WWF-Australia - for a living planet

Panda taming is not that easy

In 2004, The Australia Institute published a report entitled Taming the Panda The Relationship between WWF Australia and the Federal Government. The report tried to make the claim that WWF supported the Federal Government, led by Prime Minister John Howard, in return for receiving vast amounts of government money.

Despite having rebutted the allegations in this report on previous occasions, it seems you can't keep a good conspiracy theory down.

So for the benefit of WWF supporters, here are the facts.

Lack of methodical analysis

The Taming the Panda report is marked by clear failures to observe the standards of methodical analysis and lack of bias one might have expected of an organisation which claims to be Australia's leading public interest think tank.

The evidence cited for WWF's allegedly close relationship with the Federal Government was:

The basic argument - that WWF supports the Government in return for funding - is not supported by the evidence presented in the report. In fact the report does not support a finding that WWF's relationship with the Government is even close, let alone provide any basis for suggesting that WWF has ceased to be independent.

When WWF praises a particular initiative by a government - for example massively increasing the protection of the Great Barrier Reef - we have been delighted. On the other hand when governments make bad decisions, or fail to act, we say so.

Government funding and WWF's work

The report claims that increased government funding has resulted in WWF being less critical of the government. Government income for the 2001-02 financial year was 34% of all total revenue; in 2002-03 this reduced to 26%, and fell further to 18% in 2003-04. 2004-05 saw a small proportional increase to 21% - a reduction of 13% since 2001-02.

Approximately 70% of WWF's conservation program expenditure in 2004-05 is for the management and implementation of field-based projects and community-based conservation work.

The vast majority of WWF government funding is for on-ground projects through the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) process. Other groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and The Wilderness Society, with whom WWF is compared with in the report, do not have field-based programs, and so the comparison is spurious.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

WWF supported the introduction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act because the Act significantly extended and improved Commonwealth environmental law. The Act, which was significantly improved in the Senate by the minor parties in response to issues raised by WWF and other environmental groups, was also supported by some, but not all, other environment groups. In our view, much of the opposition to the EPBC Act was based on political considerations, not environmental ones.

WWF and other groups and individuals have since used the EPBC Act and have even used the Act in legal proceedings against the Federal Government. These examples include:

Green Senator Bob Brown also used the EPBC Act in his injunction case against logging in the Wielangta Forest of Tasmania in 2005.

WWF and the Queensland Conservation Council sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister in 2004 under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. WWF and the Council succeeded at first instance and on appeal. This decision of the Federal Court significantly extended federal powers in relation to the environment1.

The clearest evidence of independence is when an organisation risks its reputation to tackle a government in a forum where both are equal. WWF has been willing to do so against the Government and has succeeded.

Just because WWF supports the EPBC Act in principle, does not mean we agree with all of the decisions made by the Environment Minister. In fact we are very concerned that the EPBC Act is under badly under-used. A good analysis of the failure of the government to use the EPBC Act to its full potential (290.8 KB) has been produced by Humane Society International.

Grants from government is not evidence of a lack of independence

WWF is unique among the larger conservation organisations in Australia in that it engages in conservation policy and advocacy work as well as having a major investment in on-the-ground work.

In the 2004-05 financial year our total income from all government sources amounted to just over $3.6 million, 21% of the total. Most of this was for on-the-ground threatened species programs and included $514,000 for community-based threatened species projects that are carried out by a wide variety of other (non-WWF) organisations. This is a very small amount when compared to the $300 million budgeted by the Commonwealth Government in the 2004 Federal Budget for the Natural Heritage Trust.

A recent ruling by the Australian Taxation Office makes it quite clear that any charity that supports a political party would put its tax-deductibility at risk. There is no way that WWF would put this at risk.

WWF's view has always been that if Governments provide funding for conservation projects then we should apply for such funds if we can use them well. No-one can honestly believe that the hundreds of organisation across Australia that apply for funds from government sources have been captured. The only strings that come attached are the practical ones - reporting on outcomes and expenditures.

Media releases are not evidence of lack of independence

The report relies upon an analysis of media releases by WWF and other environmental organisations to suggest that WWF lacks independence. It does so by reproducing excerpts from WWF media releases and excerpts from media releases of various other environmental organisations in relation to Government initiatives and comparing them.

Amongst the flaws in the analysis are:

The analysis of media releases has no empirical basis. It is merely an exercise in innuendo.

A representative list of WWF's media releases that includes a variety of responses - both critical and supportive of the government's position on a variety of issues - is provided for reference:

Federal Government

Biodiversity

EPBC

AP6

Water and energy

Policies

Nuclear

Oceans

State Governments

NSW

WA

Victoria

Queensland

WWF is strictly non-party political

WWF is a non-party political organisation that seeks to achieve significant conservation outcomes by, wherever possible, working co-operatively with all stakeholders.

WWF believes that the purpose of the Australia Institute report was to damage the reputation of WWF rather than to debate a significant public issue.

Notes

  1. Humane Society International and the Tasmanian Conservation Trust also sought judicial reviews decisions made by the Minister under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The Society succeeded at first instance and no appeal was lodged by the Minister. Tasmanian Conservation Trust matter did not proceed to hearing.