Panda Leaks: The Dark Side of the WWF, by Wilfried Huismann

For those absolutely devoid of scruples, charity fraud is the field par excellance, in which you can simultaneously harvest kudos for your humanitarianism and make off with vast bundles of untaxed cash. Convictions for charity fraud are so rare as to be nonexistent, so any criminals operating in other fields of endeavor are incurring unnecessary risks.
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 41486
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Panda Leaks: The Dark Side of the WWF, by Wilfried Huismann

Post by admin »

Panda Leaks: The Dark Side of the WWF
by Wilfried Huismann
English revised and updated edition (e-book and Print on Demand)
© 2014 by Nordbook UG (haftungsbeschrankt), Bremen, Germany
Original title: Schwarzbuch WWF - DunkJe Geschafte im Zeichen des Panda
© 2012 by Gutersloher Verlagshaus, Gutersloh, Germany
First Edition
Translation: Ellen Wagner
Designed by: Dirk Osmers, Strombuch.com

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Image
Image
"It's easier to penetrate the CIA than the WWF."
-- Raymond Bonner, New York Times reporter
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
-- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in an interview with the dpa, August 1988
Table of Contents

• 1. The Bride Wears Panda
• 2. In the Lion's Den
• 3. On Tiger Safari
o The Hunters and the Hunted
o The Tiger Woman
o Ullash Kumar
o A Visit with the Honey Gatherers
o Land Grab
• 4. Fishy Friends
o The Salmon King
o Swimming Pharmacies
o When Panda Met Salmon
o Death in a Cage
o Petter's Happy Salmon
o In with the Sharks
o Pandas Don't Bite
• 5. It All Began in Africa
o Grzimek's Mission
o Prince Philip Comes Aboard
o Gerti the Rhinoceros
o Oil in Their Blood
o Old Pals
o Skeletons in the Cupboard
o Operation Lock
o The Purge of the Batwa
o The Return of the White Hunters
• 6. Have a Nice Death with the WWF
o Borneo Ablaze
o In the Fairytale Forest
o Greenwashing
o The WWF as a Business Model
o A Night in Sembuluh
o The Palm Oil War
• 7. Eco-Indulgences for Sale
o The Philanthropic Bank
o An Uprising in Sumatra
o Certification: We Can Get It for You Wholesale
o Cultivating Champions
o The Broken Heart of Borneo
o We Feed the World
• 8. A Tango with Monsanto
o Membership Number 572
o The Soy Dictatorship
o A Patriarch's Dialogue
o On the Soy Highway
o Soy Leftists
o In Monsanto's Close Embrace
o Pizarro
• 9. Redistributing the World
o The Pact
o Jason Clay
o Blackwater
o The Friends of Europe
o Eating Ice Cream for the Rainforest
o WWF Superpower
o The Conquest of Papua
o Kasimirus's Last Stand
• Acknowledgements
• Wilfried Huismann
• Endnotes
• Picture Credits
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 41486
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Panda Leaks: The Dark Side of the WWF, by Wilfried Huism

Post by admin »

Back Cover:

PANDA LEAKS

The WWF, renowned global nature conservancy brand, greenwashes the ecological crimes of corporations that are currently destroying the last remaining rain forests and natural habitats on earth -- and it accepts their money. The celebrated "eco" organization operates on a business model that actually does more to harm nature than to protect it.

The WWF cannot refute the facts gathered by esteemed journalist and filmmaker Wilfried Huismann during his two-year research expedition to all corners of the green empire. A journalistic tour de force unearthing the grim secrets behind the warm and cuddly facade of the WWF, Huismann's expose went straight to the German bestseller list. The book is now available in English, unabridged and updated.

Huismann also dug deep into the early history of the world's most powerful nature conservancy organization and found several skeletons in the closet: the elite secret club known as "The 1001" and a private military commando unit deployed in Africa against big game poachers -- and against black African liberation movements. In the name of environmental protection the WWF has participated in the displacement and cultural extinction of indigenous peoples the world over.
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 41486
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Panda Leaks: The Dark Side of the WWF, by Wilfried Huism

Post by admin »

1. The Bride Wears Panda

I ran into Abiud at my local organic farmers' market in Bremen. He was just back from getting married in his native Mexico -- in Chiapas of all places, the epicenter of the Zapatista rebellion. Days after his return Abiud still seemed out of sorts. He had discovered that the city of San Cristobal, far from being seized with revolutionary zeal, was now in the iron grip of the Coca-Cola Company. Upon entering the city's historic baroque cathedral Abiud had been greeted by the deafening rumble of hundreds of worshippers crouched on the bare stone floor, praying fervently to their ancient Mayan gods. Many of them then rose to engage in ecstatic, trance-like dance. Abiud had put this down to the ritual imbibing of pox, the local sacred schnapps. Pox causes belching, a proven traditional method of expelling evil spirits. But when he took a sip Abiud had almost retched: the indigenous tipple had been replaced with Coca-Cola.

It turns out a partnership deal had been done with the global corporation: in exchange for financial contributions to the church all drinks but Coke had been banished from the Temple of God. The beverage sections of local supermarkets likewise now stock only Coca-Cola -- shop owners receive a bonus for removing all other drinks from their shelves. The streets are littered with empty Coke cans and visitors note the toothless grins of local children. More Coca-Cola is consumed in Chiapas than anywhere else on earth. Coca-Cola has bought the rights to the freshwater springs in the mountains above the city, and it wouldn't be a big surprise to learn that the multinational had also done a mutually profitable deal with the guerrillas in Chiapas. After all, even the comandantes now drink Coke.

Chiapas is a microcosm of a world in which global corporations rule with soft brutality -- a potent cautionary tale about the menace of rampant consumerism. If I had told this story ten years ago no one would have believed it. The back-story is this: to improve its bad reputation as one of the world's largest consumers of water the Coca-Cola marketing department set about "greening" the company. The sugar-laden soft drink with the notoriously top secret formula proceeded to morph into a "green" product manufactured ''sustainably'' to "conserve the natural resources of the world." Did the Coca-Cola ad makers' bright, eco-friendly message convince consumers? Hardly.

Thus the company needed to bed down with a fresh-faced bride who would polish its image by association. In 2007 Coca-Cola and the WWF entered a partnership, declaring they would ''join forces to protect the drinking water of the world". Coca -Cola products could now sport the prodigious panda -- that cute, cuddly, trust-inspiring little emblem especially beloved of children -- adding value to the partnership investment by securing future consumer loyalty. WWF endorsement has set the Coca-Cola Company back 20 million dollars -- a bargain, considering that market research rankings place the WWF panda among the world's most trusted brand logos.

For its part, the WWF not only gets big money out of the deal but also wins the favor and recognition of big business. I found a video clip on the WWF website: Muhtar Kent, CEO of Coca-Cola, and Carter Roberts, President of WWF USA, on a polar expedition. We see an Arctic snowscape with sunset and polar bears. The WWF chief affirms: "The partnership brings together two of the biggest brands in the world ... The best and the brightest don't just want to achieve more market share, they also want to be leaders in solving the biggest problems that face the world ... Coke was a logical choice." His Coca-Cola counterpart, cloaked in polar fur, adds with emotion: "We're working closely together in order to ensure that many (people), many generations from now will also be able to enjoy the wonderful polar bears, and our planet."

The WWF top brass like to feel they're on equal footing with the global corporatocracy jet set. Managers from both Coca-Cola and GMO (genetically modified organism) giant Monsanto are trained at the WWF Academy in Switzerland to become "One Planet Leaders", and Neville Isdell, former Coca-Cola Company CEO, now heads the WWF USA personnel commission. He headhunts prospective WWF top management and presents his picks for appointment -- the WWF foregoes stuffy old conventions like voting.

Jason Clay, WWF Senior Vice President for Markets and Food, has announced to the world his plan to conclude contracts with the 100 biggest companies in the energy and food sectors, because these businesses control the world's most significant commodities and: "When they improve, everyone else in the sector will follow suit." Jason Clay is utterly convinced the big bad boys will indeed "improve", because the WWF is going to "embrace" them. It's that simple. Funny no one's thought of it before.

A conspicuously high number of the WWF's corporate cohorts have distinguished themselves in the areas of environmental pollution and the ruthless exploitation of precious natural resources: British Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, Marine Harvest, Shell, McDonald's, Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, Alcoa and the world's largest palm oil company, Wilmar. The panda makes them look good. But why does the WWF enter into these liaisons? Is this really the way to make the world a better place, or is the organization just selling its soul for cash? Our investigative journey to the dark heart of the green empire would take us across the globe. At the end of it we would see the panda in a whole new light.

Image
Pandas with money slots
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 41486
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Panda Leaks: The Dark Side of the WWF, by Wilfried Huism

Post by admin »

2. In the Lion's Den

The international headquarters of the WWF, or World Wide Fund for Nature, is located in Gland, Switzerland, on the shores of Lake Geneva. The building, a gift of German department store magnet Helmut Horten, is a hulking gray concrete block that looks like an aesthetic declaration of war on its idyllic Swiss village surroundings. It was my inaugural visit to the WWF and my bags were packed with weighty questions.

Inside, the corridors and conference rooms were a hive of activity. A global mix of young people wearing jeans, sneakers, and friendly smiles dominated the scene. These international worker bees made a hip, creative, cosmopolitan impression. "We're one big team" announced a beaming Phil Dickie, head of PR, as he met me at reception.

Phil Dickie is Australian. On the long way to his office he confided in conspiratorial tones that he had previously been employed in an Australian government "secret intelligence unit". Dickie called Rob Soutter into our meeting. The tall, white South African is an old WWF warhorse who had for years headed the organization's global campaign for endangered species protection and was currently busy organizing an international "Tiger Summit" in St. Petersburg -- to be hosted by Vladimir Putin. With a wave of the hand, Rob Soutter dismissed all my critical questions about WWF partnerships with industry: "Coca-Cola is one of our strategic partnerships. You can't change the world with nay saying. The power lies with the corporations. We can only achieve something by working with them." Coca-Cola had, after all, committed to reducing the use of drinking water in its bottling plants by 20 percent, and to improve its carbon footprint; and there's nothing wrong with joining forces to save the polar bear, is there? Sounds good, anyway.

Established in 1961, the WWF did not grow out of a grassroots protest movement. Right from the start it catered to a core membership of the global social elite.

Wily PR fox Phil Dickie apparently had a hunch that Rob Soutter would be the right go-to guy for us, and proposed him as an interview partner: the WWF had nothing to hide; everything was perfectly open and transparent -- fire away with your questions! Okay: What was the WWF position on genetic engineering? It sits down at the Round Table for Responsible Soy with GMO giant Monsanto, much to the dismay of the other major conservationist groups, for whom Monsanto is the devil incarnate. Phil's expression darkened as he spat out a tight-lipped curse: "That damned genetic engineering". Bull's eye.

He pointed out that most European WWF organizations reject GM (genetic modification) technology. Rob Soutter also looked pained. To keep his mood from souring I quickly changed the subject and asked about WWF's species conservation policies -- a subject close to his heart. Soutter's face lit up as he invited me to join him for a sunset safari on horseback through the Kaokoveld game reserve in Namibia, to get a first-hand impression. "Eye to eye with a lion family -- such an incredible feeling." The dream of the untouched wilderness: Soutter was a prototypical old school WWF romantic, which is not to say that he tried to justify the mistakes of the founder generation.

Until well into the 1980s the wild animal parks of Africa had remained firmly in white hands. As Soutter openly admitted: "that led many black Africans to believe that the WWF was a sort of extension of colonial rule. But we've learned a lot since then and now collaborate closely with local communities. We give them jobs; they understand that the protection of the animals is in their own best interest. That's how it works."

This patronizing view of the indigenous people struck a discordant note. It sounded suspiciously reminiscent of that worn-out colonial era credo: we enlightened whites know the score and it's our job to take our backward black brothers by the hand and show them how to treat nature. I had to suppress my outrage at the palpable arrogance of my redheaded interviewee. How is it possible to simply ignore the fact that these peoples had lived in and from the forests and savannas of Africa for centuries without destroying them? The African lions, rhinos, elephants and buffalo weren't under threat until the white imperial masters arrived. It was the wild game hunters from the "civilized" world who had committed a veritable massacre on the continent. To secure game stocks for the future the colonial administrations had then begun to create "whites only" game and nature reserves throughout the southern nations of Africa.

Black Africans have paid a high price for the private paradises built by the whites on their homeland. The parks and reserves always lay claim to traditional tribal areas; they are never set up where whites have settled. Undeterred, Rob Soutter continued his lecture on the WWF's wondrous conservation projects and the "integration" of the blacks. In my mind's eye I pictured long columns of refugees. In Africa alone, 14 million people have been forcibly relocated to make room for wild animals: they are called "conservation refugees".

By that time my patience was running thin; I had enough of the small talk at WWF HQ on glittering Lake Geneva, with its yacht harbors and green wetlands, so I interrupted Rob's flow with a provocative request: "Could we film at the next Panda Ball?" Soutter's self-satisfied smile collapsed into a lopsided grin: "I think not. The guests appreciate discretion."

The Panda Ball is an annual event often held at Buckingham Palace in London, or some other royal venue. Attendance is restricted to the elite membership of The 1001 Club, a sort of WWF secret society. After Rob had regained his countenance, he simply shrugged off the subject: "The Club no longer has any significance -- we've only kept it going out of respect for the late Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands. It doesn't bring in as much money as some might think, either." As soon as the words had left his mouth, his eyes seemed to flash annoyance -- perhaps he was regretting his statement already.

The 1001 Club was founded in 1971 by then-President of WWF International Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. The German-born prince recruited powerful businessmen worldwide to join the club, but also a few old comrades, whom he knew from his time in the elite Nazi Reiter-SS equestrian unit, and from his post at the Paris branch of the notorious IG Farben. To this day, the secretive WWF order numbers exactly 1001 "initiates" from across the globe. They generally maintain lifelong membership; when a vacancy arises, a select applicant is appointed to fill it.

Prince Bernhard himself remained member No. 1 until his death, aged 93, in 2004. The identities of the other 1000 have remained secret -- until the present day. Only a few names have slipped out over the years: Henry Ford, Baron von Thyssen, billionaire Muslim spiritual leader Prince Aga Khan, Prof. Bernhard Grzimek, US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Fiat boss Agnelli, and various members of European royal families: an alliance of money, bloodlines, and the political elite.

The 1001 Club pays the salaries to maintain the WWF International central secretariat in Gland on Lake Geneva. That allows the international leadership to operate independently of the now 90 national WWF sections. The Panda Ball and other discreet get-togethers also offer a good opportunity for discussing the strategic focus of the world's largest conservation organization. The 1001 Club is no sub rosa WWF command center, to be sure. However it most definitely is an old boys' network with significant influence in the corridors of global corporate and policy-making power.

Rob Soutter wanted to know if I had a list of club members, and seemed relieved to hear that I did not. I knew then that I had to get ahold of that list. It could be the key to the inner sanctum of the WWF, and would also provide insight for the five million WWF members worldwide who still have no idea who really pulls the strings in the organization, and why. Their faith in the beneficent panda is, for the most part, unwavering.
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 41486
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Panda Leaks: The Dark Side of the WWF, by Wilfried Huism

Post by admin »

3. On Tiger Safari

In the weeks following our initial visit to Gland I received the occasional email from Rob Soutter: everything's fine, look forward to seeing you again soon in Namibia, on horseback. He was too busy just now, however, as WWF''s Year of the Tiger was just nearing its climax. As WWF "Tiger Ambassador" Leonardo DiCaprio would attend the Tiger Summit in St. Petersburg, where leaders of the seven countries still home to wild tigers would all be on hand, doing their bit to save the last 4,000 of the animals from extinction. Vladimir Putin was hosting the event -- he said the tiger was his favorite animal. The Russian leader saw in the Hollywood star an equal, a real "tough guy".

The Year of the Tiger was a chance for the WWF to really strut its stuff: mobilizing heads of state and steamrolling the whole world with a "Save the Tiger Now" ad campaign featuring Leonardo DiCaprio. An article appeared in the Washington Post on November 7, 2010 with the byline: Leonardo DiCaprio and Carter S. Roberts. It's headline pronounced: "If we save the tigers, we'll save the planet". An all or nothing proposition. Who wouldn't want to be on board?

After two months of waiting in vain for a binding offer from Rob Soutter I developed a sinking suspicion that nothing would ever come of our horseback ride to the lions. So I decided to set out on my own steam on a journalistic journey to investigate the WWF -- and what better place to start than in the tiger terrain of India?

From Raipur we headed north to one of India's oldest tiger reserves, driving through a fertile green breadbasket dotted with idyllic villages. It was a blessing, after the hell-on-earth of Raipur: the dizzying stench of open sewers running alongside the streets; the garbage piled high on the sidewalks, in which boney cows forage for scraps; the deafening noise of aggressive motorcycle traffic, as the drivers threaten to run each other and pedestrians off the road.

A girl of no more than 13 with an infant in her arms slept at the curb, only centimeters from the road traffic, almost invisible beneath the choking black exhaust clouds from the battered old diesel vehicles that filled the streets. The daily fight for survival renders the people both apathetic and ruthless. India's cities are being smothered in filth and garbage. In the year 2050 there will be more Indians than Chinese. Land is at a premium -- and the long arm of industrial greed extends deep into India's national parks.

After a six-hour drive on dusty roads we saw the first roadside billboards with the WWF panda logo, urging us to "Save the Tiger". We had reached the buffer zone of Kanha National Park. Many of the current inhabitants of local villages had lived in the forest -- before the government resettled them. Apparently, it was impossible for tigers and humans to "coexist". WWF plans for new tiger reserves have led to similar operations throughout India: the mandatory resettlement of forest-dwelling Adivasi tribes -- sometimes with the use of military force.

Image
WWF tiger campaign: "Born to become extinct"

A few kilometers after passing the main entrance an iron gate opened and we drove into the garden paradise that surrounds the Singinawa Jungle Lodge. Lemurs hopped from tree to tree and onto the roof of the bungalow to observe our arrival. Three "boys" in post-colonial faux-military khaki uniforms welcomed us, and proceeded to serve a luxurious "full English" breakfast. There were only eight other tourists at the lodge, wealthy pensioners from the USA and UK. We quickly developed a friendly rapport with them. They had booked their tour, via a WWF website, with Natural Habitat Adventures, a travel agency that prides itself on being the ''premier travel partner of the WWF". The two-week package was called Wild India and had cost 10,000 dollars per person, double occupancy. According to friendly lodge owner Nanda SJB Rana the hefty price tag included the guarantee that every "adventurer" would get to see at least one tiger in the wild.

The next morning at five AM we set off. It was only 3 degrees Celsius in the open jeeps, and by the time our convoy reached the main entrance to the park about an hour later some of us already had blue fingers. We joined a long line of waiting vehicles. 155 safari jeeps are permitted entry here each day -- not just to the periphery but to the core zone of the park as well, home to most of the tigers. The thrill of the chase was palpable; as soon as the barrier was raised the revving jeep fleet sped forward. I was surprised to learn of the extensive network of broad, sandy paths throughout the national park. Sullen men with brooms are posted roadside, keeping the "tiger highway" tidy for tourists. The sweepers are Adivasi: native forest dwellers. The once proud lords of the jungle have been reduced to acting as menial service providers for the eco-tourism industry.

According to official statistics there were about 100 tigers left in the park at the time of our visit, but our ranger considered this to be sheer propaganda. He put the number at 50 at most -- our first lesson in Indian tiger arithmetic.

On our safari we saw monkeys, exquisite birds and a few gaur, or Indian bison -- massive gray wild oxen weighing tons, the world's largest living bovines. Every time our ranger spotted an animal he slammed on the brakes. A few seconds' stop for a photo op and then the hunt resumed. But the eco-safari tourists didn't care about bison and monkeys; they had paid to see tigers. The ranger showed us how a tiger marks his territory on a tree: three meters up the trunk the big cat had clawed deep grooves into the hard wood, giving a vivid impression of the mighty animal's strength. In the wild, every mature male tiger claims a territory of 40 square kilometers for himself. At the next crossroads we met up with a mounted tiger-scouting unit: park rangers on elephants. They'd been on patrol for hours, equipped with walkie-talkies, but still no sign of a tiger. If I were a tiger confronted with that hellish noise I too would have taken refuge in the underbrush.

After three hours of cruising the forest, about 30 minutes of which had been spent sitting in traffic jams along the narrow tiger highway, we all met up again at the breakfast grounds. The rangers unloaded food hampers and placed the contents on the linen tablecloths spread over the front hoods of the jeeps: toast, ham and boiled eggs, tea and coffee. The various jeep teams compared notes in hunting jargon -- one woman swore she had seen the tail of a tiger on the run.

The grasslands that now belong to the animal reserve used to be home to the Adivasi. Their villages and their culture have disappeared. The tourists don't question this -- perhaps the government resettlement scheme appears justified. The WWF would seem to support this view: without explicitly endorsing forced resettlement, for years the organization has propagated the official line: For centuries we human beings have robbed wild animals of their habitat; now it's their turn.

Suddenly a ranger shouted: "A tiger has been spotted not far from here." Everyone ran back to the jeeps. The engines fired up and off we went again. We stopped where the tiger had reportedly been sighted. A monkey called out the tiger alarm. Deer raced off through the bush. We observed them being pursued -- by a wild boar. Damn, still no tiger! After a short break to grab lunch at our jungle lodge we were back to the tiger terrain. It was a race against time; the park closed at 6PM. After the days outing we'd had enough of the tiger chase, so we spent the second day by the hotel pool. The other safari tourists looked askance at us wimps, but the lady of the house, Latika Nath Rana, acknowledged our decision with a look of gratitude.

The Hunters and the Hunted

Dr. Latika Nath Rana is a tiger researcher with a PhD from Oxford. As the first woman in this specialist field she has achieved a prominent position among her Indian colleagues. At breakfast she confided in me that she's lost patience with her scientific brethren "We actually already know all there is to know about tigers. They should really just be left alone." She wasn't best pleased with the WWF tiger campaign, either: "It's just bringing more and more tiger experts into the country who then lay siege to the animals." They set camera traps everywhere and shoot the tigers with tranquilizer dart guns so they can hang GPS tracking devices around their necks. The WWF aims to use the data thus gathered -- on movement patterns and total numbers of animals in existence -- to allocate further tiger protection areas. Dr. Rana was not convinced: "It's all superfluous; it has no benefit for research. There is only one purpose behind it: the money must be spent." I asked her about the WWF billboards lining the route to the National Park. She laughed: "They're good at public relations. But I've yet to see even one genuinely useful WWF project here."

After careful scrutiny of the WWF India budget Dr. Latika Nath Rana has come to the conclusion that a large part of the WWF donation money from abroad is not spent on specific local conservation projects: "Most of the funds the WWF gives to official government bodies end up disappearing into the pockets of functionaries." Registering my baffled expression she added: "That's nothing out of the ordinary for India. If the donations were to actually make it to the tiger reserves we'd be able to hire four keepers for every tiger, build a protection wall around all 39 of India's tiger reserves, and buy a life insurance policy for every single tiger on top of that." She said she had distanced herself from all the tiger hype and now focuses her energies on working with the villagers in the buffer zone. "If we can win them over to our side we'll be able to help the tiger."

According to Dr. Latika Nath Rana the "tiger mafia" had repeatedly found villagers on the peripheries of the reserves willing to act as contract killers for a tiger hit. The hired hunters were paid only a few Rupees for their trouble -- they had no idea how much wild tiger products were worth on the global market. In New York's Chinatown the price of tiger bonemeal tea -- sold as a powerful male potency potion -- now tops that of heroin.

That night at the long dinner table Dr. Rana's husband Nanda explained the origins of the belief widely held in Asia that tiger extracts boost virility: "It's quite something when tigers mate; they go at it for days on end. One pair of tigers holds the world record: they had sex 113 times in a single day." Jack from Arizona, who regularly travels to Shanghai on business, argued that there are now well-established commercial tiger breeding farms in China. Our host shook his head: "That's not much help to us. The Chinese believe that the products from wild tigers have a much better effect."

Maggie, sitting next to me, had remained quiet during the whole tiger sex discussion, silently basking in the joy of the day's experience: on the afternoon safari her jeep had met up with a real live tiger. She couldn't recall the details because the tiger could only be seen from afar -- to her dismay the other jeeps had simply jumped their place in line to get a better look. Nonetheless, Maggie now felt that the 10,000 dollars for her Wild India tour had been well spent. "Because", she announced in a deep tone of conviction, "we might be the last generation able to see a tiger in the wild. Our grandchildren probably won't have the chance." The apocalyptical slant of the WWF campaign had obviously found a congenial medium in Maggie. But what did any of it have to do with protecting nature?

After dinner our host Nanda Rana led us into his library to show us a prized possession: large black and white photo prints from the heyday of the tiger hunt. "These pictures were a gift to my family from the House of Windsor." I then learned that Mr. Rana is a scion of the Nepalese royal family, who had organized the tiger hunts for the British colonial rulers on their visits "back in the day." He showed us a photo of a group of elephants standing in circular formation. "Before King George arrived 1000 elephants were rounded up from across the country. They were used to drive the tigers together and encircle them in a pocket. On this hunt here they bagged 120 tigers -- in one day. Quite an unsporting sport." The next photo showed dozens of tiger pelts hung up to dry like hand towels on a clothesline.

When I asked whether Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and founding father of the WWF, had been an active participant in these tiger hunts, the Nepalese aristocrat looked at me with a hint of suspicion and decided to take a diplomatic tack: "He did come along sometimes, but as far as I know he didn't shoot. He was a conservationist, after all. He excused himself by saying he had sprained his trigger finger."

Contemporary press reports tell a different story: On a state visit to India in January 1961 Queen Elizabeth II and her prince consort went to Rathambore to go tiger hunting. In anticipation of their visit helpers had bound dozens of live goats to trees as bait for the big cats, which the beaters then drove directly into the monarch's firing line. But as soon as the Queen had a tiger in her sights she put her rifle aside and reached for her camera instead, leaving the kill shot to Prince Philip.
Soon afterwards the photo of the hunting party was circulating in Great Britain: in the foreground the dead animal lies stretched out, behind it the hosts of the hunting party and the royal couple.

Almost exactly 50 years after this hunting jaunt we managed to secure an interview with Prince Philip at Buckingham Palace. He took our question about the tiger hunt like a man, looked straight into the camera, and confessed his crime: ''I've never been big game hunting. No, never -- except that one occasion in India. I've shot one tiger in my life, that's all. The only way you can ensure that you get a reasonable wildlife population is by making sure that they're balanced. You can't just leave it to nature because we're interfering with nature all the time. And so you protect some things by doing away with the predators, otherwise it won't work."

Image
Prince Philip during our interview, 2011

It had been a bothersome business nonetheless. The picture of the dead tiger had triggered a wave of indignation in Britain. Such rotten timing! In the spring of 1961 Prince Philip and his pals were just preparing to proudly announce the birth of the WWF to the world. For Prince Philip the group portrait with tiger carcass was purely an image problem. In his view the hunt goes hand-in-hand with animal protection: the only really good conservationists are hunters, as his philosophy would have it. Most of the national parks in Africa and Asia started as private game reserves for the white European and US elite. In 1900 there were still 40,000 tigers in India -- before the trigger-happy Windsors and their upper crust crowd arrived to make their contribution to "conservation". By the end of colonial rule the Indian tiger population had been reduced to just 5,000.

Image
Prince Philip with prey and Elizabeth II, 1961

The Tiger Woman

It was late at night and nocturnal wild animals were out on a raid. Vasudha Chakravarthi led the way. Her house was only a few hundred meters away but I was still spooked by the polyphonic murmurings of the forest. She laughed at me and stomped on ahead, armed with a big stick, ponytail swinging jauntily in the moonlight. The young woman had lived in the jungle for the past four years and was not afraid of the wild animals. "They know me, and know that I'm their friend." But they didn't know me! We had almost reached her house when she suddenly stopped and stood stock-still, shining her flashlight into the bushes: "A leopard, very close by." I asked if leopards are man-eaters. "No, humans are not part of their diet. They only kill people for the sake of killing." How reassuring. Vasudha shooed the leopard away with hissing sounds and soon we were finally in the safety of her home, a cabin built 160 years earlier by an Irish couple that had fallen in love with the remote region. An old tin sign still hung above the front door: Hunting Lodge. Vasudha had renovated the house on the edge of the Mudumalai Tiger Reserve in the south of India with her own hands.

Before choosing a life in the wilderness Vasudha had worked in a well-paid job at HSBC Bank in London: "It was interesting, but at some point I realized that life as a businesswoman didn't make me happy; it was alienating me from myself." Vasudha's husband didn't share her passion for the wilderness, and they eventually split up.

Every morning Vasudha puts on her camouflage fatigues and heads off with her camera on a tiger-tracking mission -- alone and unarmed. She said she had only met up with a tiger on her rounds a total of seven times, and she had never been afraid: "Once I came upon a tigress that had just killed a deer. I sat just a few meters away from her and began to take pictures. She looked at me and left me in peace. For 40 minutes we sat facing each other. She could have killed me at any time, but I knew she wouldn't. There was a silent accord between us." Vasudha showed me her tiger photos on her laptop. None of the pictures have been published: "I couldn't do that to the tigers; it would only bring even more people from the rich countries here to see them."

We were awakened the next morning by rays of sunlight shining through the cracks of the wooden shutters. Neighbor Antony was already there, just checking to see that everything was okay. He lives three kilometers away, and he'd brought his 10-year-old daughter Preethi along with him. Antony got to work repairing the water pipe that runs from Vasudha's well to the kitchen. An elephant had paid a nighttime visit and trampled on the line.

Vasudha introduced me to her little friend Preethi "one of the best trackers there is". Preethi often joins her on patrol to help find the trail of the tiger -- the youngster knows her way around the forest because every day she makes her way on foot through seven kilometers of tiger terrain to get to school. She had recently met up with a tiger with "a huge head THIS big". She recounted the incident with obvious pride, stretching her arms out as wide as she could. Had she been afraid? Preethi looked at me in amazement: "No, what of?" She had only ever had one tussle with an animal: on her way home from school an enormous cobra had once attacked her. "I had to beat it to death with a stick."

Image
Preethi and Vasudha in the tiger forest

Then Vasudha and Preethi had an idea: the next day we would go tiger tracking together. Preethi had seen a Sambar deer carcass a few kilometers away -- the obvious remains of a tiger takeaway -- the tiger would likely still be in the vicinity of its prey, because the meal was enough for two or three days. The offer was tempting, but I had to admit that I was scared. The two of them swore on the tiger god that nothing would happen to me because tigers don't like human blood. But, I argued, man-eating tigers do exist! "Yes," said Vasudha, "but the man-eating ones are very rare. Normally, tigers will only kill people when they feel threatened, or when they're too old and weak to hunt other prey."

I politely declined the kind offer -- the prospect of being lunch for a geriatric tiger was just a bit too unnerving. But I had disappointed the fearless tiger duo: just another wimp after all, not much better than the self-styled "tiger experts" from across the globe that turned up there in droves: "They should just stay at home." Because of their fear of tigers they would only enter the jungle in secure vehicles under the protection of armed rangers, disrupting the life of the animals. Vasudha's rage erupted at me: "Why don't you all leave the forests to the people who live in them? You have the money and the power to penetrate the core zones of the reserves with jeeps. Many wild animals have been killed in accidents with tourist jeeps. And can you imagine the noise pollution that eco-tourism brings? For a few extra dollars the rangers will drive the jeeps right up close to the animals to get them to charge the jeeps -- for a special kick. Our elephants used to be the most peaceful creatures imaginable. Now they're so high-strung that attacks on people are becoming more and more frequent. Only yesterday an elephant killed two people in our neighboring village. That's all a result of the Western tiger craze. We don't need your money. Just leave the tigers in peace, maybe then they'll still have a chance."

Ullash Kumar

Towards the close of the colonial era the British in India and Nepal established the first game reserves there. After their departure the WWF took the reins of the tiger protection efforts and, in 1972, started the campaign "Operation Tiger". The organization persuaded the Indian government under Indira Gandhi to create reserves where tigers could live undisturbed by human beings. Local authorities forcibly expelled forest-dwelling tribes; nearly a million people thus lost their home. Yet the tiger population still continued to shrink. According to official data there are now only about 1,700 tigers left in India. So what happened? A lifelong conservationist, a man who had since childhood been intent on helping the threatened tigers, elephants and rhinoceros of his country, had asked himself the same question.

Ullash Kumar lives in the megalopolis Bengaluru, capital of the southern Indian state of Karnataka. The gentle man with soft facial features is a self-described "wildlifer" and "eco-activist". I found him via the Internet. I was immediately struck by the clarity and precision of his online articles; it was obvious that the author was no armchair ecologist, but someone who really knows his way around the jungle. I had contacted him via email. Now that we were sitting face-to-face the first thing Ullash revealed, contrary to my expectations, was his deep love of the WWF.

Image
Ullash Kumar

As a schoolboy Ullash Kumar had been a member of the WWF youth club and had gone on excursions into the forest of his homeland, Nilgiri. There the budding conservationists learned to identify animals and plants: ''I'm very grateful to the WWF for that education. After university I became secretary of the Nilgiri Wildlife Association, which works strictly in line with the WWF. We fought for the expansion of a tiger reserve. An Adivasi tribe lived in the territory and the plan was to resettle them. It was clear in my mind that they had to go, and I seriously believed they would be happy about it: their pets would be safe from wild animals, they would be able to send their children to school, and to find better jobs than gathering fruit in the forest or tapping rubber trees.

Much to my surprise the tribe fought for their right to stay in the forest, even taking their case to court. I wanted to understand what these people thought and felt, so I decided to go visit them. That was the start of a major transformation within myself, to the extent that I now vehemently reject the Western conservation model. But the WWF continues to pursue its elite conservationist course. It still has no understanding of indigenous peoples."


Ullash Kumar belongs to a network of Indian conservationists who have formed an alliance with the indigenous forest dwellers. "Only the native tribes can save the tiger and other endangered animals -- they are our only hope." Most Indian intellectuals have no contact with the Adivasi, who are ranked as "untouchables", the lowest rung of the traditional Indian caste system. Like the proverbial leopard that can't change its spots, it seems even dedicated activists have trouble breaking free of the old system.

In the name of the doctrine of the human-free jungle, now, once again, another up to one million Adivasi have been earmarked for resettlement, to make way for the expansion of old reserves and the creation of new ones. Many tribes are now resisting this latest wave of expulsions. Ullash Kumar does not think the compensation money offered will tempt them to part with their forest: "A tribe gets about 10 lakh rupees compensation for giving up its forest; that's about 80,000 dollars. That's quickly used up. Where are they supposed to live? And what from? No one wants them. They're lost in the big city slums."

On our drive to Nagarhole National Park Ullash explained that Adivasi is a Sanskrit word that literally means "beginning dweller", in other words, the first to live in a place. And the forest-dwelling tribes of India were in fact there long before today's dominant ethnic groups. For decades, the majority population ran roughshod over the rights of the Adivasi. No wonder that some tribes sympathize with the Maoist guerrillas engaged in an ongoing insurgency in India. We stopped in the city of Mysore and bought an Indian Times with the headline: "Six WWF employees kidnapped". Ethnic Bodo rebels had captured the WWF workers as they were taking a tiger census in the jungle of Assam. The army had sent a special unit into the jungle to free the hostages -- a day in the life of India. In the area we were heading to Naxalite Maoists had made repeated attacks on police stations and forestry authority offices.

A Visit with the Honey Gatherers

After six hours on the road we arrived at Nagarhole National Park. Monkeys hopped gracefully across the road; now and again we met up with an elephant; and in the dim dusk light the glowing eyes of a leopard beamed at us from the underbrush. The huts of the honey gatherer tribe came into view. A big sign at the roadside just before the entrance to their village read: "stopping prohibited". But we had a special visitors' permit from the park administration. Half the village had come out to meet us. Leading the welcoming committee was tribal matriarch Muthamma, a dark beauty in a long white sari. She got right to the point: "Ten years ago we were resettled for the first time -- and put here, in the buffer zone of the National Park. Now they're expanding the tiger protection area and we're supposed to move again. The government treats us like objects. But we won't budge -- the only way they'll get us out of our forest is dead."

At the time of our visit, 30 villages in the area had been earmarked for removal -- a total of 15,000 people. Muthamma maintained contact with the other villages and organized the resistance: "We've lived together with tigers for centuries; we don't kill them and the tigers don't kill us. We revere the tiger as a deity; we have a tiger altar over in the forest. The conservationists from the city don't understand the forest. As long as we're alive the tigers will still be safe. If we disappear, the loggers and poachers will have free rein."

Image
Muthamma, the tribe's leader

According to Muthamma, wild animals had not benefitted from the first tribal resettlement out of Nagarhole National Park; the profits were all on the side of the big-city businesspeople. Only a few years after the government expelled the indigenous people from the forest, certain areas within the park had been converted to commercial forest by the state authorities. In Nagarhole National Park alone, eucalyptus and teakwood plantations now occupy land that was once home to 40 Adivasi villages. Throughout India lumber and construction companies and factories are encroaching on the national parks, decimating them. Often the expropriation of the Adivasi is only the first step in paving the way for the industrial takeover of the forest.

That hasn't stopped WWF India from putting continued pressure on Adivasi throughout the country, at least indirectly. The organization had become dissatisfied with the Indian government because it had let resettlement policy slide in the 1980s -- out of indifference, or perhaps also to avoid further conflicts. In August 1997 WWF India ended up obtaining a high court decision that forced the state governments to implement the agreed Adivasi resettlements within a year. [1] The WWF saw in this decision an historic victory for the conservation movement. But it put fear in the hearts of millions of forest dwellers: they would have to pack up and leave their ancestral home. Those who were allowed to stay would have to abandon their traditional economical activities: hunting, fishing and gathering wild fruit.

In the view of Indian environmentalist and Greenpeace president Ashish Kothari, the legal decision effected by the WWF was "suicidal": in the wake of the ruling, riots and resistance activities broke out across the country. According to Kothari, "conservationists who believe that wildlife can be protected in such circumstances are living in a fool's paradise." [2] From then on the Adivasi saw the conservationists as their natural enemies. The human rights organization Ekta Parish had organized a march of 30,000 Adivasi on the capital New Delhi. There were also isolated acts of violent resistance: out of desperation some tribes had taken the extreme measure of poisoning tigers. No tigers, no expulsion -- it was their last hope. The resettlement policy led to violence and chaos throughout the country.

Adivasi resistance to the expropriation was so strong that finally, in December 2006, the Indian parliament passed the Forest Rights Act, for the first time anchoring indigenous land rights in law. According to the legislation each Adivasi is entitled to 2.5 hectares of forestland. Resettlement is permitted only on a voluntary basis. The law sparked vehement protest and legal counterattacks from conservation groups and the forestry authority. In the daily grind of forest management the ruling has often simply been ignored. Illegal expulsions still occur.
But at least the Adivasi and other forest dwellers now have a legal basis for pursuing their rights in court. The United Nations also lent its support: in September 2007, the UN General Assembly in New York passed a resolution called the "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples".

The WWF is also pleased to point to its own "Declaration of Principles", which states that conservationists and indigenous peoples should become its "natural allies" in the "fight for a healthy, natural world". The WWF document clearly recognizes that indigenous peoples "have often been stewards and protectors of nature". Despite this noble declaration, WWF India continues to adhere to its resettlement policy -- albeit on "a volunteer basis", as the law stipulates.

Muthamma could only laugh at that. To encourage the willingness of her tribe to "volunteer" for resettlement, the forestry authority had prohibited them from exploiting the forestland they had been allotted as compensation in the 1990s. "We're no longer allowed to keep livestock or harvest honey, the basis of our existence." According to the forestry authority -- mouthing the WWF ideology -- their commercial activities spoiled the "virgin" status of the forest. How were Muthamma's people managing to survive? "Every day we're picked up by a truck and brought to a coffee plantation. We have to work there for 120 rupees, (2.75 dollars) a day -- half of what the other workers earn. We have to do it; otherwise we'd starve to death. It's their way of trying to demoralize us."


Land Grab

The prohibition of forest exploitation has led to the creeping loss of Adivasi common property -- and ultimately to the demise of their culture; the restriction has sent an army of cheap laborers into the open arms of the plantation economy, which is claiming ever more of the forest. In practice, "voluntary" resettlement is nothing more than a soft-sell version of the old government expulsion policy. The "WWF Declaration of Principles" makes a good impression at conferences, symposiums and on websites. But it is nothing more than a paper tiger; reality bares its dangerously sharp teeth on the ground, in tiger territory.

Back in the village of the honey gatherers: in the meantime, almost all the inhabitants had joined the circle around us. I noticed that the women were very forthright, contributing freely and with total self-confidence to the debate. I also saw several men in the crowd holding babies; the conventional division of labor between the sexes obviously did not apply. 2,500 years ago, when the Buddha had encountered Adivasi culture on travels across India, he too had been deeply touched by their egalitarian ways. The Adivasi tribes had served as a model for his ideal of a self-sufficient, humanist and democratic society. This was how man should live on earth: without money and without the lust for material possessions. Many elements of this ancient culture are still intact today, but the Adivasi are not immune to the temptations of consumerism. This was illustrated when the hush of the forest was suddenly shattered by the ring-ring of a mobile phone. Muthamma laughed sheepishly as she fished a cell phone out of the folds of her sari. Everyone laughed.

An old man spoke up, introducing himself as Bhaskaran. He had worked as a tracker for the Indian tiger researcher Dr. K. Ullas Karanth: "We know where the tigers are and can read their pugmarks and the traces they leave behind. He wanted to put collars with electronic tracking devices on the tigers to monitor their movements. To do this, the tigers first have to be subdued with the dart from a tranquilizer gun. For fear of the tiger, the scientists often give them too high a dose, and the tiger dies of cardiac arrest. I've seen it with my own eyes. 15 of the tigers died this way, but they were counted in the tiger census anyway. They just left the transmitters lying in the forest where they keep sending their signals as if the tigers were still alive."

It is not known whether the WWF is aware of the deaths caused by the tiger researchers. Certainly not a word of it has yet reached the donating public in the West. The WWF continues to solicit for funds for camera traps and the costly tracking devices, although their scientific value is questionable. In a fundraising campaign with the headline "Tigers in Trouble" the WWF appealed for a donation of 80 dollars: "so that we can install camera traps. The images show us where the tigers live. This information is very important and lays the foundation for the allocation and establishment of new protection areas." [3]

"Unnecessary" said Ullash Kumar, "if there are tigers living in the forest anyone in the local villages will be able to tell you so." Tigers leave unmistakable signs to mark their territory. For that reason Ullash Kumar knew the tiger campaign to be useless, but saw it as a big business in India, with many stakeholders: civil servants, tiger experts and politicians. The more tigers an Indian state registers with the central government, the more money it draws from the national tiger budget, which in turn receives international funding.

Tiger conservation policy thus indirectly feeds an enormous and corrupt forest administration.
Ullash Kumar told me about the KMTR reserve in Tamil Nadu that had just been declared an "endangered tiger habitat": ''Although there is not a single tiger left in the area. The last one was seen there 40 years ago by local forest dwellers." According to Ullash Kumar, nature conservation was being used as "a pretext to get at money and land". The forestry authority wanted "total control" over the national parks. "The natives get in the way of their plans."

Ullash Kumar can cite many examples of corrupt forestry officials: They take bribes for giving illegal lumbering concessions; they take bribes in exchange for acquiring special building permits for rich, big-city businesspeople and politicians so they can build exclusive mansions in the protected buffer zone areas of the national parks. The Indian press regularly reports on cases where parks officials have been involved in poaching activities, earning money from the illegal sale of the tigers they are meant to be protecting.


Ullash Kumar is convinced that the WWF shares responsibility for the dark side of India's tiger policy: "It designed the Indian tiger policy that led to the resettlement of the Adivasi; it supports eco-tourism -- things that harm tigers and other animals. I have many friends who've found a job with the WWF. If you're a biologist looking for work in India, there's no way around the WWF. In my experience the WWF does do good, but the bad it does outweighs it. The WWF has a hidden agenda. What concerns me the most is that the WWF lets corporations finance its tiger campaign. In this way the WWF becomes the henchman of powers that take no real interest in the forest dwellers or the tigers. I'm afraid that the real goal of such companies, in the long-term, is to use the national parks to get at the land."

The establishment of national parks does, in fact, often resemble a modern form of land grab. Much more than just a safe haven for wild animals, the parks also harbor many valuable natural resources. The first step in the land grab process is to divest the indigenous tribes of their property rights. What was traditionally commonly owned land is then lost, becoming a commercial commodity. As a rule, national parks are publicly owned; the commercial exploitation of forest resources, however, is left to private companies and NGOs that make a profit out of it.

Tour operators are doing a swift business with eco-tourism, and the pharmaceutical and food multinationals are busy plundering the genetic reservoirs of the ancient forests; they want to collect and apply the data before most species have become extinct. The WWF is frequently at the negotiation table when the rights to the natural genetic resources of the rainforests are being divvied up. The organization advocates for profit-sharing agreements for the indigenous peoples, with the declared aim of integrating them in the global economy.

The expulsion of indigenous peoples from the core zones of the reserves creates a steady supply of cheap labor for the industrial mining and farming operations on the periphery of the forests. Very few of the expelled natives find jobs in the tourism industry. Most conservation refugees across the globe end up like Muthamma and her tribespeople, as modern-day slaves on the plantations that have sprung up on the outskirts of the world's remaining rainforests. Global capitalism is cutting into increasingly large forest areas in the Southern Hemisphere -- often in the name of nature conservancy.

That evening we said our goodbyes to the honey gatherers. In the case of Muthamma it was to be a final farewell. A few months after our meeting, Ullash Kumar delivered the sad news that the clever, charismatic Adivasi tribal leader had died of kidney failure.
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 41486
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Panda Leaks: The Dark Side of the WWF, by Wilfried Huism

Post by admin »

4. Fishy Friends

In the 1980s the WWF decided it wanted to be more than just a conservation organization, advocating for the world's big, beloved superstar animals. Taking a new, ecological tack the organization set out to protect nature from the fundamental evils of modern times. In a speech to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the WWF, founder Max Nicholson defined the enemy precisely: "These are the giants: ruthless and harmful technological development; profligate waste of the world's readily available energy reserves; and senseless multiplication like crazy rabbits. The sad truth is that someone will have to tackle those three big nasties, and if it isn't to be us, who will?" [4]

In its mission statement from late 1989 the WWF first began to speak of the "sustainable use of renewable resources" -- this was the only way the planet's biodiversity and natural environment could be saved in the face of human overpopulation. Under the presidency of Prince Philip (1981-1996) the WWF developed into a global environmental organization that also regularly collaborated with global corporations. The panda had bedded down with profit, and soon a common strategic project was born: the "green economy". A strategy for our times, bringing tidings of comfort and joy in the midst of climate collapse and rainforest decimation: there would be more growth and more consumerism while simultaneously conserving natural resources -- on land and in the water.

In the past, whenever I saw the likable little WWF panda on a poster, a soup packet or a beer can, my emotional response was largely positive -- a result of the successful marketing that has made the WWF panda one of the world's most trusted brand logos. It was only by chance that I first ran across a story that would eventually shake my personal panda faith to the core. In the Steintor district of Bremen I ran into Luisa Ludwig, an old friend from Chile who I hadn't seen in years. After Pinochet's military putsch Luisa had lived in exile in Germany, and later returned home to teach at the German school in Santiago. She told me she now ran a little guesthouse in a tiny southern Chilean town with the melodious name of Puyuhuapi. There was nothing there, she said, but mountains, glaciers, fjords and several salmon farms in which a total environmental collapse had occurred. She said an estimated 100 million salmon had met an excruciating end in their huge underwater cages. At first it appeared they had been victims of the deadly salmon virus ISA, for which there is no cure. As it turned out, the real cause of the disaster was the greed of the salmon industry, in particular the Norwegian company Marine Harvest. My curiosity piqued, I searched the Internet and was astonished to find that John Fredriksen, one of the world's most infamous financial investors, is the principal owner of the company.

On the Marine Harvest website I not only found images of healthy-looking pink salmon and the company promise that it took its "social and ecological responsibility" very seriously, but also the friendly panda from the WWF. The pairing struck me as obscene -- and the story certainly seemed interesting enough to be worth pursuing. In February 2009 I set off with my colleague Arno Schumann on a journey to the end of the world. We wanted to get to the bottom of the fish farming disaster, and to find out how the panda had hooked up with the salmon.

From Santiago we took off on the new privately owned freeway for a 1,000-kilometer road trip down to the cold south. I had been there for the first time in 1981 and remembered the region as a green paradise, with dark forests, snow-dusted volcanic mountains and deep, blue lakes. But the forests south of Valdivia had now been completely replaced by pulp plantations: slender, brown-green pines and eucalyptus trees lined up in rigid rows like soldiers. Between the rows of trees were wide muddy aisles plowed up by the mechanical harvesters.

Every few years the industrial tree crops are felled, stripped bare in seconds, and transported to one of the gigantic pulp mills nearby -- their belching smokestacks can be seen from kilometers away. What remains is a landscape that is naked, industrially standardized and biologically dead.
The forest sell-out had been the brainchild of the Chicago Boys, a group of economists that obliged the Pinochet dictatorship with tips on the quickest way to turn Chile's rich natural resources into cold hard cash.

Oddly enough, many of these pulp lumber operations now bear the "ecolabel" FSC, which stands for Forest Stewardship Council, co-founded by the WWF. This certification has a good reputation for enforcing especially strict standards -- companies who bare the label practice "sustainable" lumber production only. That, at any rate, is the claim of the FSC, an NGO with its headquarters in Bonn, Germany. The Shell oil company, a major financial sponsor of the WWF, also runs enormous tree plantations in southern Chile, as well as in Argentina and Paraguay. Shell, too, has received the squeaky green FSC ecolabel for "sustainable forestry". The certification eases business dealings, but also the conscience of customers.

The idea of the FSC founders had originally been to enable natural forests to be exploited in a genuinely sustainable manner, preserving and protecting them for the future. But the fact is that a majority of the wood now bearing the FSC label comes from industrial plantations that are little more than green deserts, devoid of diverse plant and animal life. The few extreme survivalist organisms that do manage to hang on in these wastelands are snuffed out with herbicides and pesticides.

The Salmon King

Nearing the city of Puerto Montt we were met with the stench of rotten fish. It wasn't the salmon farms that stank but the fishmeal factories. They produce the feed for the voracious aquaculture fish, which are quickly fattened for the slaughter, gaining 5 kilograms within 18 months, a feat that can only be achieved with feed concentrates made of fishmeal and fish oil.

The smell followed us all the way to the ferry terminal at the port of Pargua, where we caught the ferry to Chiloe Island. Back in 1981 I had visited this fabulously beautiful island, with its seaside pile dwellings and enduring water spirit folklore. It was a poor but beautiful place. It was now barren and ugly, and the people still poverty-stricken, in spite of the "salmon miracle".

The huge steel rings of the salmon cages could be seen in the fjords, in stark contrast to the blue of the water; container trucks jammed the highways. The red containers carried a toxic freight: millions of salmon carcasses contaminated with the virus. They had been slaughtered and were now being taken to the fishmeal factories for disposal. There they would be made into feed pellets for their surviving salmon brethren -- recycling, Chilean style. The virulent salmon disease ISA has been an ecological disaster. At the time of our visit most of the salmon farms had already been shut down by the authorities and put under quarantine for a number of years.

Achao was a grim place. The rain had been falling for hours onto the rooftops, shingled with gray alerce wood. The seafood restaurants were empty; a few drunken men in Marine Harvest rain jackets staggered down the street towards us. On the shore two old women sat under a wooden shelter selling hand-knitted socks and sweaters to feed their families -- the men had been fired without notice when ISA broke out. The company had given them two months severance pay -- the equivalent of 550 dollars.

Maria, one of the women, complained: "The industry promised us prosperity but the salmon have brought only misfortune. My husband and our three sons are now out of work. They can't go back to working as fishermen; there's nothing more to fish: no mussels, no sea urchins, everything's dead." When I asked whom she thought was responsible for the disaster she said: "The Norwegians. They made a lot of money with the salmon. Now that they've contaminated our ocean they're just clearing off."

A third of all commercial salmon production worldwide is in the hands of the Norwegian John Fredriksen. With an estimated private fortune of 13.5 billion dollars the corpulent, ruddy-faced "salmon king" is one of the richest men on the planet. Fredriksen started out as a small herring merchant, and the Norwegian bourgeoisie still see him as a parvenu with crude manners. His motto is simple: "Anything that's good for the shareholders is good for the company." He jets around the world on his razzias accompanied by a small entourage of 18 staff members.

Image
"King Salmon", John Fredriksen (on the right)

Whenever a business that Fredriksen deems strategically important falters he moves in, buying up stocks until he has a controlling share of the company. Fredriksen has used this modus operandi to amass a substantial global empire: he owns Frontline, the world's largest tanker fleet, and Seadrill, the market leader in oil platforms. John Fredriksen got into the salmon trade more or less by chance. In 2007 a major Norwegian salmon company was about to go bankrupt. Fredriksen bought it and then merged with two other players in that fishy business. Since then he's been the big daddy of the salmon industry as well. His aquaculture company Marine Harvest dumps 100 million salmon a year onto the global market. Aquaculture professes to be a "clean" method of producing fish in large quantities. The WWF has elected to do a partnership deal with Fredriksen's company -- presumably because the organization believes that intensive farming in the sea is the solution to the food supply problems of the future.

Swimming Pharmacies

On a boat ride through the Reloncavi Fjord a few kilometers south of Puerto Montt, marine biologist Hector Kol described the farm-bred salmon as "swimming pharmacies". With 38 salmon and trout farms located in the fjord, its capacities are maxed out. An average of 200,000 salmon are crammed into each cage -- twice as many as permitted in Europe. A single Chilean farm with six cages thus stocks over a million fish at any given time. The individual farms are much too close together; infectious disease can spread in a flash: the virus epidemic was a disaster waiting to happen.

Image
Hector Kol, salmon rebel

A year earlier there had been a mass salmon "jailbreak" in the Reloncavi Fjord that saw 130,000 salmon on the loose. Salmon are predators, and the escapees had soon gobbled up everything in the fjord; there was nothing left for the local fishermen to catch. Hector Kol knows every salmon farm in the area; he used to be a project developer for the Hector Kol, salmon rebel industry, until he realized that his work was contributing to ecosystem collapse in the fjords. He quit his job, and has worked for a pittance consulting the small-scale fishermen's cooperatives ever since. Throughout southern Chile, wherever there is a salmon workers' strike or a blockade staged by outraged fishermen, the wiry high-strung chain smoker can't be far away: Hector Kol is a man on a mission.

The salmon industry views Kol as a ringleader and a traitor -- he has to watch his back. Environmental activists from Santiago had warned him of a possible attempt on his life, but Hector Kol was a hardened veteran of the resistance against the Pinochet dictatorship: "I won't stop until the salmon dictatorship in Chile is over as well." As we drove along the bumpy fjordside sand roads he pointed to the white silos on the shore: "There are too many salmon in the cages, so there's not enough oxygen, and they suffocate." The silos were oxygen compressors used to give artificial respiration to the sea.

Hector Kol had taken samples at many different farms -- always with the salmon company security boats hot on his heels. He had also studied the companies' environmental reports in detail: "In Norway it is permissible to use one gram of antibiotics per ton of salmon produced; in Chile there are no restrictions. Here they sometimes use up to eight hundred times the amount of antibiotics as in Europe -- the same antibiotics that are used to treat humans. That's dangerous, because the bacteria become resistant to them. In one year Marine Harvest added as much antibiotics to the feed at a single farm in this fjord than used by the entire Norwegian salmon industry that same year."

In addition to the antibiotics, other dangerous chemical substances are also used to push salmon production volumes higher still. Hector Kol knows them all: "Even the salmon eggs are treated with fungicides, which contain carcinogenic substances such as crystal violet and malachite green. The feeding cages are routinely painted with antifouling agents that contain heavy metals."


The marine biologist opened his laptop and showed us video footage shot by a mussel diver of the seabed beneath the salmon farm cages. An undersea garbage landscape unfolded on the screen: pipes, old fishing nets and parts of cages, rotten feed and a thick layer of salmon feces, with dead mussels, sea urchins and starfish floating in the murky soup. "Everything's been killed off down there. The industry uses the sea as a garbage dump; the salmon in our farms produce the same amount of feces as the 14 million inhabitants of Chile. The entire marine ecosystem is being ruthlessly destroyed for a quick profit -- and the WWF is doing nothing to stop it."

When Panda Met Salmon

What the WWF did do was to enter into a partnership agreement with Marine Harvest, in April 2008. The press release announcing the collaboration said the two parties were joining forces to advance the production of ''sustainable" salmon. To Hector Kol that sounded like a cynical sneer: "25,000 workers have already lost their jobs because half of the aquaculture farms have had to close down due to the virus pandemic. Where is the social sustainability the WWF talks about? It claims that the salmon industry is good for Chile, which is just stabbing us in the back." I offered that the dialogue between the WWF and the company had its positive aspects. There had been small improvements. For example, the Chilean WWF and Adolfo Alvial, the Technical Director of Marine Harvest in Chile, had planned a pilot project: in future the young salmon, called smolt, would be kept in closed tanks while they grew, so they would no longer soil the fjords and lakes. Hector dismissed my argument: "That's just a token initiative. Where are those tanks? They exist only on paper; Marine Harvest isn't going to spend a single Peso on them."

Image
Salmon farm in Chile

The following day we went to meet with Marine Harvest Chile director Adolfo Alvial. He admitted outright that the water tank project had, in fact, been ''suspended". The company currently had other, more pressing, concerns: "We've also been hit very hard by the virus crisis. We'll take up the idea again when the time is ripe. The WWF appreciates our position." Alvial proved to be one of the company's self-critical thinkers. As a biologist he was well aware that the industry had inflicted serious damage to the ecosystem of the Chilean fjords: "We've made many mistakes, but we, and John Fredriksen personally, are determined to learn from them. It is possible to reconcile sustainability with profit. We can't give up now, because we have a responsibility for feeding humankind. The small-scale independent fishermen can't catch enough; we need aquaculture."

The crisis in Chile has led to a salmon shortage on the world market, triggering a rise in prices. Marine Harvest has responded by ramping up production in Norway. In Chile the company has behaved like a vulture circling above the dying industry: as smaller companies succumb to the epidemic Marine Harvest has moved in to buy up their infrastructure. When the crisis is over Fredriksen will have even more control over the global salmon trade than before the outbreak. And the extermination of millions of diseased salmon won't put the company in the red -- the fish were well insured.

Outside a McDonald's in Oslo advertising banners fluttered in the wind. The omnipresent American eatery was promoting its latest creation: the new Marine Harvest salmon wrap, with which Fredriksen hoped to penetrate new markets, winning over young urbane consumers with a hip "sustainable" product.

We were in Oslo to meet with Maren Esmark, Marine Conservation Officer at WWF Norway. She had negotiated the partnership deal with Marine Harvest. I questioned her about the ethics of cooperating with a company that is clearly a two-faced beast: in Norway it seems to behave properly, and at the same time it's destroying marine ecosystems and people's lives in Chile. Ms. Esmark responded with unruffled diplomacy: "The partnership with Marine Harvest is still young and only applies to Norway. The situation in Chile is unfortunate, but Chile is not part of our partnership agreement." How convenient! Never mind that it's one and the same company. That's what I call double-dealing. I was starting to get on Maren Esmark's nerves: "What exactly do you want? We could stop the dialogue with Marine Harvest, but do you think that would make the world a better place?"

She firmly believed that the partnership with the WWF had already made Marine Harvest "better", at least in Norway. Together they would continue to "reduce the company's ecological footprint". New measures would be introduced, for example to prevent so many salmon from escaping their cages. Because when the aquafarmed salmon breeds with wild varieties, genetic diversity is lost. The WWF also aimed to use the partnership to solve the problem of salmon feed. The company fed its stocks, in Norway as well, on a mixture containing North Sea herring. The plan was to replace this popular seafood, wherever possible, with protein from fish considered inedible by humans.

I pressed the point: did the partnership agreement include binding commitments? Who monitors the company to make sure it keeps its promises? The WWF representative remained vague: "At the moment it's about testing the waters and formulating joint, verifiable goals in the partnership." Fed up with the corporate-speak, I asked to see a copy of the agreement. Maren Esmark was unable to oblige: "The agreement is being revised at Marine Harvest. I'll send you a copy as soon as it's finished." She did not. Several subsequent requests also failed to produce the document; I never did get to see it. Perhaps it was really more of a non-bonding declaration of intent than an actual credible contract. That would certainly be a cost-effective way for the company to "green" its tarnished image.

But what was in it for the WWF? Was money changing hands? A rather uncomfortable question for Maren Esmark, who hesitated before answering: "Yes, the agreement also involves money. We get financial support for our work on marine conservation." When I asked how much money Fredriksen's empire funnels into the WWF, she looked searchingly around for help but there was no one to come to her aid. "Well, it's ... in euro or in Norwegian crowns?" -- "The currency makes no difference." -- "Okay. Well, the WWF gets about 100,000 euros a year." That's almost 135,000 dollars. Per annum.

Did she think it was a case of: "He who pays the piper calls the tune"? Oddly, Maren Esmark was quick to agree, albeit by putting a new spin on an old saying: "Yes, every partnership with industrial companies is a challenge. But as a global organization we have to come to terms with that. We work with large companies while at the same time criticizing them, regardless of whether we are taking their money."

Then why wasn't the WWF criticizing the ecological misdeeds of its partner in Chile? "That is outside of WWF Norway's purview." But this excuse had apparently been forgotten only minutes later when Maren Esmark launched into a fervent plea of support for the Chilean operations: "We believe that the salmon industry will bring great benefit to Chile's coastal inhabitants. It creates jobs and pay and we don't want that to stop."

Image
Christian Soto, diver

Death in a Cage

Cristian Soto is one of 50,000 people employed in the Chilean salmon industry. His job as a diver takes him down to the icy depths of the salmon cages. The WWF is not in his good books. He wonders why the organization does nothing for the people who work and die for Marine Harvest. He, too, risks his life daily for the salmon business. As a day laborer on the aquaculture farms of Marine Harvest and other operators he cleans and repairs nets and removes the contaminated carcasses of diseased salmon. At the time of our meeting that was about 3,000 dead salmon a day -- per cage: "There are not enough transport containers available so we have to pack the dead salmon in sacks, which are left hanging in the cages until a ship comes by to collect them. By that time the salmon are already decomposing and the stench is horrific. We do all of this work without any protective clothing whatsoever."

We rented a little fishing boat and chugged along with Cristian Soto to visit a sea lion colony on the other side of the fjord. Almost a hundred of the imposing animals were sunning themselves there on the rocks. The bulls, which weigh over a ton, roared fearsomely as we approached. The sea lion is a protected species in Chile but the salmon companies continue to hunt them mercilessly nonetheless: sea lions love salmon. One of Cristian Soto's jobs is to chase the sea lions out of the cages. "When they manage to get into a cage we have to get them out. First they shoot them; usually the operations manager does that. Then we have to go down to see if they're really dead -- it's a life-threatening job. You can refuse to do it, but then they say: don't bother showing up here tomorrow. Last year a sea lion injured by a gunshot got ahold of my leg and pulled me down into deep water. My fins and mask were torn off in the process. I survived."

The lives of the around 6,000 salmon divers in Chile hang on a sort of garden hose that supplies them with air from above. The tubes are often damaged and prone to tearing. Sometimes the divers also get tangled up in the nets down below and can't get back up to the surface. The water pressure is immense, because the divers have to go down much further than the legal limit. "Our license only permits us to dive a maximum of 20 meters deep, but the cages are 40 meters down. The law states that every salmon farm must have a decompression chamber within a radius of 500 meters; that's a matter of life and death when it comes to a diving accident. In reality they don't exist, or they're defective. A dead diver is cheaper for the company. 18 of my colleagues lost their lives last year alone."

One of them was one of Cristian Soto's best friends: "It took seven hours to get him to the next operable decompression chamber. He was dead on arrival." The diver told us the story with tears in his eyes; death was his constant companion. Why did he subject himself to it? He's actually a music teacher, but you can't live on a teacher's salary in Chile. "I do it so that my two children can go to a good school." The divers make good money by Chilean standards: about 1,200 euros a month.

Cristian invited us back to his home, opened a computer database and showed us the picture of a young colleague who had lost his life on August 26th, 2007 on the Marine Harvest farm Puchilco. Cristian read us a passage from the accident investigator's report: "The diver had no valid license. Damage to the equipment prevented him from being supplied with oxygen. The compulsory rescue diver was not present."

The dead diver was Pedro Pablo Alvarado. He was 29 when he lost his life at a depth of 40 meters, where he was repairing the nets that guard against sea lions. Cristian had studied the files of the public prosecution and spoken with colleagues and bereaved relatives: "The company claims that the accident happened at a depth of 20 meters -- that's the maximum depth he was legally allowed to dive to with his license. Everyone knows that can't be the case, because the sea lion nets hang at a depth of 40 meters. Furthermore: Pedro Pablo had to dive during a storm, although the Marines, as the responsible authority, had prohibited all diving in the area."

I inquired at the relevant public prosecution department about the outcome of the investigation: two years after the diver's death Marine Harvest had had to pay a fine of ca. 2,700 dollars -- for violation of safety regulations. The public prosecutor had declined to pursue a charge of involuntary manslaughter. The justice system protects the perpetrators, not the victims, according to Cristian Soto: "Every time there's an accident the public prosecutor comes to the same conclusion: the only one responsible for the death is the diver himself. The criminal justice system doesn't protect us. That is very unjust. I've been lucky up to now. But my family has to get used to the idea that one day I won't come back either."

Image
Divers with salmon carcasses

This story illustrates that the salmon industry is prepared to rationalize the loss of divers' lives in the name of efficiency. In the language of economics it's the ''comparative cost advantage" that northern countries have when they relocate their operations to the south. In the past ten years, an estimated 100 Chilean divers have died in the cages. In the Norwegian salmon industry there was one diver death in the same period. We decided to confront the company with these numbers. Adolfo Alvial, the Marine Harvest Technical Director in Chile, was willing to talk to us, but he first wanted to show us his pride and joy: the new eco breeding farm Rio Blanco, located in the gentle rolling foothills of the Andes. It is the most modern installation of its kind: clean, environmentally friendly, with closed-circuit water systems and biofilters. Here, in huge tubs, was the new generation of farm-bred salmon -- all 10 million of them.

What a contrast to the company's brutal salmon cage habitats! I remarked on this difference to Alvial and told him I felt like Alice in Wonderland. He gave a satisfied smile: "You're in reality. Chile is the land of wonders. This facility shows the change of course that Marine Harvest is making. This is where we want to go, although there's still a lot to be done."

Next question: why did 100 divers have to die to keep the salmon business booming? The suave smile suddenly vanished from Adolfo's face: "There is no explanation for that. I could argue with the number 100. Sometimes the victims are mussel divers who dive along the coast at their own risk, and when they get killed it's blamed on us. That's unfair. But never mind that, even if it's only 10, 12 or 20: every death is one too many." As soon as our camera was shut off he leaned over and said with a wink: "Just between us, most of the divers die because they come to work drunk. Their archenemy is alcohol, not the company."

Petter's Happy Salmon

Back again to Norway, where we met with Marine Harvest's Technical Director, Petter Arnesen. A sincere, reserved man, who led us to his speedboat, in which we would view with him the model living conditions of the corporation's Norwegian salmon. The head of PR had just resigned and management had foisted the task on Arnesen -- he had negotiated the partnership agreement with the WWF, after all. The global "Aquaculture Dialogue" program was another brainchild of Arnesen and the WWF. It would issue new sustainability certification to enable the global aquaculture industry to shed its grubby image once and for all.

Petter Arnesen admitted that, to date, agreements with the WWF had been imprecise and generalized. The actual documentation was still "in flux". The most important thing, however, was the ongoing dialogue: "We learn something from the WWF about marine ecological processes, and the WWF can learn how aquaculture really works." And Marine Harvest's payments to the WWF? What were they for, exactly? According to Arnesen the money goes to finance the post of WWF salmon expert. He saw nothing objectionable about a company paying the salary of its external critics. Not least because of the disaster in Chile, Marine Harvest would have to become "more sustainable" to survive. That's where the WWF could help. In Norway, said Petter Arnesen, everything was already much better than in the Chilean operations anyway.

We seemed to fly in the boat across the dark green waters of the Bokna Fjord. Along the steep banks waterfalls crashed from great heights into the sea below. Every few kilometers huge rings could be seen rising from the water: salmon farms. Automatic feeding machines hurled feed pellets into the air and immediately thousands of salmon breached the surface to snap them up. Their scaly bodies glistened in the sunlight. With utter sincerity, Technical Director Arnesen ensured us that his salmon were "absolutely happy".

The contrast to Chile was clearly evident: the water in the Norwegian aquafarming areas is barely sullied; hygiene regulations are adhered to, and state supervision is strict. Violators of environmental laws lose the licensing that operators In Norway must reapply for annually, for every farm. Marine Harvest gets its Chilean licenses at a rock bottom price: 150 dollars a year for one hectare of sea area. And then there are the low wages in Chile: about ten percent of labor costs in Norway.

One company, two completely different sets of standards. Petter Arnesen admitted that with the Chilean operations there had been a big temptation to start turning a quick profit right away, and that: "We should have seen that the disaster was inevitable." Because several years prior, there had already been an ISA outbreak in Norway. But because the salmon farms there are farther apart and the hygiene standards higher, they had managed to stop the spread of the virus within a few months, whereas in Chile the epidemic raged as far south as the Strait of Magellan, extending its reach across 1000 kilometers. Petter Arnesen shares personal responsibility for the catastrophe; he spent years in Chile helping to establish the salmon aquafarming industry there. "Yes," he admitted reluctantly, "unfortunately we hadn't learned enough from the lesson we'd been taught in Norway." He slumped down a bit and stared silently ahead for a few seconds before adding: "I think it would have been better if you had submitted your questions before the interview."

As soon as he had composed himself again, Arnesen proclaimed in a firm voice that all of the challenges in aquaculture would be mastered, including the biggest one of all: how to convert salmon to vegetarianism? The carnivorous predator fish need large amounts of animal protein. The feed concentrate dumped into the cages by the ton is made mainly of fishmeal and fish oil. It's a negative cycle: 4-6 kilograms of wild fish are killed and made into meal to produce one kilo of salmon flesh. More than half of the world's fish catch now goes to making feed concentrate for salmon and other animals. Farm-bred salmon consume more animal protein than they produce. How can that be sustainable?

"We see the problem the same way the WWF does," conceded Petter Arnesen. "We're experimenting with increasing the share of vegetable protein in the feed, using soy, for example." The company was determined to achieve this, he said, as the fish reserves of the world's oceans were already "exhausted". The trouble is, when there is too little fish product in the feed the salmon raised on it no longer contain as much healthy omega 3 fatty acids. That's not the kind of salmon the retailers want. The poor Technical Director has the daunting task of circling the square -- luckily the WWF can lend him a hand: by simply designating the whole thing "sustainable".
Although the CIA knew that the estimated 120,000 VC Self-Defense Forces (which Westmoreland described as "old men, old women and children") were the integral element of the insurgency, Carver, after being shown "evidence that I hadn't heard before," cut a deal on September 13. He sent a cable to Helms saying: "Circle now squared .... We have agreed set of figures Westmoreland endorsed." [14] In November National Security Adviser Walt Rostow showed President Johnson a chart indicating that enemy strength had dropped from 285,000 in late 1966 to 242,000 in late 1967. President Johnson got the success he wanted to show, and Vietnam got Tet. -- The Phoenix Program, by Douglas Valentine

***

The Square within the Circle [is one of] the most potent of all the magical figures. --The Secret Doctrine: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy, by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

***

"As the sky with its stars and constellations is nothing separate from the All but includes the All, so is the 'firmament' of Man not separate from Man; and as the Universal Mind is not ruled by any external being, likewise the firmament in Man (his individual sphere of mind) is not subject to the rule of any creature, but is an independent and powerful whole." -- This fundamental truth of occultism is allegorically represented in the interlaced double triangles. He who has succeeded in bringing his individual mind in exact harmony with the Universal Mind has succeeded in reuniting the inner sphere with the outer one, from which he has only become separated by mistaking illusions for truths. He who has succeeded in carrying out practically the meaning of this symbol has become one with the father; he is virtually an adept, because he has succeeded in squaring the circle and circling the square. All of this proves that Paracelsus has brought the root of his occult ideas from the East. -- The Life of Philippus Theophrastus Bombast of Hohenheim Known by the Name of Paracelsus and the Substance of his Teachings, by Franz Hartmann, M.D.

***

Our scientific procedure is obviously the negation of the Absolute. That was an acute and happy remark of Goethe's: "He who devotes himself to nature attempts to find the squaring of the circle."-- The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, by Houston Stewart Chamberlain

***

The geometrician does not know the square of the circle. -- De Monarchia of Dante Alighieri

***

It is impossible to square the circle perfectly because of its arc. -- The Convivio, by Dante Alighieri
Could genetic engineering be the answer? Arnesen wisely kept quiet on the subject. The company wouldn't consider "that sort of thing"; it couldn't be "communicated" to European consumers. But in 2013, the time had come after all: in a laboratory on Prince Edward Island in Canada the US biotech company Aquabounty produced the first genetically modified salmon. The Canadian Ministry of the Environment had granted permission for the commercial mass production and marketing of the GM salmon eggs. The mood at Aquabounty was upbeat; they were confident that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would soon approve the marketing of its whopping "Frankenfish", which grows twice as fast as conventional farm-bred salmon. I feared that it, too, would soon bear the "sustainable aquaculture" seal of approval.
We could already smell the Chilean port city of Talcahuano miles before we reached it. The harbor of the fishmeal hub was lined with modern trawlers; the Humboldt current region off the coast of Chile is thought to have the most abundant fish stocks in the world. On the quay we met up with Nelson Estrada. After 19 hours out to sea in stormy weather, he and his 13 compadres were busy unloading 90 tons of fresh anchovies with a huge hose that reaches down into the hold like an elephant's trunk to suck up the catch. The fish are then taken by truck to one of the local fishmeal factories. It's always a bleak moment for Nelson Estrada: "The industry has bought up most of the fishing licenses. Our entire catch goes to the feed industry -- although anchovies are very healthy and high in protein. It's criminal. This industry disgusts me, but I have to support my family, that's why I work for them."

Nelson is a fisherman's union activist and was in a hurry; the next morning the trawler crewmen would be going on strike to protest the low prices paid by the fishmeal factories for the fish. The captains weren't earning enough money to payoff the trawlers, which had been financed by the fishmeal factories, making captain and crew totally dependent on the feed industry: "We're nothing but slaves of the transnational industry; there are no independent fishermen left in Chile." Nelson Estrada is a born fisherman. At 12 he lost his father to the sea. He invited us on board and took us into the hold, where he showed us the multi-ton mountain of glistening little anchovy bodies: ''I'm ashamed of this here: these fish are tiny; they haven't even reached sexual maturity. We're plundering the stocks before they can even reproduce. There'll be nothing left for future generations."

95 percent of all fish caught in Chilean waters end up as feed concentrate for salmon, pigs, cattle and chickens. They are the fuel for a greedy global intensive farming industry that is bringing the world to its knees. Nelson Estrada is a fighter, but he, too, felt that the economic cards were stacked hopelessly against him: "Our government is too weak to stand up to the corporations. It's more convenient for the politicians to take sides with the powerful financial players, in the name of free-market economy'. They play along, but the rules are made by others."

In with the Sharks

At the far corner of the salmon empire Douglas Tompkins is lord of the land. His personal national park Pumalin lies nestled up against the Andes in Patagonia. Many Chilean conservationists don't trust him; in their view, Tompkins is a globalization "profiteer". He had grown his own companies Esprit and The North Face into huge empires by moving production to low-wage Asian countries.

Image
Douglas Tompkins

When I put the criticisms to him, Tompkins gave a weary smile: "I don't deny it. But when it became clear to me where this type of globalization would lead, I took the consequences and got out." He sold his shares in the enterprises and used the money to buy up one of the last temperate rainforests in Patagonia. He thus rescued a green paradise of 290,000 hectares from the chainsaws of the pulp industry. Tompkins is now regarded by the worldwide nature conservation movement as something of a "deep ecology" guru. Not satisfied with cosmetic corrections, this movement advocates putting a complete stop to the obsession with unchecked Douglas Tompkins growth. Tompkins has no sympathy for the way the WWF cozies up to industry: "The idea that there can be sustainable intensive farming in the ocean is crazy; it's a dangerous illusion that brings us closer to ecological collapse."

When Tompkins started his project here 20 years ago he never suspected that he would one day be hemmed in by industrial aquaculture. The gaunt, delicate man with the lucent eyes sat facing me in an armchair in his old, restored villa -- a wooden palace right on the shore of Lake Llanquihue. The Gringo, as he's called here, is constantly at loggerheads with his neighbors the salmon farms. They put his paradise at risk; he maddens them by filing charges whenever they break the already lenient Chilean environmental laws. For example when one of the local farms installed 24 cages -- twice as many as permitted.

Was he glad that nature was now striking back at the hubris of the aquaculture industry in the form of the salmon virus? A friendly smile spread across Tompkins's face and it looked as though he would nod in agreement, but then suppressed the impulse: "I can't be pleased about it, because the crisis left many people destitute. I do care about them. Still, they should use the opportunity to just shut down the salmon industry. Traditional fishing practices are much better; they can be done in an organic, sustainable manner. Chile is a paradise for fish and shellfish. Many more people could be employed in the traditional fishing industry than in salmon farming, and they would live with much more dignity."

The rampant corporate growth, he said, was like a "ferocious acceleration machine" that would destroy everything beautiful on the planet. The situation in Chile illustrated that "Karl Marx was right: capitalism devours itself in the end". Tompkins said he believed the WWF dialogue policy to be a strategic misconception: "The destruction of the planet can be stopped only by the civil resistance that exists in Chile, and in many other countries on Earth. These grass roots movements have joined together to become an increasingly powerful force."

The rich American feared that Chile's political class didn't have the strength to seize the opportunity and reverse the trend. On the contrary, they were now planning to open up the untouched glacial region in the south of the Magellan Strait to the relentless "Forward, march!" of global capitalism. There were plans for a highway that would extend all the way down to Punta Arenas, and five huge hydroelectric plants were also in the works. The energy from these facilities would enable corporations from the US, Canada, and Europe to finally crack open the glaciers and mountains to get at the mother lode within.

The salmon industry, too, stood in the starting blocks for the southward sprint: the government had already issued the first licenses for new aquafarms in the southern Magellan Strait. According to Tompkins, the companies were advancing like a swarm of locusts, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake: "With industrial fish farming we are producing a dead planet. There's no economic diversity anymore, just like there's no longer any diversity out there in the ocean. They reduce everything down to a single species: salmon. This development will catch up with us one day, and we'll pay for it, because we've forgotten that we're a part of nature. Let nature manage the oceans. She knows how; she's proved it for billions of years. Businessmen like John Fredriksen believe that as long as the profit's good everything else will take care of itself. The opposite is true."


Pandas Don't Bite

At the end of our voyage through the realm of the salmon we finally located the monarch himself: a solitary John Fredriksen stood wearing angler's hat and raingear in the little river of Naustdal in central Norway, angling for wild salmon. He loves the peace and quiet there more than anything and leases an entire section of the river, where now he alone is allowed to fish. He comes to his private piece of river once or twice during the season -- no one knows the exact dates. I had taken my daughter along and rented rooms in a nearby farmhouse for two weeks, speculating on the arrival of Big John. Just as we were about' to give up and head home, and were making a last riverside surveillance round, we saw smoke rising from the chimney of Fredriksen's little smokehouse. Someone had fired up the fish-smoking oven. From a deeply mistrustful villager I was able to coax the information that Fredriksen had arrived early that morning -- airlifted in by his personal helicopter.

Concealed in the bushes along the riverbank we observed him through binoculars. He was waiting for a salmon to bite. No luck; there were no salmon there to take the bait. Even in that exclusive Norwegian salmon Shangrila their stocks have been decimated by the parasites, bacteria, and viruses unleashed on the wild populations by the aquafarms. When the wild salmon come from the open sea and swim upstream to their river spawning grounds they pass by the farms and become infected by their captive relatives. They die of the disease before getting a chance to spawn the next generation.

Image
John Fredriksen in London

In a silent burst of anger, John Fredriksen threw his fishing rod into the bushes as I waded towards him in the shallows. He called for his bodyguards but the sound of the rushing waterfalls drowned out his voice. He had no choice but to stomp back towards his fishing villa. Soon afterwards his people came after me in a van to confiscate the film I had shot. We jumped into the car and made a quick getaway. What a shame! Fredriksen had missed the opportunity for an engaging conversation over smoked salmon and beer. I would have loved to have asked what motivates him and why he always has to be the biggest at everything he does. Later on I made a final twilight attempt: I got his housekeeper on the phone, but she relayed the message that her employer wished no further contact.

Every other year John Fredriksen attends the Nor-Shipping maritime trade fair in Oslo. The biennial mega event week is considered the leading international industry show of its kind. For me it was the last chance to make personal contact; we searched all day in vain for Fredriksen. A Norwegian shipbroker consoled me: "John is a shy guy, but I'm sure he'll be here tonight." That evening was the night of the shipping magnates, with a VIP party on the celebrated tall ship Christian Radich -- a champagne and caviar affair.

We set up our camera dockside of the three-masted venue and waited. Late that night we finally caught sight of Fredriksen's twin daughters as they clattered up the swaying gangway in black mini-dresses and high heels. Once on board, the future heiresses to a multi-billion fortune immediately attracted a whole flock of eager suitors. The young women are both already on the management boards of daddy's companies: Kathrine has a hand in shipping, Cecilie in salmon. The following night we were in luck: we finally caught the big fish by chance, in the middle of the Oslo harbor promenade.

My journalist colleague Arno Schumann made a beeline for Fredriksen, camera rolling. Fredriksen's companions closed ranks to protect him. I shouted through the human shield, asking if he felt personally responsible for the calamity that was still ravaging Chile. The salmon king continued on his way, po-faced, but then reacted after all with a little joke: "I'm just a salmon fisher". When I reminded him that he owned Marine Harvest he immediately changed his tune and grew serious: eel have nothing to do with the operational business, but I'm very sorry about what's happened. I sympathize with everyone there who has been affected." Fredriksen then quickly disappeared into an upscale restaurant to enjoy a gourmet meal of fresh oysters, fish and fine wine. Anchors aweigh and off to new business opportunities. There was no Chilean salmon on the menu there that night.

Why would the WWF seek out someone like John Fredriksen, of all people, as a partner for saving the planet? He is the prototypical financial investor, obedient to the law of profit; the Earth's natural resources are apparently little more to him than the means to erecting his cold, monetary castle. Fredriksen could have gone down in the annals as one of the most notorious bad guys in the history of corporate capitalism. But then, as if by divine intervention, the panda had plopped down in his lap. And suddenly his empire took on a miraculous green glow.

Over half of the global fish catch now ends up in the mills of the fishmeal factories instead of on people's plates. As fish stocks worldwide become increasingly depleted, the salmon industry is turning to a new feed source. Companies have now begun to send huge trawlers into the Antarctic to fish for krill, the tiny crabs that are the oceans' staff of life; the largest nutritional reserves of the world's maritime systems. Krill, too, are now being used to make salmon feed.

Chilean aquafarmed salmon travel across the globe by airfreight, destined to land in bite-sized portions on restaurant tables in Paris, Tokyo, and New York, et al. The hungry diner sees only a perfectly innocent-looking delicate rosy-pink piece of fish. But the appearance of the salmon belies the martyrdom it has endured to end up there; the numerous chemicals and antibiotics it had to swallow to survive life in the crowded cages. And you can't tell by looking at the meal on the plate how much energy was used to produce it, and how much was wasted on long-distance shipment. For those at the top of the financial food chain, the bottom line makes it all worthwhile, but is the whole thing really socially and ecologically acceptable?

Intensive farming is accelerating the depletion of natural resources and destroying the traditional fishing industry. Thus "sustainable salmon farming" is a fairytale concocted by the aquafarming industry and the WWF in a collaboration aimed at lulling our critical thinking capacities to sleep. There is no right way to do the wrong thing. The big sharks eat everything that gets in their way. And the political authorities elected to represent the interests of civil society feebly allow the multinational corporations to make all the rules in the global game.

The WWF apparently swims with sharks in the audacious hope that its moral influence will turn them into docile vegetarians. In the summer of 2011, the WWF finally reached an agreement with the industrial salmon sector, and together they launched the certification program for marine farming facilities: the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, or ASC. With that, the intensive farming of fish in the open sea rose to the ranks of nobility in the realm of the green economy.

During my research for this book I also spoke with many WWF activists. They were committed to their area of interest and were certainly doing the best job they could; they knew very little about the WWF's international partnerships -- and didn't want to hear anything about them either. However, when confronted with the fact that the world's oceans are being fished bare to feed a predator species in intensive aquafarming units, they did at least seem to suspect that all could not be completely rosy. The typical reaction was, in effect: "I really don't want to know all the gory details. My own project is above board, and that's what I'm concentrating on."

A management-level staffer at WWF International told me in confidence that he was "ashamed" of the partnership with the salmon industry, but a public airing of his critical views was out of the question; it would certainly cost him his well-paid job. This individual said the loss of "credibility" in WWF policies was down to sociological developments: the WWF had grown too big, and collected money without making sure they knew where it came from. The classic environmentalists had been ''ousted" from executive positions in the WWF and replaced by marketing specialists who failed to take a "principled" stance on nature conservation issues and saw themselves primarily as fundraisers.

The critical thinkers within the WWF are deeply frustrated, but to date the internal conflicts that are presumably smoldering have been successfully kept under wraps. In Germany, for example, many WWF activists have for many years taken part in protests against nuclear energy -- but strictly as private individuals, displaying no visible WWF affiliation. Not until 2002 did WWF International officially distance itself from nuclear energy production, finally joining the growing ranks of atomic energy phase-out proponents.

Can the proximity of the WWF to big business be explained by the lure of money and recognition alone? A former WWF manager who left over ethical issues but would like to remain anonymous suspects there is more to it than the increasing dependency on major donations. In her view: "The WWF is like a pizzeria. Everything looks clean and nice on the outside. And they actually do have pizza -- delicious, made from certified organic ingredients. But this pizzeria has a back room where all the really important deals are done -- that frightens me."
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 41486
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Panda Leaks: The Dark Side of the WWF, by Wilfried Huism

Post by admin »

Part 1 of 2

5. It All Began in Africa

To really understand the WWF and its political role, you must go deep down into the catacombs of the British Empire, the demise of which gained momentum in the 1950s and 1960s with the loss of almost all the African colonies. Africa is the birthplace of the WWF. The prologue to its story began in the year 1940, when Great Britain declared the Serengeti the first national park in East Africa -- an area the size of Northern Ireland. The colonial authority had made the plan palatable to London on the basis of two arguments: there were no major mineral deposits in the Serengeti; and the terrain was unattractive for European settlers -- it didn't rain enough and there were too many tsetse flies. The Serengeti would become a "worldwide tourism sensation".

The only problem was: the Massai, the indigenous tribal people who for centuries had lived with their cattle herds in the Serengeti. The British decided to legally guarantee them the right to remain -- they were only herdsmen after all; they didn't work the land or hunt protected animals. The Massai were relieved. But they hadn't reckoned with the Western conservationists and the white park rangers who had nothing but disdain for the natives. Many tourists also complained about the sight of the "dirty" Massai and their "barbaric ways". In the 1950s the colonial authorities introduced a new policy, offering the Massai the option of voluntary resettlement. But the tribal chiefs rejected the offer. Where else would there be so much wonderful grazing land and rivers to water the cattle? And wasn't it their land and that of their forefathers anyway?

The conservationists ramped up the pressure, which prompted the colonial administration of the Tanganyika Territory to make a Solomonic decision: the Serengeti National Park would be reduced from 5,000 to 1,800 square miles. The Massai would then have to leave the smaller park. A storm of protest was unleashed in Europe and the USA. It would soon develop into a tornado for the British colonial authority, when German wildlife conservationist Bernhard Grzimek got involved. He showed the world how a radical PR campaign could force a political about-face. Through his Serengeti mission the celebrated director of the Frankfurt Zoo became the ideological role model of modern nature conservancy -- and the WWF.

Image
Bernhard Grzimek on a stamp

Grzimek's Mission

Prof. Bernhard Grzimek flew with his son Michael over the Serengeti to observe the migrations of the big game animals. He published the results in his 1956 book 'No Place for Wild Animals'. It contains such apocalyptical declarations as "Africa's wild animals are doomed to extinction" with no scientific evidence to back his claims. According to Grzimek, too many people lived in the Serengeti, and the forests and steppes would be transformed into deserts because of it. He was convinced that pastoral tribes inherently destroy the ecosystems in which they live. A gross misconception, as prominent scientists of the day could have told him. Conservationist David Western for example, who lived in Kenya and had spent many years studying the Massai, had come to the conclusion that: "The herdsmen are actually the reason that there are still so many wild animals here." [5] But the ignorance of outsiders was mightier than the experience of experts on site.

In 1959 Bernhard Grzimek followed up with the bestseller: 'Serengeti Shall Not Die'. The book was translated into 17 languages and served son Michael as the template for a film of the same name, which promptly received an Oscar nomination. The Grzimeks' main message: If we want to save the Serengeti, the Massai have to go. Nature as a human-free zone -- no one formulated and propagated this mantra of an elite Western Nature apotheosis better and more incisively than the Frankfurt Zoo director. Grzimek concealed his racist-tinged views behind the stilted vocabulary of the well-meaning: "We Europeans must teach our black brothers to value their own possessions, not because we are older or cleverer, but because we do not want them to repeat our mistakes and sins." [6] The general public and Hollywood applauded, and the British colonial administration tried -- shortly before the launch of 'Serengeti Shall Not Die' -- to pull its head out of the noose.

In 1958 the colonial authorities submitted a declaration to the Massai chiefs for their signature. It stated that they and their people would agree to leave the Serengeti Park "voluntarily". 30 years later, Raymond Bonner, a New York Times reporter, tracked down one of the few surviving signatories: Tendemo ole Kisaka. The old man told Bonner how the "signing" of the contract had gone down: "We were told to sign. It was not explained to us. None of the tribal leaders could read or write." The old man then added, grinning "You white people are very tough." [7]

A people that had lived in the Serengeti for 4,000 years was expelled -- a cruel and bloody operation in which 100,000 Massai lost their homeland. From faraway London a tight group of aristocratic big game hunters-cum-nature-conservationists looked on with approval as the German zoo director carried out his plan. Grzimek's sweeping Serengeti campaign presumably inspired the elite old boys' club to come up with their own, much bigger project: the WWF -- a sort of international avant-garde advocating for the wilderness.

Most indigenous tribal languages have no word for "wilderness". They simply exist, as do the plants and animals with and from which they live. "Environment" is the material basis of all life: no indigenous people on earth would ever dream of willfully destroying the wilderness. Their "nature conservation" is an organic outgrowth of the oneness of man and nature. For Western conservationists, on the other hand, the "virgin forest" is a nostalgic notion; the dream of a paradise lost -- Europeans and North Americans have, of course, long since thoroughly annihilated their own primeval forests. A subconscious collective sense of guilt now motivates us to try to save the last remaining "paradises" in the Southern Hemisphere, whatever the indigenous people think of the methods. Indigenous peoples and the vast majority of Western conservationists do not speak the same language.

The expulsion of indigenous tribes on the grounds of nature conservancy is a US American invention, introduced in practice for the first time in 1851 in Yosemite Valley, in California, when Governor Peter Burnett threatened the local Indians in the valley with a "war of extinction". Major James Savage, who went on to execute the plan, spelled out exactly what the governor's statement meant: "Satan entered paradise and did all the mischief he could. I intend to be a bigger devil in this Indian paradise than old Satan ever was." [8]

Some Native Americans managed to survive the asymmetric war. But then naturalist John Muir, founder of The Sierra Club, the world's first nature conservancy society, came along and took care of them, too. Muir knew the Yosemite Valley from his own wilderness wanderings. He, too, expressed revulsion for the indigenous people there. He found them to be "unclean", and was repulsed by their eating habits: a fruit and vegetable diet supplemented with protein from flies and ants. John Muir pressured the federal government in Washington to rid the valley of "such debased fellow beings", and to declare it a US National Park. He maintained the Indians were just "nomads" passing through and had never had permanent settlements in the valley. That was an outright falsification of history: for about 4,000 years the Yosemite Valley area had been a cultural homeland and botanical breadbasket of the Miwok, Yokut, Paiute and Ahwahneechee tribes -- with fields, meadows, fruits and medicinal herbs.

In 1964 the Wilderness Act was signed into law in the USA giving legal footing to the romantic fiction of a nature paradise untouched by humans. The text of the act defines wilderness as ': .. an area where the earth and its community of life are untrampled by man, where man himself is a visitor and does not remain". Yosemite National Park has served as a model for the WWF and other major conservationist organizations, such as Conservation International, who have exported the scheme throughout the world. Since the founding of the WWF, the national park ideology has led to mass resettlement in the name of nature conservancy. An estimated 20 million people worldwide have fallen victim to these initiatives. These conservation refugees are without exception people of color: First Nations; black tribes; Adivasi, Pygmy; Dayak and Papua peoples.

Prince Philip Comes Aboard

A final impulse for the establishment of the WWF came from Sir Julian Huxley, evolutionary biologist and president of the British Eugenics Society. In his view "The expansion of humanity is secondary to the preservation of other species." [9] Apparently that was especially applicable when the humans poised for "expansion" were black. Huxley also held a post at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a foreign policy think tank that looked at population control, and how the Empire could continue securing natural resources long-term after the loss of its colonies.

In 1960 Huxley headed for Africa to see how the national parks were doing. In some countries the park grounds, with their valuable game stocks, covered more than 20 percent of the nation's total surface area. For three months Huxley travelled through eastern, central, and southern Africa and came to the conclusion that the nascent black governments were ruining the game reserves and national parks. He wrote articles about his observations for The Observer: In Kenya, Tanganyika and Rhodesia the wild animals had all but disappeared, he claimed: "Throughout the area, cultivation is extending, native cattle are multiplying at the expense of wild animals, poaching is becoming heavier and more organized, ... large areas are being overgrazed and degenerating into semi-deserts, and above and behind all this, the human population is inexorably mounting to press even harder on the limited land space." [10]

Huxley turned to Max Nicholson for help. The founder of the British organization Nature Conservancy was equally concerned about the developments: "We felt that under the African governments, all prospect of conservation of nature would be ended." [11] The two joined forces with respected ornithologist Peter Scott and together came up with the idea of founding a supranational organization that would use powerful financial backing and structural dominance to save the last of the African wilderness paradises that the white man called his own.

On an excursion on the sailing yacht Sceptre in the spring of 1961 Peter Scott asked HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, if he wouldn't like to become president of the new organization. In February 2011, in an interview my colleague Tibet Sinha conducted with Prince Philip at Buckingham Palace for our film 'The Silence of the Pandas', the Prince couldn't remember if the decisive conversation with Peter Scott had actually taken place on the yacht or on land. He had a vivid recollection, on the other hand, of Peter Scott's leadership proposal, and the fact that he had himself collaborated on the WWF charter. Ah, those happy and glorious early days! His clear, lively eyes sparkled cheerfully. The WWF is Prince Philip's life's work -- the only public arena where he can move at his ease, without having to fulfill the role of Prince Consort to the Queen.

Prince Philip summed up the founding story for us in his inimitable laconic upper-crust style: "Peter Scott said: 'We're going to set this thing up, would I be president?' I said: 'Well, I'll be president of the UK thing, but I won't be president of the international.' Because I happened to be president of the International Equestrian Federation at the time, and I said: 'I can't do two international things at once.' But I said that I happened to know that Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands is very interested in wild animals and conservation, and he happens to be staying at Claridges, so if you pop along and ask him, you may get him, which is what he did."

Prince Bernhard had, in fact, agreed to take on the presidency, and threw himself wholeheartedly into the task. He and his fellow WWF founders dreamed of creating a contiguous supranational park system stretching from Kenya to South Africa -- under their control. On September 11th, 1961, in one of the last convulsions of Empire, the World Wildlife Fund was born, with headquarters in Gland, Switzerland, on the shores of Lake Geneva.

Gerti the Rhinoceros

To get the national parks of Africa whipped into tiptop shape the WWF would need a lot of money -- from rich philanthropists and the general public alike. To induce the average working stiff to donate generously, WWF PR tacticians came up with a commercial strategy that the designated Vice President Peter Scott referred to as a "shock tactic". The ad agency Mather & Crowther had apparently searched worldwide for horrifying images of animal massacres. The result was a WWF brochure entitled 'Save the World's Wildlife.'

To effectively spread its message among the common folk, the WWF did a deal with the Daily Mirror, which still had a circulation of over 5 million at the time. On October 9th, 1961 a special issue hit the newsstands: six pages chock-a-block with the most gruesome pictures from the WWF brochure. The front page sported a photo of mama Rhinoceros Gerti side-by-side with her baby, along with a dramatic appeal to the conscience of readers: "DOOMED to disappear from the face of the earth ... UNLESS something is done swiftly, animals like this rhino and its baby