Image: courtesy of @tibettruth
Would like to join us is asking them? If so, contact the WWF
Twitter @WWF
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WWF
Image: courtesy of @tibettruth
Would like to join us is asking them? If so, contact the WWF
Twitter @WWF
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WWF
Digital Activism Im Support Of Tibetan Independence 
Hi
The answer to your question is yes they have. WWF has set up 62 protected areas for pandas, which cover 71% of the giant panda population, and are seeking to expand this. State logging taking place in Eastern Tibet will be in the 29% which WWF has not yet been able to set up protected areas for. As you’d expect when having to deal with a dictatorial government, this process takes time. WWF is also expanding FSC certification (certified-sustainable timber which does not damage vital habitat) into China and Tibet, and has so far brought the number of certified Chinese companies from 7 to 1000.
WWF has also taken the Chinese government to court in the US (and won) over the money China makes from it’s ‘panda diplomacy’ project, lending pandas to zoos for huge fees. Since the ruling, at least 50% of the money raised must be spend on projects to preserve panda habitat.
As you will understand, WWF is a fund, and a charity not an activist group, which limits what it can say publicly about the Chinese regime. (An environmental campaigning group like Greenpeace, for example, will be more vocal, and is of course banned from doing any conservation work inside China and Tibet). So if you are seeking public criticism, obviously it would not make sense for WWF to provide that; at the end of the day, if WWF was too critical I think we all know they would simply be booted out by the CCP and all the work they’re doing to protect this environment would end. I hope the above illustrates some of the examples of where WWF is successful on a large scale in protecting panda habitat in Eastern Tibet and the historical border areas across which giant pandas live.
For more information you may want to contact WWF China, as this isn’t my area of expertise. Again, as you’d expect, WWF workers inside are Chinese and Tibetan, so would naturally be careful about what they say given that they live under the CCP.
Thanks!
-A WWF and Tibet worker
So kindly share a link/source that reveals WWF have criticized China’s ecocide in Eastern Tibet
Hi
As you will see from my original reply, the reasons why WWF does not PUBLICLY criticise the CCP are clear. As a Tibet activist you will appreciate the repurcussions; WWF would no longer be allowed to work in China and Tibet if it publicly criticised the CCP (just as Greenpeace is not allowed to), thereby potentially ending ALL the good work being done to conserve pandas, their habitats and countless other species. As WWF is an environmental group, not a political campaigning group, it’s priority is to preserve the environment by funding projects like protected areas of forest on the ground, not to make PUBLIC political statements. As you will also appreciate, WWF’s projects on the ground are not run by westerners sitting in offices in politically open countries, they are run by Tibetan and Chinese staff and volunteers inside China and Tibet.
Privatly raised concern is of course a different thing, and asking for a public record of private statements is of course not going to result in anything. WWF’s commitment to raising and more importantly ending damaging environmental practices can be clearly evidenced with the successes I’ve listed above.
Does this strategy make sense to you?
Thanks for taking the time to contribute. Your comments bought to mind a line from Milton’s Paradise Lost..”With word’s clothed in reason’s garb”.
All very alluring in terms of logic yet such reasoning does not conceal nor justify the truth that WWF, in exercising such a realpolitik silence, effectively collaborates with and endorses China’s ecocide in occupied Tibet. As to expectation, we are not so innocent to imagine that a public question on this issue will produce a positive response from WWF, particularly given its status and the decades of inaction from them regarding China’s environmental destruction of Tibetan lands. Notwithstanding such factors, which we note, we believe that WWF has a moral and ethical duty of responsibility to, at the very least, express its concern at the ongoing destruction of habitat and forests in occupied Tibet. From our position we raised the matter to alert others to the troubling hypocrisy of the world’s leading animal welfare organization maintaining a deafening silence on the ecological carnage that has transformed once verdant forests in eastern Tibet, an area of critical importance to surviving Panda populations.
Comment Not Featured Reason:
We operate this site not as an open forum for open ended debate, but to provide information, analysis and critique. While we welcome positive contributions we do not tolerate comments that follow an agenda to undermine the good efforts of those who volunteer to Edit, research and write for us. Unfortunately you have in the past demonstrated a willingness to follow such a course and so your comments have not been included, as authors, copyright holders and administrators that decision is our Editorial right.