‘Supports polar bear fur trade’; WWF – rightly – under indictment

Drafted 1 March, updated 16 March 2025

The ‘rightly’ in the title I inserted with good reason and at the end of the article I explain why.

‘Supports polar bear fur trade’, WWF under indictment

by Giacomo Talignani

An enquiry by the ‘Guardian’ raises doubts about the conservationist paradox, given that the environmental association does not oppose hunting in Canada. According to the NGO a necessary resource for small communities

17 February 2025

Think of an iconic animal that we are in danger of losing due to the changes man has inflicted on the planet: probably, with pictures of emaciated specimens struggling across small chunks of ice in mind, many of you will answer the polar bear. What if they told you that instead of pushing for increased protection of this species through specific international conventions, one of the world’s leading environmental associations – WWF International – has so far worked to oppose its total protection, moving instead in the direction of maintaining the trade in bear skins?

It is easy to imagine that many would cry scandal: a bit like what is happening after The Guardian, in an investigation lasting several months, revealed precisely the fact that the WWF is endorsing ‘the polar bear skin trade’, the British newspaper claims.

Yet not everything is as it seems, as the WWF’s choice ‘is about science and supporting local communities’, the environmental organisation claims. But to untangle what the Guardian recently revealed and to understand why some of the WWF’s positions have been taken, and then to form one’s own personal opinion on the subject, one has to take a step back.

What threatens the future of bears

Polar bears, as we know, are in extreme trouble: they live in a few areas of the world, in the Arctic, mainly in Canada (home to 60% of the population), the United States, Russia, Greenland and Norway. In these countries, bears have experienced more problems over time: until the 1960s, for example, the main problem related to their survival was the impact of hunting.

Subsequently, however, all states except Canada banned the killing of bears for commercial purposes. In Canada, however, to ensure the subsistence and traditions of some local communities, it is still permitted, albeit following strict regulations. In the meantime, the effects of constant anthropogenic emissions have terribly accelerated global warming: soon the main problem for the bears’ lives has thus become climate change, which leads to ice loss, fragmentation of habitats, disappearance of species and consequently the impossibility of hunting and feeding for many bear populations. This is why, despite a partial recovery in polar bear numbers after hunting bans worldwide, in some areas (e.g. in parts of Canada) numbers have dropped by as much as 40%.

To date, although the figures are controversial because they are difficult to map, the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) estimates that there are around 26,000 bears worldwide, while other studies speak of just over 20,000. However, most research speaks clearly: due to the climate crisis, without mitigation actions that can bring about a real change in time, all polar bear populations risk disappearing by the end of the century.

Currently, according to IUCN, white bears are in the ‘vulnerable’ category to extinction risk, again mainly due to the effects of global warming. This is why many environmental associations, including WWF, have long used images of polar bears as a symbol of the biodiversity we are losing.

Having said this, another chapter now opens, that of the trade in polar bear skins that are still hunted in Canada. On average, writes the Guardian, it is estimated ‘between 300 and 400 skins a year are exported’, mainly to China or Asian markets, where a bear skin can sell for as much as EUR 57,000, used for furs, carpets or clothing most of the time. That trade, related to the export and sale of furs, is not banned.

What the CITES regulation says about polar bears

While each country has its own constraints and laws on hunting, trade in domestic products and other issues, on international trade the CITES (Convention of the International Trade in Endangered Species) regulation, the global organisation that regulates trade in endangered species, comes into play. CITES works by Appendices: parts of endangered species listed in Appendix I (the one where populations of less than 5,000 specimens usually remain) cannot be traded in any way. This is different for Appendix II, where species can be traded but export and import permits are required, linked to CITES-related scientific advice. Polar bears are listed in Appendix II but, for several years, at the Cops where countries meet to make agreements on laws and protection, countries such as the US, Russia and others have been calling for a complete end to the trade in bear skins and parts, pushing for Arctic plantigrades to be listed in Appendix I. This, argues the Guardian investigation, is opposed by WWF.

Allegations against WWF: ‘Supports trade in bear skins’

The fact that the WWF has never pushed for Appendix I has long been known. The WWF’s position is, in a nutshell, that the climate crisis and the loss of ice are the real threat to bears, not the trade in bears that is linked to the killings in Canada, because the latter can be seen as a necessary resource for small local communities and the maintenance of native traditions if it is managed and regulated by laws. In essence, something sustainable. A view that the Guardian , however, describes as paradoxical not so much because of the WWF’s position, but because of the environmental association’s continuous attempt over the years, especially during the CITIES summits, to oppose the move to Appendix I, i.e. total protection.

“WWF has consistently lobbied for the continuation of the Canadian polar bear fur trade. In its position statement, it acknowledged that there could be a significant decline in the polar bear population over the next few decades, but stated that the trade was not a significant threat to the species,” writes the Guardian, adding that “in both 2010 and 2013 during CITES meetings, WWF opposed granting full protection to polar bears” by recommending “parties not to vote for a total ban, arguing that polar bears did not yet meet the criteria for such a ban.”

The position already reiterated in 2013 by the WWF was explicit and the Guardian points out that even today ‘this view persists’, emphasising however how the Panda organisation on the contrary ‘lobbied against granting full protection under CITES for other animals such as elephants, hippos, giraffes and rhinos’.

In all this, the British media then quotes local guides and Canadian residents who point out that other avenues, e.g. based on animal safaris, could be pursued instead of trading in bear parts in order to obtain sources of income, and points out that in addition to the positions of the United States, Russia and other countries, there are more than 80 NGOs that oppose WWF’s view on the polar bear issue.

WWF’s reply: ‘We follow the science and listen to the needs of local communities’

The WWF, for its part, responds to the accusations by upholding its position that banning international trade would damage the traditional livelihoods of indigenous and local communities, and that to reject the idea of including bears in Appendix I ‘there are also the recommendations of the IUCN, the NGO Traffic, the Pew Environment Group and the CITES secretariat’. “We have read what is written in the survey. But I must also say that not all the numbers add up: for example, I went to the CITES website, where the data on polar bear trafficking can be downloaded, and they are much lower than the 300-400 bears killed each year mentioned by the Guardian. Having said that, I would like to remind you that we do conservation and in doing so we follow the science. Today the science says this: bears are vulnerable and they are vulnerable because of the climate crisis, not because of limited numbers being taken. This leaves the way open for a minimum number of removals to ensure the subsistence of local communities and traditional uses. Conservation also means doing it consistently with the needs and uses of native peoples, at least as long as science tells us it is feasible. If in the future research says that even removing a single bear could threaten the subsistence of the entire species, then of course we will change our position immediately. But so far we have simply been pragmatic: working with the communities that expressed the need for few removals, and not conflicting this need with conservation objectives for the species, we have supported a position that we believe is consistent with both the current status of the bear and the demands of the native communities.”