• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

Some questions for WWF about its partnership with logging company Rougier in Cameroon

Posted on 22 June 201612 October 2017

RougierTwo weeks ago, REDD-Monitor wrote a post about a partnership between WWF and Rougier, a French logging company, in Cameroon. The partnership is part of WWF’s controversial Global Forest and Trade Network.

The post on REDD-Monitor was based largely on a post on Survival International’s website that accuses WWF of partnering with a company that is logging without the consent of the local indigenous Baka communities.

“Bruno” left the following comment after the post:

Guys: reporting. No one could pick up the phone and ask WWF what they had to say about this?

Bruno’s right. I could have rung up WWF. I’m sure I would have got a nice sound bite telling me that WWF is very concerned, that GTFN is an important and innovative transformational programme, and that anyway, Rougier is FSC certified. Or something like that.

Anyway, the day after publishing the post, I sent some questions to Annabelle Ledoux and Marielle Chaumien at WWF France. These two people are listed as sources of further information in WWF’s January 2016 news release, about progress made in the partnership with Rougier.

Two days later, Phil Dickie replied. Dickie has a wonderful job title: “Head, Issues Management at WWF International”. Having nagged me a bit about not contacting WWF before publication, Dickie wrote, “We’ll let that pass, however.”

Because my questions were “quite broadranging”, Dickie said he had “a few internal inquiries to make”. He also asked if he could “go through some essential context off the record”. That’s fine, I replied, as long as I get on the record answers to my questions.

I’m still waiting for Dickie to get back to me, either on or off the record.

In the meantime, here are the questions I sent to WWF. I look forward to posting WWF’s response in full when it arrives.

  1. As far as I’m aware, WWF has not responded to the accusations made by Survival International that WWF is partnering with a company that is logging without the consent of the local indigenous Baka communities. Why has WWF not responded?
  2. What is WWF’s response to Survival International’s accusations?
  3. Did WWF consult with the Baka communities living in and near Rougier’s concessions in Cameroon before entering into the partnership with Rougier (i.e. before Rougier became a member of WWF’s Global Forest and Trade Network in October 2009)? Was a process of free, prior and informed consent carried out with the Baka communities before October 2009? Could you please describe this process. If no FPIC process was carried out, please explain why not.
  4. It is clear from Rainforest Alliance’s Forest Stewardship Council audit reports that the company had limited information about local communities when the assessment was carried out in November 2012. Rainforest Alliance wrote: “SFID is at the beginning stages in obtaining information and awareness of local communities to process their customary use rights”. This is clearly in breach of FSC’s Principle 3 on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights. How can the certificate be awarded in this situation?
  5. This seems to be a bizarre process – Rougier appears to be responsible for explaining to the Baka communities what rights they have. Yet Rougier is impinging on those rights, through its logging activities. Is WWF playing any role in this process?
  6. Why did WWF decide to partner with Rougier, rather than with the Baka communities?
  7. There are three articles on the GFTN website about WWF’s partnership with Rougier:

    • 27 March 2013: FSC certification in Cameroon surpasses 1 million hectares
    • 9 April 2015: WWF France and Rougier to jointly advance responsible forest management and trade
    • 26 January 2016: WWF and Rougier take stock on the progress made after one year of collaboration to promote responsible forest management

     
    Only the first of these mentions the word “indigenous”. Why does GFTN put so little priority on indigenous peoples and their rights?

  8. In 2011, Global Witness produced a report about GFTN titled “Pandering to the loggers”. WWF responded. Global Witness replied. WWF announced that it would carry out a review of GFTN. In May 2012, the review was completed. Please send me a copy of the review – and please explain why the review is not posted on the GFTN website. What reforms has WWF carried out to the GFTN process as a result of the review?

 

3 thoughts on “Some questions for WWF about its partnership with logging company Rougier in Cameroon”

  1. Robert Hii says:
    22 June 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Looking forward to your post on WWF’s replies. Quite distressing to note they would not have immediate answers on hand as the issues are serious.

  2. Wally Menne says:
    22 June 2016 at 6:20 pm

    Is this an isolated WWF blunder, or is there a pattern of this kind of thing happening a bit too often?

    https://www.independentsciencenews.org/environment/way-beyond-greenwashing-have-multinationals-captured-big-conservation/

  3. Chris Lang says:
    23 June 2016 at 3:14 pm

    WWF Italy and WWF Cameroon have responded to Survival International’s accusations. Click on the links for google translations: I Baka tra dichiarazioni del Wwf e denunce di Survival International; and Cameroun: WWF Répond aux allégations de « Survival International ».

    Needless to see, I still want WWF to respond to my questions.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Recent Posts

  • Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Papua New Guinea Environmental Alliance letter to Pogio Ghate, Minister for Environment, Conservation and Climate Change
  • Ecomapuá Amazon REDD Project, Brazil: Pública investigation reveals Ecomapuá Conservação is selling “illegal” carbon offsets from land it does not own, without transferring the money to local communities
  • Response from Steve Zwick, Verra: “Verra will ask Kanaka Management Systems to cease and desist any actions that may mislead communities into thinking that Verra has not already rejected the project”
  • Response from Kanaka Management Services: “Please do not conduct legal trail or castigate REDD+ project developers on the website by writing text which shows the project developer in bad light”

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!