species and ecosystems to be preserved. It has a number of strategies that include environmental education. Furthermore, it has been in collaboration with a number of government and non-governmental agencies to ensure safe environment and climate change. It has also been supporting establishment of trinational protected areas with the latest being the Congo project. Its quest for climate change has also necessitated creation of integrated conservation and development projects in Canada, Australia United Kingdom. These achievements have been made possible through three key aspects; its values and interests, advocacy positions and science-based approach. In as much, researches point out lack of connectedness between such aspects and the ultimate goal(s) of the Worldwide Fund for Nature. This essay thus builds on such findings to give views and critically assess connection between the aforementioned aspects and the ultimate goal(s). The connection between values and interests, advocacy positions and use of science To begin with, one of its core value and interest is to promote forest conservation network across the world. As a matter of fact, such value and interest can be seen from the recently developed project (Dzanga-Sangha Project) which forms an integral part of Congo forest conservation network (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River 2006b). While this can be seen as its effort to create a trinational protected area, recent critics point out that such values and advocacy positions do not conform to project goals. According to Conservation Measures Partnership (2007), Dzanga-Sangha Project puts WWF into “rather odd little tangles” (p.12). The position that would have promoted advocacy positions and science-based approach would have been to give priority measures that enhance biodiversity conservation especially in endangered ecosystems. Conservation Measures Partnership further posits that while such projects are consistent with WWF values and interests, they contradict its advocacy position in the sense that much of Dzanga-Sangha Project is done under a UN climate change policies dubbed REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) which has been part of the United Nation’s £18 billion Fast Start programme. This is seen to be contradicting the position of WWF as well because while it has its own policies to implement, such will be interfered with by the United Nation’s set policies. To underscore this statement, Prince Charles, president of WWF-UK recently suggested that their core aim in delta of the Rufiji River was to halt damage to the forest which was deforestation carried out in the region for cash crop growing. This position was taken by WWF because the mangroves had unusual amounts of carbon dioxide that contributed towards global warning. However, Japan and United Nations being the funders of this project halted this position by suggesting that WWF first needed to establish how dangerous release of C02 might be. Furthermore, it was during this period that two American professors had just published a study regarding the delta in an environmental journal entitled “The REDD menace: resurgent protectionism in mangrove forests” (Morrison, Loucks and Wikramanayake 2011). This journal really questions values and interests, advocacy positions and science-based approach WWF holds. Kundzewicz and Mata (2010) argue that values and interests and advocacies of WWF are not reflected under REDD+ because it seriously damages the traditional life which has been sustainably fishing and farming for centuries. In as much, it needs to be recognised that its quest for climate change has recently seen United States of America government prohibiting offshore gas and oil drilling especially around Beaufort seas off of Alaska and Chukchi. This is a clear case where WWF shows its values and interests of protecting plants and wild animals in their natural communities. To continue being consistent with its advocacy positions and science-based approach to climate change and environmental position, the organisation also agitated for the allocation of adequate federal funds that could support United States Coast Guard respond to a spill in Alaska in a more scientific way (Knight, Cowling and Campbell 2006b). This is the position I strongly support owing to the fact that there are abundance of wildlife in Beaufort seas off of Alaska and Chukchi. Actually, Knight, Cowling and Campbell describes these places as ‘Marine Mammal Superhighway’ owing to the fact that they host plethora of polar bears, seabirds, seals, whales and walrus that might be affected by oil and gas spills. In addition, I support this view because WWF recognises that also people---not only wildlife---could be affected by the spill of gas and oil if such drillings are allowed. In as much, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that WWF efforts to stop drilling of gas and oil in these regions has no direct link with its aspirations of preserving biomes, species and ecosystems (Olson et al. 2008). This concern was raised owing to the fact that WWF-UK partnered with Information Network (COIN), Climate Outreach, Friends of the Earth and Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) to develop science-based approach to environment sustainability that ensured its advocacy position of ecosystem preservation is guaranteed. This was also linked with the success stories where in 2007, WWF-Australia managed to secure funds from Tasmanian and Federal governments to the tune of $24.6 million with an aim of removing rabbits and rats that were becoming threat to Macquarie Island and its iconic species (WWF 2008). WWF has continuously supported and actively involved itself with sea programmes. Good example of this is the WWF-USA and WW Arctic Programme cooperatives with the Wider Caribbean region in the Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) Species list and Protocol implementation (WWF 2005a). Such support and involvement has been geared towards protecting wildlife by directing its conversation efforts toward ensuring that endangered spaces, protected areas as well as global threats to climate changes are addressed. Further to this, WWF science-based approach have helped develop Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) which has been of great importance when dealing with such project. However, such endeavours do not reflect advocacy positions and science-based approach held by WWF. For instance, Transboundary UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (Mura-Drava-Danule) which comprises Crotia, Austria, Hungary, Serbia and Slovenia is a good project established by WWF that does not show innovative, collaborative and science-based evidence in its operation (Danube River Basin Project 2005). Reason for this claim is that lower courses of Mura and Drave Rivers and some parts of Danube were supposed to be significant ecological riverine areas but instead, biosphere reserves in them were not fully protected. My view on this is that while it is important step that continues to protect environment, it needs to adopt the method used to protect Great Barrier Reef in Australia where though its campaign was dubbed “The Great Barrier Reef”, large network of marine sanctuaries was created as well as destruction to fishing practices on the reef stopped. This did not only conform to its values and interests but also advocacy positions. The Great Barrier Reef Campaign also sought to create the world’s largest network of marine sanctuaries and ended destructive fishing practices on the reef.  In 2001 WWF partnered with the University of Queensland so as to deliver a workshop that aimed at increasing the capacity of practitioners working in Freshwaters ecoregions (WWF defines ecoregions as relatively large pieces of land with a distinct assemblage of natural species and communities, with boundaries that makes approximation with the original extent of natural communities prior to major land-use change Olson et al., 2008) found in Pacific and Asia. In this initiative, participants were able to identify economic tools that addressed threats to conservation in the ecoregions. However, there has been lack of connection between its values and interest, its advocacy position and use of science. To underscore this, it is documented that World Wildlife Fund’s approach to dealing with large-scale conservation started with the development of the Global 200 (WWF 2007a). This is where the principles for deliverance of the Pacific and Asia project were embedded. This was where WWF had their values and interest and advocacy positions misplaced. Furthermore, Freshwaters ecoregions projects in Pacific and Asia was supposed to be a biodiversity priority setting exercise aimed at selecting 238 outstanding freshwater, terrestrial, and marine systems and manage them with an aim of controlling the amount of pollution affecting them. The reason for this view was that within ecoregion complexes, important seascapes and landscapes identified for priority conservation lacked incorporation of ecological processes in spatial plans. It is actually during this time that the idea of providing support and training to field managers and technical expertise on strategies of mitigating effects of climatic change emerged (WWF 2007a). The training and support did not coincide with their initial advocacy positions since it worked with initial strategies of HydroSHEDS. Conclusion In my view, there are enormous threats to the integrity of climate across the world. WWF have continued to propose strategies and mechanisms of averting such threats and such have tried to conform to their values and interests, advocacy positions and science-based approach. Unfortunately, WWF needs funding and in most cases, funders dictate policies to be adopted while trying to mitigate environmental threats. This further compromises advocacy positions held by WWF. Generally, mainstreams the value of nature in its work, promotes its advocacy positions and science-based approaches projects emerging in the Coral Triangle, the Arctic and the Eastern Himalayas. References Conservation Measures Partnership (2007) Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. Http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/Site_Docs/CMP_Open_Standards_Version_2.0.pdf [Accessed 17 September 2013] Danube River Basin Project (2005), Uncover the environment of the Danube. December 2005. Danube-Carpathian Programme: Sofia, Bulgaria. International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) 2006b. Danube River Basin. 2 March 2006. Vienna, Austria. Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M. & Campbell, B.M. (2006b) An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology, 20, 408–419. Kundzewicz, Z and Mata, L J. (2010). Concept paper on cross-cutting theme: Water. Completed in preparation for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (for 2007). September 2003. Geneva, Switzerland. Morrison, J., Loucks, C., Long, B. and Wikramanayake, E. (2011) Landscape-scale spatial planning at WWF: a variety of approaches. Oryx 43 (4): 499-507. Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D., Burgess, N.D., Powell, G.V.N., Underwood, E.C. (2008) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. BioScience, 51, 933–938. WWF (2008) WWF Standards of Conservation and Programme Management. http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/programme_standards/ [Accessed 16 September 2013] WWF 2007a. Freshwater Campaign. WWF Australia: Canberra, Australia. http://www.wwf.org.au/About_WWF_Australia/How_we_work/Campaigns/Fresh_water/index.Php [Accessed 15 September 2013] WWF 2005a. Ecoregion profile: Danube Delta WWF International: Gland, Switzerland. http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/ecoregions/danube_river_delta.cfm [Accessed 17 September 2013] Read More