In recent years, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has found itself at the center of a contentious debate regarding its involvement in the international trade of polar bear fur. Despite being renowned for its conservation efforts, WWF has supported the sustainable utilization policy, which includes facilitating the trade of polar bear skins. With polar bear populations threatened by climate change and habitat loss, many wildlife protection organizations question WWF’s stance. Meanwhile, Indigenous communities argue that the trade is crucial for their livelihoods. This complex issue continues to spark intense discussion among conservationists, policymakers, and Indigenous groups alike.
WWF’s official position asserts that while polar bear populations are currently not critically endangered by international trade, they will reconsider their stance if future conditions change significantly. As stated by WWF, "If, at some stage in the future, polar bear populations become so diminished by climate change and habitat loss, and/or if international trade presents a greater threat, we would want to revisit the Cites listing issue. But we’re not at that point." This position, however, has not been universally accepted within the conservation community.
The primary focus of WWF’s lobbying efforts has been to prevent a full ban on polar bear trade at Cites meetings in 2010 and 2013. The organization argued that polar bears had not yet met the criteria for such a ban. This perspective aligns with the passionate arguments presented by Inuit representatives, who emphasized the importance of commercial trade for their communities’ economic well-being. According to WWF, "Under appendix II … commercial trade, in skins for example, is also allowed and the Inuit in Canada avail of this. For this reason, on both occasions when the appendix I listing was proposed, Inuit representatives spoke passionately against it."
The trade in polar bear fur is particularly lucrative, with an annual average of 300–400 skins exported primarily to China. A full pelt can sell for an average of $60,000 (£48,000), often used for luxury clothing or as a rug. This market plays a significant role in the economy of Indigenous communities involved in hunting and trading these skins.
Despite WWF’s defense of its actions as part of a sustainable management strategy, many other wildlife protection organizations do not support this approach. Critics argue that facilitating any form of commercial trade contradicts conservation goals. Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud expressed his disbelief at WWF's position by stating, "I think the public will be even more than surprised, perhaps shocked. I know that it’s the sort of thing that I have difficulty getting my head around."
WWF has also faced criticism for its similar positions regarding other species such as elephants, hippos, giraffes, and rhinos. Notably, in 2022, WWF successfully lobbied for Namibia’s white rhino population to be downgraded from full protection under appendix I to the less restrictive appendix II.
The organization maintains that their actions reflect a commitment to sustainable utilization without endangering species survival. "We’re not opposed to hunting programmes that present no threat to the survival of threatened species and, where such species are involved, are part of a demonstrated conservation and management strategy that is scientifically based, properly managed, and strictly enforced," WWF explained.
WWF’s influence in these matters cannot be understated. Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud highlighted this by saying, "The WWF name, certainly from my experience, had a lot of leverage. If I approached people, they wanted to hear what I had to say … WWF has an influence, and it still has an influence."
Polar bears continue to face severe challenges due to the loss of Arctic sea ice, which impacts their ability to hunt and survive. Critics argue that exacerbating these threats through international trade is counterproductive. Yet, Indigenous voices stress the necessity of balancing conservation with economic needs. As Robert Thompson pointed out, "There can be a good income by taking people to view the animals – and that is sustainable."