Tagged ‘Monsanto‘

Avaaz’s Global ‘Ebay of Seeds’

WKOG editor: Note that Tom Periello, c0-founder of Avaaz , served one term as a U.S. Representative for Virginia’s 5th congressional district, serving from 2009 until 2011. He is a member of the Democratic Party. Currently, he serves as President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.In 2013, U.S. president Barack Obama (Democrat) signed the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ written by Monsanto-sponsored senator. More recently, it has been announced that Michelle Obama will be “teaming up with Monsanto to promote children’s food“. Further,, an NGO serving as a front group for the U.S. democrats, is also a founder of Avaaz. [“In 2006 MoveOn combined its membership list with that of Res Publica (New York City) to launch” ][Further reading:]

The Ecologist

July 16, 2014

by Julian Rose

Already 56,000 people have pledged to support a global ‘internet seed swap’ initiative promoted by Avaaz, writes Julian Rose. Trouble is, the plans are deeply flawed, and have been developed without consultation with major seed saving groups worldwide.

We never asked Avaaz for anything and have never heard about an organization of small farmers in the world that could conceive of such a project.

What happens when a major internet campaigning organisation gets it 100% wrong?

Answer: tens of thousands of people end up pledging donations for something that can’t be put into effect – and the NGO’s motives are called into question.

Such is the position of Avaaz at this time.

In a controversial communication to its supporters the internet campaigns group, on behalf of the Center for Food Safety (CFS, a non profit US public interest and environmental advocacy organization) calls for support for an international ‘eBay’ style portal that will circulate seeds to wherever they are needed, as a counteraction to monopolization of the seeds market by the Monsanto corporation.

Already over 56,000 people have donated or pledged to do so.

A Noah’s Ark to sink Monsanto?

Under the title Let’s build a Noah’s Ark to stop Monsanto Avaaz claims to have been asked by farmers to back their desire to establish this “first ever, non-profit ‘eBay’ of seed” as an online marketplace where “any farmer, anywhere can source a wide variety of plants cheaper than the genetically modified seeds from chemical companies.”

“This global online store could re-flood the market with with all kinds of seeds and slowly break the monopoly that is putting our food future at risk.”

They also make the claim that this would be a “legal” way of getting around current prohibitive seed laws.

At first glance this all sounds pretty worthy. It is critically important that farmers have the ability to save their seeds. Corporate lobbying has caused national governments, the EU, US and other global trading blocks – to severely restrict the free flow of seeds – increasingly outlawing ‘non registered’ seeds completely.

The Avaaz statement concurs on these dangers, but then comes up with an unworkable and downright dangerous way of getting around them.

Is Avaaz Combatting Monsanto or Facilitating Biopiracy?

WKOG editor: Note that Tom Periello, c0-founder of Avaaz , served one term as a U.S. Representative for Virginia’s 5th congressional district, serving from 2009 until 2011. He is a member of the Democratic Party. Currently, he serves as President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.In 2013, U.S. president Barack Obama (Democrat) signed the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ written by Monsanto-sponsored senator. More recently, it has been announced that Michelle Obama will be “teaming up with Monsanto to promote children’s food“. Further,, an NGO serving as a front group for the U.S. democrats, is also a founder of Avaaz. [“In 2006 MoveOn combined its membership list with that of Res Publica (New York City) to launch” ][Further reading:]

Réseau Semences Paysannes

July 11th 2014

avaaz seed campaign

Under the pretext of fighting Monsanto, Avaaz has sent millions of emails to solicit public donations to launch a global e-commerce in seeds. The French Farmers Seed Network (Réseau Semences Paysannes) asks: Do farmers need a “global online-store” for seeds? Is this commerce with seeds over the internet going to escape the laws of world trade dictated by Monsanto and other multinationals? Isn’t what Avaaz proposes running the risk of organizing biopiracy on a global scale serving these multinationals?

According to Avaaz, this project is designed by “farmers who resist by preserving seeds in seed banks and barns around the world.” The Farmers Seed Network bringing together in France most organizations of “farmers” working on Farmer seeds never asked Avaaz for anything and have never heard about an organization of small farmers in the world that could conceive such a project.

Small farmers rather work in their fields than on the internet. They produce and sell food. Only seed companies live from the seed trade. Small farmers practicing agro-ecology need first of all to be able to select and multiply their seeds locally, in order to suit their local growing conditions and adapt to climate changes as they occur in their fields. They don’t need seeds selected and multiplied on the other side of the planet that would require large amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to adapt to local growing conditions, to which they
were not acclimated.

A few seed samples from elsewhere are sometimes enough to help them renew the diversity of their local seeds. These exchanges of small quantities of seeds are needed when farmers have lost their local seeds and also when they cope with accelerating climate change. But when they receive these seeds, farmers must first select those suitable for their own growing conditions before they can grow them on a large scale.

It also happens that the local seed stocks are destroyed by a climatic catastrophe or war. Farmers must then obtain seeds from their nearest neighbors, possibly from neighboring countries, but not on a global seed market.

Farmers have organized themselves to facilitate the exchanges they need despite the laws dictated by multinationals that try to prohibit them. They meet in person and talk to eachother in order to transmit the knowledge associated with each seed. If some of them are creating small artisan businesses which could seel seeds through the internet, it is always on a smal-scale level. But they don’t need all their Farmer seeds and all their knowledges to be puted up for sale on a huge internet store that would necessarily escape their control.

This would only facilitate the work of multinationals seeking new seeds with intertsing traits that could be patented. They want access to farmers’ knowledge to determine which of these seeds have valuable traits worth patenting. These patents then forbid farmers to continue using the seeds, that they are invited to give for free on this “ebay store”. Providing access and information over the internet means giving Farmer seeds away to the multinationals. Farmers do not want to facilitate the theft of their seeds through patents by multinationals.

Finally, Avaaz does not say by whom and how the money collected on behalf of farmers, who are not associated with this campaign, will be managed.

Farmers are happy when NGOs help them to organize. But they don’t need NGOs trying to mobilize civil society on their behalf for purposes that are not theirs. To select and locally produce seeds, farmers need their rights to save, use, exchange and sell their seeds recognized and applied in every country. They need the mobilization of civil society to prevent in all countries of the world the laws and patents on life impeding those rights.


The Administrative council of the Réseau Semences Paysannes. Contact : Patrick De Kochko,, 00 33 6 17 06 62 60 ou 00 33 5 53 84 44 05


FLASHBACK | Conservation International: Privatizing Nature, Plundering Biodiversity


Seedling | Grain

October 2003

by Aziz Choudry

Conservation International’s corporate sponsor list reads like a list of the US’ top fifty transnational corporations. Biodiversity conservation is at the top of Conservation International’s list of goals. But as the list of Conservation International’s dubious ventures and questionable partners around the world grows, Aziz Choudry is starting to wonder if it is time to ‘out’ this ‘multinational conservation corporation’ and show its true colours.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C, with operations in over 30 countries on four continents, Conservation International claims to be an environmental NGO. Its mission is “to conserve the Earth’s living natural heritage, our global biodiversity, and to demonstrate that human societies are able to live harmoniously with nature.” [1] This all sounds very laudable and Conservation International has some very high profile fans. This year Colin Powell shared the podium with Conservation International President Russell Mittermeier at the launch of the Bush Administration’s “Initiative Against Illegal Logging” at the US State Department. In December 2001, Gordon Moore, who founded Intel Corporation, donated US $261 million to Conservation International, supposedly the largest grant ever to an environmental organisation. Moore is chairman of Conservation International’s executive committee. Conservation International has repaid Moore’s largesse by nam-ing an endangered Brazilian pygmy owl after him. [2]

WATCH: WWF SILENCE OF THE PANDAS | A Journey into the Heart of the Green Empire


Above: Three of many individuals creating mass-misery and ecological devastation via WWF. Clockwise: Dr Hector Laurence – WWF Argentina (also president of Agricultural Association AIMA and Director of two GMO companies (Morgan Seeds & Pioneer), Dörte Bieler – WWF spokesperson for Germany, Jason Clay – Senior Vice President, Market Transformation.

The WWF is the largest environmental protection organisation in the world. Trust in its “green projects” is almost limitless. Founded on September 11, 1961, it is the most influential lobby group for the environment in the world, thanks largely to its elitist contacts in both the political and industrial spheres and to its ability to walk a constant tightrope between commitment and venality.

This film will dispel the green image of the WWF however. Behind the organisation’s eco-façade, the documentary maker uncovered explosive stories from all around the world. This documentary reveals the secrets of the WWF. It is a journey into the heart of the green empire that will hopefully shatter public faith in such so-called conservation groups forever. [Synopsis below video.]

A film by Wilfried Huismann, Germany, 2011


The WWF, the most famous and powerful environmental organization worldwide, is facing accusations of working too closely with industries that destroy the environment and of ‘greenwashing’ dubious companies. The Fund allegedly collaborates with companies that deforest jungles, displace farmers, destroy the habitat of animals and contaminate the environment, German journalist and documentary maker Wilfried Huismann reveals.

WWF Scandal (Part 4): The Dark Side of the Panda

By Chris Lang,
29, May 2012

WWF scandal (Part 4): The dark side of the Panda

In June 2011, the German TV station ARD broadcast a documentary titled “The Silence of the Pandas: What the WWF isn’t saying”. The film-maker, Wilfried Huisman has also published a book about WWF: “Black Book WWF: Shady deals under the sign of the panda”.

WWF’s reaction to the criticism has been interesting. WWF produced a Fact Check on its website. Huisman responded to WWF’s Fact Check on his website. WWF has also won three injunctions at the District Court in Cologne preventing the re-broadcasting of parts of the film. A (long) diary of WWF Germany’s communications about Huisman’s film and book is here. (This discussion is in German.)

“It is unlikely that any other charitable organisation that depends on public support operates with such little accountability and in such secrecy as WWF…. It is easier to penetrate the CIA. And when WWF has been caught in embarrassing conducts it has engaged in damage control and cover-ups of the kind that might be expected from a company whose products have caused injury to consumers and the environment.”

Raymond Bonner, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, wrote that in his 1994 book, “At the Hand of Man – Peril and Hope for Africa’s Wildlife”. He was writing about WWF when Charles de Haes was International Director General (from 1975 to 1993). Has WWF changed since then?

Green Veneer | WWF Helps Industry More than Environment


By Jens Glüsing and Nils Klawitter


“Some people consider it outrageous that Spanish King Juan Carlos, who enjoys hunting big game, is the honorary president of WWF Spain. Here, a 2006 photo of Juan Carlos (right) during a hunting trip in Botswana.”


The WWF is the most powerful environmental organization in the world and campaigns internationally on issues such as saving tigers and rain forests. But a closer look at its work leads to a sobering conclusion: Many of its activities benefit industry more than the environment or endangered species.

Want to protect the rainforest? All it takes is €5 ($6.30) to get started. Save the gorillas? Three euros and you’re in. You can even do your part for nature with only 50 cents — as long as you entrust it to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which is still known by its original name of the World Wildlife Fund in the United States and Canada.

Last year, the WWF, together with German retail group Rewe, sold almost 2 million collectors’ albums. In only six weeks, the program raised €875,088 ($1.1 million), which Rewe turned over to the WWF.

The WWF has promised to do a lot of good things with the money, like spending it on forests, gorillas, water, the climate — and, of course, the animal the environmental protection group uses as its emblem, the giant panda.

Governments also entrust a lot of money to the organization. Over the years, the WWF has received a total of $120 million from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). For a long time, German government ministries were so generous to the organization that the WWF even decided, in the 1990s, to limit the amount of government funding it could receive. The organization was anxious not to be seen as merely an extension of government environmental protection agencies.

Illusion of Aid

But can the WWF truly protect nature against human beings? Or do the organization’s attractive posters merely offer the illusion of help? Fifty years after the organization was founded, there are growing doubts as to the independence of the WWF and its business model, which involves partnering with industry to protect nature.

The WWF, whose international headquarters are located in Gland, Switzerland, is seen as the world’s most powerful conservation organization. It is active in more than 100 countries, where it enjoys close connections to the rich and the powerful. Its trademark panda emblem appears on Danone yoghurt cups and the clothing of jetsetters like Princess Charlene of Monaco. Companies pay seven-figure fees for the privilege of using the logo. The WWF counts 430,000 members in Germany alone, and millions of people give their savings to the organization. The question is how sustainably this money is actually being invested.

SPIEGEL traveled around South America and the Indonesian island of Sumatra to address this question. In Brazil, an agricultural industry executive talked about the first shipload of sustainable soybeans, certified in accordance with WWF standards, to reach Rotterdam last year, amid a flurry of PR hype. The executive had to admit, however, that he wasn’t entirely sure where the shipment had come from. In Sumatra, members of a tribal group reported how troops hired by WWF partner Wilmar had destroyed their houses, because they had stood in the way of unfettered palm oil production.

Monsanto Partners with USAID to Push GM Corn in Nepal

November 20, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer (NaturalNews)

The southeast Asian country of Nepal is once again having to fight against foreign interests that are trying to take over its agricultural system. Biotechnology giant Monsanto apparently has its sights set on bringing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to this sliver of a country just north of India, and it is allegedly working with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a so-called humanitarian group, and officials in Nepal to make it happen.

USAID issued a statement on Sept. 13, 2011, saying that it had partnered with Nepal’s Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoACs) and Monsanto to “promote hybrid maize (corn) seeds among 20,000 farmers of Chitwan, Nawalparasi and Kavre districts and provide training to them.” Media across Nepal quickly picked up on the story, and massive public outcry ensued.

GMOs are not widely cultivated in Nepal, and the country has always taken a very cautious approach to adopting them. In fact, when it was discovered that some GMO ingredients had potentially already contaminated the nation’s food supply back in 2003, government officials quickly made precautionary recommendations at the time to require GMO labeling on all food items.

But with multinational corporations and the US government working overtime to force GM corn on Nepali farmers, Nepal appears to be getting pushed to the brink of no return. Though Nepal still imports some of its corn from elsewhere, the country is having no problems with the conventional, organic, and heirloom varieties it currently cultivates, and has no need whatsoever for GM varieties.

Since the controversy erupted, Nepali officials have reportedly backed off from the plan. Hari Dahal, joint secretary at MoACs, told reporters recently that his agency had “no idea why USAID issued the statements saying that the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives was partnering with Monsanto” because “no agreement had been signed.”

USAID was a little more ambiguous about whether or not MoACs was specifically involved in the matter, but the agency did make it very clear that it is working with Monsanto to promote GMOs around the world, including in Nepal. And based on the way Monsanto continues to thrust GMOs on the people of India just to the south, there is no doubt that the biotech giant is doing the same thing to people of Nepal as we speak.

Sources for this article include:……

WWF documentary leads to huge row in Germany: GM support and money taken from Monsanto

Der Pakt mit dem Panda

The docmentary Der Pakt mit dem Panda (English version The silence of the Pandas is on its way) has been broadcasted on German TV Wednesday late. It was seen by some 900.000 viewers, despite the late hour. Since yesteday it has been viewed 12.000 times on youtube so far and the sending will be repeated twice. (Today 21.00 EinsExtra). You can watch it on the ARD site:

Next broadcast Friday 24 Juni 2011, um 21 Uhr bei EinsExtra.

The doc shows a clear picture of WWF’s sell out . Jason Clay – WWF int Vice president – clearly takes a pro-GM stance. The doc covers destruction of rainforest for palm oil (working with Wilmar) and the soy – RTRS- poison story (working with Monsanto etc).

The leading Südduitsche Zeitung has published great articles and WWF had to admit that they have taken money from Monsanto. Der Spiegel online has published about it and there is a huge discussion in Germany. Many German WWF spenders seem to have come to second thoughts.

Comment today in the Südduitsche Zeitung

"Now it has become a PR disaster. WWF Germany is responding with a 23 points factsheet, and say some accusations are false. For they do criticise partners, ‘when necessary’. "The panda is not muzzled", so they say. But what to think about the fact that – when asked by ou redaction – WWF admits they have taken money from Monsanto? And about the statement that the very clear ‘yes’ to gene technology from Jason Clay in the film comes from ‘an individual outsider’. Clay is not an outsider. He is Vice-president of WWF-international."

A huge article today in Sueddeutsche Zeitung, copied below.

Here’s some links in German:,1518,770184,00.html

also interesting: Greenpeace Germany talking about ‘ behind the green facade’ …..


WDR-Recherchen über den World Wide Fund For NatureWWF und die Industrie – der Pakt mit dem Panda

22.06.2011, 19:00

Von Lars Langenau

Wie industriefreundlich ist der WWF? Zum 50. Gründungsjubiläum der Organisation hat der WDR hinter den Kulissen des renommierten, weltweit agierenden Umweltverbandes recherchiert. Seine brisante Dokumentation zeigt, wie tief sich der Verband in Interessenssphären der Wirtschaft und ihrer Milliardengewinne verstrickt hat.

Tigerbabys, Eisbärenkinder, Orang-Utan-Jungen – sie sehen mitleidig aus, süß, und kuschelig, mit ihren großen Augen und den Stupsnasen. Passt perfekt ins Kindchenschema. Es gibt nur noch eine Steigerung: der Panda, das Kindchenschema schlechthin.

Kratzer am guten Image des WWF: Der WDR zeigt eine kritische Dokumentation über den Naturschutzverband (Archiv: Aktion des WWF in Paris, 2008) (© AFP)

Der Panda ist das Wappentier des global bekannten World Wide Fund For Nature, der auch heute noch bei seinem früheren Namen World Wildlife Fund genannt wird. Der mächtigste Naturschutzverband der Welt hat Marktforschern zufolge eines der glaubwürdigsten Images der Welt. Er steht für Klimaschutz, Nachhaltigkeit, den Erhalt der biologischen Vielfalt der Erde, seit nunmehr 50 Jahren.

Und ist er ständig auf der Suche nach Spendern. Im Dienste der Natur. Kinder plündern schon mal ihr Sparschwein, sammeln Tierbildchen, die der Supermarktriese Rewe in Kooperation mit dem WWF bis vor kurzem beim Einkaufen verschenkte und einen Sammelhype auslöste ("Tier-Abenteuer – Entdecke sie alle!"). Den Spendern wird suggeriert, sie kauften sich ein Stückchen heile Welt.

Doch sieht die Realität in Teilen ganz anders aus?

Die einflussreiche Umweltorganisation WWF mit ihren jährlich etwa 500 Millionen Euro an Spenden, rund 4000 Mitarbeitern und Gliederungen in mehr als 100 Ländern hat sich nach WDR-Recherchen in Interessenslagen der Industrie verstrickt – der Bericht wirft die Frage auf, ob die Arbeit des Verbands mit dem Slogan "For a living Planet" ("Für einen lebendigen Planeten") vereinbar ist.

In der WDR-Dokumentation "Der Pakt mit dem Panda", die die ARD vergangenen Mittwoch um 23.30 Uhr ausgestrahlt hat, legt der mehrfache Grimme-Preisträger Wilfried Huismann nahe, dass die Gutgläubigkeit der Spender stellenweise gehörig strapaziert wird für Interessen, die kaum der Bewahrung des Planeten dienen.

Reise um den Globus

Huismann dokumentiert, dass der WWF offenbar zweifelhaften Unternehmen zu "Nachhaltigkeitszertifikaten" verhilft. Der Verband arbeitet an "runden Tischen" mit Gentechnikunternehmen wie dem Agrargiganten Monsanto und dem multinationalen Konzern Wilmar zusammen – und bestätigt ihnen demnach, dass sie "nachhaltig" Soja und Palmöl produzieren.

Die Naturschutzorganisation rechtfertigt in dem Film solch enge Zusammenarbeit mit einem "unideologischen" Kurs, der viel mehr bringe als konsequente Ablehnung. Huismann zeigt mit seinen Recherchen, welche Folgen diese Zusammenarbeit mit der Industrie haben kann.

Vertreibung von einer Million Ureinwohner für den Tiger

Er führt unter anderem die massenhafte, oft gewalttätige Vertreibung von Naturvölkern in Indien und Indonesien an, die seit Jahrhunderten mit als heilig verehrten Wildtieren zusammengelebt hatten. Huismann reiste nach Indien, wo derzeit eine Million Ureinwohner vertrieben werden sollten, angeblich zum Schutz des Tigers – doch lokale Aktivisten halten das für Blödsinn. Das Tigerprojekt des WWF bestehe seit 1974, da habe es noch 5000 Tiger gegeben. Wäre es erfolgreich, müssten dort jetzt mindestens 8000 Tiger leben, sagt ein Umweltaktivist, doch es sind offenbar viel weniger. Und diese wenigen Raubkatzen werden täglich acht Stunden von Ökotouristen des WWF-eigenen Reiseunternehmens und von 155 Jeeps in einem Tigerreservat verfolgt, zum Anschauen. Die betuchten Gäste müssen den Recherchen zufolge rund 10.000 Dollar dafür bezahlen – lokale Aktivisten beklagen, im Namen des Ökotourismus werde der ursprüngliche Wald zerstört.

In Argentinien geht es um genmanipulierte Monokulturen, die Mensch und Umwelt belasten. Huismann reiste in den Norden des Landes, in den Gran Chaco, einst der größte Savannenwald der Erde. Inzwischen ist er zur Hälfte gerodet und von einer Soja-Monokultur überzogen, die sich auf die Nachbarländer ausbreitet und angeblich Menschen krankmacht. Die Haltung des WWF? "Schon heute ist die Soja-Wüste in Südamerika doppelt so groß wie die Fläche Deutschlands", sagt der Sprecher in dem Film. "Eine Verdopplung ist geplant – der WWF Argentinien unterstützt das Vorhaben, weil die Wälder hier, so der WWF ‘minderwertig’ sind – und durch menschliche Nutzung ‘degradiert’". Von dem ursprünglichen Waldbestand ist nichts mehr zu sehen.

Die Gratwanderung eines Umweltschutzverbandes

Huismann war auch auf Borneo unterwegs, wo die Brandrodung für den monokulturellen Anbau von Palmen zur Gewinnung von Palmöl weit fortgeschritten ist. Im Gegenzug schaffen die Verantwortlichen hier ein Alibiwäldchen für genau noch zwei Orang-Utans – aber selbst diese drohen wegen der minimalen Größe des Reservates zu verhungern, sagt Huismann: "80 Hektar auf einer Plantage von 14.000 Hektar, 0,5 Prozent. Ist das ein Erfolg, wenn 99,5 Prozent vernichtet werden?" Dörte Bieler, die im WWF für Biomasse zuständig ist, wird in einer der eindrücklichsten Szenen des Films mit dieser Frage konfrontiert und antwortet lakonisch: "Also, der sehr sichere Tod wäre ja, wenn die 80 Hektar jetzt nicht mehr wären. Dann wären sie jetzt schon tot."

Ein Beispiel für eine erfolgreiche Zusammenarbeit mit der Industrie nennt Bieler auf Nachfragen von Huismann auf Anhieb nicht. Ihr sei einfach wichtig, als Nichtregierungsorganisation (NGO) "nicht nur belächelt zu werden, sondern als kompetenter Gesprächspartner akzeptiert zu werden."

In Indonesien besucht Huismann eine Plantage, in der ungefilterte Abwässer im Boden versickern – sie wird den Recherchen zufolge gerade mit Hilfe des WWF als "nachhaltig" zertifiziert. Mit diesem Zertifikat "kann das Unternehmen in Europa den Zuschuss für ‘regenerative Energie’ kassieren", sagt der Sprecher im Film und ergänzt: "Und der WWF bekommt ein Honorar dafür, dass er das Unternehmen in Sachen ‘Nachhaltigkeit’ berät. Für beide Seiten ein lohnendes Geschäft."

Allein eine Großbank lässt laut Huismann 100 Millionen Dollar für eine "Klima-Partnerschaft" mit dem WWF springen. Doch in Indonesien finanziere eben dieses Geldinstitut die Abholzung durch Palmölkonzerne, der inzwischen große Teile des Regenwalds zum Opfer gefallen sind. Trotzdem sitze der WWF mit den Großen aus der Lebensmittelindustrie am "Runden Tisch für nachhaltiges Palmöl" (RSPO). Andere NGOs wie Friends of the Earth oder Greenpeace distanzieren sich, sind aus dieser Runde ausgetreten oder waren nie dabei.

Verquickt mit Geld- und Blutadel

Der Film dokumentiert auch die Verquickung von Geld- und Blutadel mit dem WWF. Ehrenpräsident ist Prinz Philip. Er rechtfertigt im exklusiven Interview mit dem WDR die Jagd auf Tiere so: "Es muss ein Gleichgewicht zwischen den Arten hergestellt werden. Das kann man nicht der Natur überlassen. In dem man Raubtiere dezimiert, schützt man die Tiere." Seinen persönlichen Tigerabschuss 1961 verteidigt der 90 Jahre alte Gemahl der britischen Königin damit, dass es schließlich nur einer gewesen sei.

Der geheime "Club der 1001"

Mitbegründet wurde der WWF einst maßgeblich von Mitgliedern der europäischen Adelshäuser. Huismann mutmaßt, dass der Verband nur entstand, weil der Großadel in Zeiten der Entkolonialisierung um seine Jagdgebiete fürchtete – ihr Motto sei noch das des Kolonialismus: "Natur ist Abwesenheit des Menschen – jedenfalls des Einheimischen", sagt Huismann zu

Kaum eine Spende, kaum ein Spender sei dem WWF in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten unangenehm gewesen, von Dow Chemical über Shell bis – zumindest für den WWF USA – auch Monsanto.

Prinz Bernhard der Niederlande, der erste Verbandspräsident, gründete auch den "Club der 1001", ein Art WWF-Förderverein, in dem sich noch heute die Eliten des Westens treffen. Dessen Mitglieder sind überwiegend Industrielle. Früher gehörten zum Club auch führende Figuren des südafrikanischen Apartheitsregimes, der argentinischen Junta und Staatsterroristen wie Zaires Diktator Mobutu Sese Seko.

Dabei ist die Mitgliedschaft in diesem grünen Country-Club noch immer geheim. Nur einige prominente Mitglieder haben sich geoutet, vor allem Adelige, sagt Huismann. Seinen Recherchen zufolge gehörten zumindest Mitte der achtziger Jahre auch viele Persönlichkeiten aus der deutschen Wirtschaftselite dazu, von den Bankiers Robert von Pferdmenges und Hermann Abs über Friedrich Flick bis Bertold Beitz.

Unmenschliche Sendezeit

Das ist Vergangenheit – sagt auch der Sprecher im Film. Doch auch heute hat der WWF wenig Berührungsängste. So wird seit 2010 Monsantos genmanipuliertes Soja vom "Runden Tisch für verantwortungsvolle Sojaproduktion" (RTRS) als "nachhaltig" zertifiziert. Das Zertifizierungssystem ist auf WWF-Initiative entstanden.

Hartmut Vogtmann, Chef des Deutschen Naturschutzrings, empört sich offensichtlich darüber. In einem internen Brief an Detlev Drenckhahn, den Präsidenten der deutschen WWF-Sektion, warnt er eindringlich vor der Teilnahme am "Runden Tisch für verantwortungsvolle Sojaproduktion". In dem Brief, der vorliegt, argumentiert Vogtmann, laut neuer Studien sei durch den Anbau von Soja der Verbrauch von Spritzmitteln "enorm gestiegen" – "denn immer mehr Unkräuter werden resistent gegen das in den Sojakulturen eingesetzte Roundup". Dessen Wirkstoff Glyphostat "verursacht Fehlbildung bei Embryonen und lässt die Krebsrate in die Höhe schnellen", schreibt er weiter in Bezug auf eine Untersuchung und folgert: Der vom WWF mitbegründete runde Tisch "hält ein gescheitertes System von Landwirtschaft künstlich am Leben".

Der WWF Deutschland schreibt zu diesem Thema: "Wir arbeiten weiter am RTRS mit, weil wir mehr gentechnikfreies Soja wollen und die Umweltschäden des Sojaanbaus generell minimieren wollen, wie die Zerstörung der Wälder." Inzwischen hat der WWF auf seiner Webside einen "Faktencheck" veröffentlicht und schreibt da unter anderem: "Wir lehnen Gentechnik ab. Dies werden wir so lange tun, bis bewiesen ist, dass gentechnisch veränderte Pflanzen absolut unbedenklich für Umwelt, Biodiversität und uns Menschen sind. Diese Position des WWF International gilt für alle WWF-Länderorganisationen." Allerdings gebe es bei "einzelnen Länderorganisationen auch Mitarbeiter, deren Meinung sich nicht mit der offiziellen WWF-Position deckt. Dies gilt insbesondere für Staaten, in denen der Anteil der Gentechnik in der Landwirtschaft bereits sehr hoch ist, etwa die USA und Argentinien".

Der Film hat die deutsche Sektion des WWF offensichtlich schon vor der Erstausstrahlung bewegt. Es wurde versucht, mit Abmahnungen durch Medienanwälte die Sendung zu beeinflussen und Interviews platzen zu lassen.

Und was soll man davon halten, wenn der Verband auf SZ-Nachfragen eingesteht, Spenden von Monsanto entgegengenommen zu haben? Und davon, dass die Befürwortung der Gentechnologie durch Jason Clay eine "einzelne Außenseitermeinung" sei? Doch das ist er nicht. Er ist Vize-Präsidenten des WWF-Weltverbandes.

Die ARD sendete den 45-minütigen Film spätabends – und wird damit immerhin dem Auftrag gerecht, Kinder und Jugendliche vor 23 Uhr vor verstörendem Programm zu verschonen.

%d bloggers like this: