The wildlife charity WWF has been found to support the trade in polar bear fur while simultaneously using images of the species to raise funds.
Polar bears are severely impacted by the loss of Arctic sea ice, which makes hunting more difficult and forces them to expend more energy. Some populations are experiencing declining physical health, fewer cubs, and shorter lifespans.
Despite their vulnerable status, Canada remains the only country that permits the commercial hunting of polar bears, as Russia, Greenland, the US, and Norway have banned the practice. Each year, an estimated 300–400 polar bear skins are exported, mainly to China, where a single pelt can fetch around $60,000 (£48,000) and is often used for luxury garments or rugs. With an estimated 22,000 to 31,000 polar bears left in Canada, the trade results in the deaths of about 1-2% of the country’s polar bear population annually.
A two-year investigation revealed that WWF has played a role in facilitating the international trade of polar bear fur as part of its endorsement of “sustainable utilization.” This approach argues that allowing controlled hunting and economic exploitation of a limited number of animals can contribute to the species’ overall conservation.
WWF has publicly stated its position on trophy hunting and ivory trade, asserting that it does not oppose hunting if it does not threaten a species’ survival and is backed by a scientifically managed conservation strategy. It emphasizes that revenues from such programs should benefit conservation efforts and local communities.
At the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), WWF has consistently lobbied in favor of continuing the Canadian polar bear fur trade. While acknowledging that polar bear populations may decline significantly in the coming decades, the organization maintains that trade is not a primary threat—although some polar bear populations in Canada may be subject to unsustainable hunting.
WWF has opposed granting full protection to polar bears at Cites meetings in 2010 and 2013 when the US, backed by Russia, proposed a ban on international trade in polar bear skins. On both occasions, WWF argued that polar bears had not yet met the criteria for such a ban. This stance continued in 2022 when WWF’s policy manager for wildlife, Colman O’Criodain, stated that he did not foresee the need for stronger protections in the next decade based on population numbers.
WWF has also suggested that banning international trade would harm Indigenous communities’ livelihoods. However, this claim is contested. Robert Thompson, an Iñupiat resident and polar bear guide from Alaska, argues that polar bears have survived for millennia without commercial exploitation. He believes that ecotourism, such as wildlife viewing, offers a sustainable alternative to hunting.
Both Cites proposals to ban the trade failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority.
Jean-Paul Jeanrenaud, a former WWF director who worked at the organization for 27 years, expressed concern over the charity’s role, stating that WWF has significant influence, and the public would likely be shocked by its stance.
WWF has similarly opposed full Cites protection for other species, including elephants, hippos, giraffes, and rhinos. At the 2022 Cites meeting, the organization successfully lobbied to downgrade Namibia’s white rhino population from the most protected status under Appendix I to the less restrictive Appendix II.
Most wildlife conservation groups do not share WWF’s position. At the last four Cites meetings, a coalition of around 80 NGOs opposed its recommendations.
WWF defended its stance, noting that an Appendix I listing would not necessarily stop trophy hunting. The organization highlighted that Canada had presented its case to Cites in 2015, and the committee had concluded that the trade was sustainable.
