WWF Says 'Jump' Governments Ask 'How High?'

Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

A publication of the Institute of Public Affairs' NGO Project€

By Jennifer Marohasy and Gary Johns

Abstract

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has mounted a campaign that has led to both the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments recently recommending urgent and significant changes to land management practices in catchments that drain onto the Great Barrier Reef. These recommendations are purported to have a basis in science. In particular, it is alleged that there is evidence for localized deterioration of nearshore reefs from agricultural runoff. The scientific literature, however, provides no such evidence. So, what, and who, made these two governments jump to the wrong conclusions?

We review the process that resulted in governments' recommending significant land-use changes that are likely to have a substantial economic cost. We conclude that government is increasingly abrogating its responsibility to make decisions in the best long-term interests of its citizens, and is instead reacting to pressure groups without first scrutinizing their motivations or the evidence to support their allegations.

WWF has targeted rural industries in Queensland over the past two years. This campaign is believed to have been funded out of the United States of America through donations generated in response to media interest in the 1998 coral-bleaching episode that affected reefs across the world. The bleaching was attributed by WWF to global warming. It was later acknowledged, however, that the bleaching was a short-term phenomenon and therefore likely to be related to an El-Niño episode, not global warming. The World Wildlife Fund capitalized on the media coverage and secured significant funds to pay for a campaign to 'Save the Great Barrier Reef'. In 1999, it established headquarters in Brisbane and a simple media strategy was developed whereby the Great Barrier Reef would be portrayed as a victim of industry, in particular the grazing and sugarcane industries.

The Queensland and Commonwealth Governments reacted to the initial WWF campaign allegations, not by evaluating them, but by wanting to be seen to save an environmental icon. In particular, the Queensland Government maintained an emphasis on evaluating land-based sources of pollution, despite evidence that none was apparent, because of an election commitment to the conservation movement. But what are they saving the reef from? Governments need to evaluate reports produced by environmental organizations more critically, in order to safeguard the integrity of public policy decision-making. In addition to ensuring that environmental decisions are based on sound science, governments must reassert their primacy as representatives of the public interest by demanding that those they invite to participate in government forums have legitimate standing, by way of expertise, representation and direct involvement.

To read the full paper click here,  http://www.ipa.org.au/files/wwftext.htm .

More Publications