Moore Takes On the World Wildlife Fund for Nature

1. Dr Patrick Moore's letter to Prince Philip


2. Prince Philip's response


3. World Wildlife Fund and Forestry, an article by Dr Patrick Moore.




Dr Patrick Moore's letter to Prince Philip



April 24, l996
HRH the Duke of Edinburgh
Buckingham Palace
London, England
U.K.

Your Royal Highness:

I write to you in your capacity as International President of the World Wide Fund for Nature. I am strongly supportive of the work of WWF. Certainly your organization has no rival in the area of wildlife conservation.

Myself and many colleagues who specialize in forest science are distressed, however, at recent statements made by WWF regarding the environmental impact of forestry. These statements indicate a break with WWF's strong tradition of basing their policies on science and reason.

On March ll-22 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Forests met in Geneva to further their work following up on the l992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. This meeting was used as a platform for a WWF media release that gained the widest attention of any activity during the IPF meeting.

There were three main points in the WWF statement made by Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud. First, we are now in a period of species extinction that is greater than any since the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Second, there are 5O,OOO species going extinct each year. Third, the main cause of these 5O,OOO annual extinctions is the commercial logging industry.

In addition, it was stated that, according to UN sources, the world's forests are disappearing at a rate of l.3% per year.

I submit that it is an extreme overstatement to compare the extinction of at least 9O% of living species caused by an extra-terrestrial impact 65 million years ago with present situation. I would also point to the extinctions caused by human migration to North America and by European colonization of Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. These events were significant and possibly greater than subsequent impacts in terms of the numbers of species lost. Certainly our species continues to play a role in endangering other species. Observable facts indicate that we are making progress in reducing the number of recorded extinctions in recent decades.

How does WWF arrive at the number 5O,OOO species extinctions per year? It can be no coincidence that this same number is the upper limit suggested by Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University. Wilson states that while only l.5 million species have been described, it is reasonable to believe that there are over 3O times that many, i.e. 5O million. Then a computer model, based on island biogeography theory, is used to generate the number 5O,OOO. There is no list of Latin names for these species. It is, in fact, a preposterous combination of extrapolation and pulling numbers from the air.

These first two points, however argued, are not based on hard evidence and cannot be resolved through scientific debate. The third point, that commercial logging is responsible for most of these hypothetical extinctions, is the most shocking.

To the best of our knowledge, not a single species has become extinct in North America due to forestry. This is also true in Australia and may well be true worldwide. Yet it is certain that hundreds of species have become extinct due to clearing forests away for cities and farms. Other known causes of extinction are over-hunting (e.g. the passenger pigeon), eradication (e.g. smallpox), and introduced animals and diseases (e.g. foxes and cats in Oceania).

It is not right or in the interest of public understanding to blame the forest industry for clearing forests for agriculture and human settlement. Nor is it right to equate logging with deforestation. Forestry causes reforestation; the main causes of deforestation are agriculture, human settlement, and industry.

There is no denying that some destructive logging is done illegally and under the auspices of corrupt political regimes. This should not be confused with forestry which is capable of renewing forests, thus providing habitat for forest species.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN estimates the present global rate of deforestation at O.4% per year. This is over three times lower than the WWF estimate which is said to be drawn from UN sources.

Forests provide habitat for the majority of the species alive today. Forests also provide wood, the most renewable and sustainable for all materials used in human civilization. We believe the path to sustainability requires an increase in the planting of trees, the reversal of deforestation through sustainable forestry, and using more wood rather than non-renewable resources such as steel, cement and plastic.

The statements made by WWF are contributing to a growing anti-forestry, anti-logging sentiment. This deflects public attention away from the real causes of deforestation and extinction, thus compounding the problem rather than contributing to its solution.

On behalf of everyone who seeks accurate information about the environment, I respectfully request that your look into this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Patrick Moore, Ph.D.
Chair, Forest Practices Committee




Prince Philip's response


World Wide Fund for Nature
27 May 1996
Dear Dr. Moore,

Thank you for your letter. I have to admit that I did not see the draft of the statement that Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud was to make at the meeting of the Inter-governmental Panel on Forestry in Geneva. The first two of his comments are open to question, but they are not seriously relevant to the issue.

However, I quite agree that his third statement is certainly contentious and the points that you make are all good ones. All I can say in mitigation is that he was probably thinking of tropical forests when he made the comment. Even so, I would agree that the words `main cause' could be seen as an exaggeration.

In spite of the implications of this statement, I can re-assure you that WWF has not adopted an anti-forestry attitude. Our approach has been, and will continue to be, to work together with the forestry industries to achieve sustainable use of forest resources without causing any depletion of their biological diversity or degradation to natural habitats.

Yours sincerely,
Philip





World Wildlife Fund and Forestry, an article by Dr Patrick Moore.



Like every other segment of Canadian society, environmental groups run the spectrum from moderate to extremist. The World Wildlife Fund (known as the World Wide Fund for Nature in Europe) has traditionally occupied the conservative end of this range, earning the trust and respect of Canadians by promoting conservation based on balancing preservation and development.
But in l996, the once even-keeled WWF is unable to deal with its radical fringe. The issue that's caused the world's largest conservation group to fray around the edges is one that fuels as much controversy inside the environmental movement as without, namely forests and forestry. Although WWF officially supports sustainable forest management, the organization has increasingly become associated with the more extreme elements of the anti-logging lobby.

In its l995 publication `Bad Harvest' WWF allows that "timber from forests that are well managed ... remains one of the most environmentally friendly products available". Such pronouncements warm the hearts of those of us working to achieve sustainable forest management in Canada.

But the WWF publication goes on to commit many of the same blatant errors of fact that have characterized anti-logging campaigns in this country. For instance, they report that British Columbia (a favourite target) has only 4O per cent of its native forest left and that even those are rapidly disappearing. In fact, more than 75 per cent of B.C.'s forests remain in their original condition and all but a fraction of the rest is reforested with native tree species.

Even more troubling are the statements issued by WWF International Forest Programme Director Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) meeting this March in Geneva, Switzerland. The IPF's role is to advise the United Nations on strategies to conserve and enhance the world's forests. Unfortunately, its vital work in Geneva was upstaged by WWF's dramatic pronouncements. The Associated Press wire service obliged by broadcasting Jeanrenaud's statements worldwide. Among his claims were that:




1. The world is currently experiencing a period of species extinction greater than any since the dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago.


2. 50,000 species of animals and plants become extinct each year.


3. The commercial logging industry is the main cause of their extinction.




The first two of these claims are entirely hypothetical. There is no actual list of 50,000 species that are supposedly going extinct each year. The third statement is completely false. To the best of our knowledge, not a single species has ever gone extinct in North America due to forestry. This is also true in Australia, and may well be true for most other regions.
It certainly is true that hundreds of species have become extinct due to clearing forest away for cities and farms. But it is not right, or in the interest of public understanding, for WWT to blame the forest industry for clearing forests for agriculture and human settlement. Forestry is about growing trees, not deforesting land for other purposes.

I made these points in a recent letter to the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, who is the President of WWF International. He agreed that Jeanrenaud's statement was contentious and could be seen as an exaggeration, and that the points I raised were all good ones. He writes, in spite of the implications of this statement, I can re-assure you that WWF has not adopted an anti-forestry attitude.

Out here on the West Coast of Canada, WWF's supposed pro-forestry position has become difficult to believe. It was recently revealed that WWF Canada funnels more that $l million annually to prominent anti-logging groups in B.C. Many of these groups are active in an aggressive new campaign to halt logging in every forest from northern Vancouver Island to Alaska.

WWF's support for this campaign does nothing to further the goals of sustainable forestry. It threatens to reduce the production of wood, the most renewable material resource used in human civilization. It would impose severe hardship on workers and communities in coastal British Columbia.

WWF is not the only Canadian environmental group to voice support for sustainable forestry while spending the vast majority of its time and resources trying to stop logging. As forestry in Canada moves closer to becoming a truly sustainable industry, these groups are going to have to make a choice. Either you're for the sustainable production of one of the most environmentally friendly products available or you're against it.

For WWF, the choice may be even more pointed. Either they maintain the trust and support of thoughtful, mainstream Canadians, or they continue to support the country's anti- forestry extremists.