WWF aquaculture green plan for shrimp and scallops sparks outrage

Environmental and human rights groups accuse WWF of alienating local communities from aquaculture debate
Leo Hickman The Guardian 15 May 09;

Some campaign groups prefer to shun the company of the big corporations they wish would change their ways. Placard-waving protests, high-profile demonstrations and embarrassing exposes are their modus operandi.

However, other campaign groups prefer to adopt the "softly, softly, catchee monkey" approach, believing you will only achieve your aims through genial dialogue, participation and praise-based persuasion.

Since it was founded in 1961, WWF (then known as the World Wildlife Fund) has tended to fall into the latter of the two groups. It is one of the world's most high-profile campaign groups, boasting five million supporters, and has achieved extraordinary leverage with both governments and corporations around the planet. The group's "Guiding Principles" state that it will "seek dialogue and avoid unnecessary confrontation", as well as "strive to build partnerships with other organizations, governments, business and local communities to enhance WWF's effectiveness".

On occasions, though, this approach can irk other groups trying to achieve similar aims. For example, this week more than 70 human rights and environmental groups from around the world signed a letter expressing "outrage" at the planned launch of WWF's Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC). The new global standard for "responsible seafood farming" is modelled on the Marine Stewardship Council's labelling and auditing system for wild-caught seafood and aims to certify aquaculture farms around the world that comply with its standards.

Earlier this year, WWF initiated "Aquaculture Dialogues" for nine species: salmon, shrimp, pangasius, tilapia, abalone and four types of bivalve shellfish – clams, oysters, scallops and mussels.

But the signatories of the letter are far from impressed:

Strong opposition to this latest ... certification initiative is based upon our years of collective experience in working to counter the negative effects of the industrial aquaculture of shrimp, salmon and other carnivorous marine fin-fish species. We see the ASC as yet another attempt by a Big International NGO to formulate some ill-conceived plan to remedy the problems of unsustainable industrial aquaculture.

These kinds of flawed remedies do not involve the local communities and grassroots movements in the process of defining steps to be taken, thereby excluding those peoples most affected by these industries' ongoing assaults on ocean health and coastal integrity.

Current attempts by WWF and other intended certifiers are not supported by local communities and indigenous peoples, the global network of NGOs, academics and citizens who are still demanding a moratorium on further expansion of these socially disruptive and ecologically destructive industries.

WWF denied it was excluding local people involved in aquaculture:

Since the process to set up the ASC began in 2004, a significant amount of funding has been invested in engaging stakeholders in the process and ensuring that the dialogue is not industry-based. More than 35 Aquaculture Dialogue meetings have been held in the world's most prominent aquaculture regions.

These have included shrimp meetings in Asia and South America last year, and salmon meetings in Scotland. The dialogues are open to anyone and WWF has encouraged all stakeholders, not just industry players, to engage with them.

The Guardian's Felicity Lawrence has written about the damage caused by industrial-scale aquaculture - in particular, tiger prawn farms in Vietnam – both for the paper and her book Not On the Label. Her findings paint a pretty bleak picture about the impact this type of farming can have both on local communities and the environment in which they live.

So, can campaign groups sometimes get too close to the corporations they seek to change? Standards and certification schemes can certainly help to raise standards greatly, but can they do so when they fail to involve the participation of all involved, particularly local community groups, as the signatories of this letter are claiming?