The Conflict between Animal Rights and Conservation:

IFAW Not Welcome in IUCN

In 1994, the IUCN council had rejected IFAW’s application for membership by a vote of 30 against and 1 in favour. IFAW decided to appeal against this decision to the IUCN general assembly. “.. the deciding factor was whether the militant organisation for animal rights was in conflict with the mission of the IUCN,” wrote “Contact”, (no. 1/95), the IUCN Newsletter for members in Western Europe.
The general assembly of this huge conservation union, gathered in Montreal, was evidently of the same opinion. 75 percent of government votes fell against IFAW, as did 66 percent of NGO votes. The appeal needed a two-thirds majority among both categories of members.

Finn Lynge from Greenland, a member of the Danish delegation, spoke against IFAW, while IFAW Director of European Affairs, Stanley Johnson, who was representing the IUCN member Young Peoples Trust for the Environment and Nature at the meeting, spoke in their defence.

Lynge said that the IUCN is there to ensure that wildlife harvesting “is done in a sustainable and reasonable manner”. He continued: “Not so IFAW. They are there to see to it that it doesn’t take place at all .... They don’t care whether wildlife harvesting is well-managed or sustainable, or whether animal populations are truly endangered, but only whether they are photogenic. On top of that, they don’t care about the cost to others in so doing.” Lynge was referring to the negative impact on the economy and culture of Inuit communities in Greenland and Canada as a result of the IFAW anti-sealing campaign. This campaign - whose aim is to prevent the killing of seals under any circumstances - is, and always has been, IFAW’s highest priority campaign.

Johnson stated that IFAW has “no problem” in endorsing the IUCN mission statement, which includes the aim “to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable”. He added, that he did not see that the mission statement “implies that there is an absolute imperative to use natural resources - it speaks of ‘any use’.” He also recommended eco-tourism, as an ‘alternative’ to consumptive use of wildlife. Many perceived this as an attempt to give the impression that IFAW accepts ‘sustainable use’ of wild animals, while at the same time maintaining IFAW’s no use policy for selected species.

Lynge also criticised the means IFAW uses to attain its goals. “IFAW resorts to blackmail”, he said, referring to the organisation’s threats of lobbying against the provision of international development aid to Namibia in its campaign to stop the Namibian hunt of Cape fur seals.

74 states are members of the IUCN- as well as 105 government agencies, 640 national non-governmental organizations, 59 international non-governmental organizations and 34 non-voting affiliates.

For further information on IFAW, take a look in the Library on the High North Web and at IFAW’s own Home Page