World Wildlife Fund

World wildlife fund is an international organization established in 1961, 57 years ago, as a non-governmental organization. The organization’s primary aim is to minimize the impact of activities carried out by human beings to the environment and maintaining wilderness on charity bases. Based on ecological footprint and living planet index a living planet report is produced in intervals of two years by the organization (Constance and Bonanno, 2004, p. 131). Sir Julian Huxley published an article in the British newspaper on his concern for the environment to be more specific wildlife that was answered to by Victor Stolan by a suggestion to initiate world wildlife fund organization. This act led to Stolan being connected to Max Nicholson, a man who had specialized skills in connecting person with huge business interests to economic and political thinking tank for more than thirty years (Lamoreux, Morrison, Ricketts, Olson, Dinerstein, McKnight and Shugart, 2006., p. 212).

        The organization with the name world wildlife fund opened its first office in a town named Morges located in Switzerland in September 1961. Morges manifesto is the document that marked the establishment of the organization with funding commitment to existing organizations that had the same dream of saving our wildlife (Mawdsley, O’malley and Ojima, 2009, p. 12). The organization operated by funding organization such as The Conservation Foundation that was already operating towards conserving wildlife which was a shared dream with the organization. This was the organization’s initial strategy that is affecting the organization’s operation to date for it raises money to support its practices on saving wildlife.

Current strategy

Currently, the organization is working towards achieving a mission of conserving nature and reducing the impact of the most pressing threats to the diversity of life. Its work revolves around the following areas: wildlife, climate, food, oceans, forests and freshwater (Olson all as at, 2001, p. 935). The company not only funds other organization but is also involved in activities about ecology, environmentalism, and conservation by use of science (Balmford, Bruner, Cooper, Costanza, Farber, Green, Jenkins, Jefferiss, Jessamy, Madden and Munro, 2002). It has gradually progressed to handling significant worldwide forces and threats that is from the first small organization that involved protecting landscapes and species. It is currently located in more than 100 countries with its headquarters in Vaud, Rue Mauverny and Gland in Switzerland and with a logo of an animal known as Chii Chii has illustrated on the appendices (Enrlich and Pringle, 2008, p.1158). This animal was a member of the giant panda and was relocated to London Zoo from Beijing Zoo three years before World Wildlife Fund began (Hoekstra, Boucher, Ricketts and Roberts, 2005, p. 26).  The current president of the organization is Pavan Sukhdev and the director general being Marco Lambertini. The World Wildlife uses the research, lobbying, and consultancy while in the line of duty (Deegan and Blomquist, 2006, p. 354).

Stakeholders

Stakeholders are individuals or institution affected by an organizations operations they include: the society, government, lenders, community, employees, lenders, and customers as expressed in appendices (Pomeroy, Watson, Parks and Cid, 2005, p. 492). In the World Wildlife Fund, the governments of the countries incorporated in the operations of the organizations are the major stakeholders. World Wildlife Fund protects wildlife and the environment at large; these are properties of the government in which they are situated (Mahanty and Russell, 2002, p. 182). Therefore for the organization to perform any duties, it requires approval from the government of the country whose property is involved. It is the responsibility of the same government to fund part of the activity. With this government proves to be the most prominent stakeholder in the organization. Another critical function of the governments is to persuade individuals and institutions within its state into taking up and owning policies set up by the organization. This role if played by another stakeholder, could not be taken as severe as in the case when the government is doing so (Sanderson, Jaiteh, Levy, Redford, Wannebo and Woolmer, 2002, p. 900).

Business interaction

           World Wildlife Fund interact with international institutions and governments persuading them to strengthen, adapt and reinforce policies that uplift the management of natural resources (Infield, 2001, p. 801. They do so through providing technical assistance and support. The organization through its interaction ensures that policies and public laws pave way for a more promising future for natural resources, people and wildlife. World Wildlife Fund also enforce proper handling of natural resources and maintaining of the ecosystem by partnering with various government agencies. They do so by updating the policymakers on the appropriate ways of protecting places and species of interest. This interaction with policymakers mostly entails ocean policy, climate change and international development assistance, species conservation and natural resource management.

         The organization must ensure that the policymakers understand reservation issue by partnering with non-governmental organizations and business leaders (Wilkie and Carpenter, 2006, p. 927). They support upcoming policymakers by advising them on brilliant ways towards tackling their problems. World wildlife organization is one of the privileged organization to receive project agency status from Global Environmental Facility. It collaborates with other non-governmental organization in managing and implementation of GEF funded endeavors and overseeing their success (Gregory and Keeney, 2005, p. 1044).  No organization can run without money. The World Wildlife being a charitable organization does not conduct its daily practice with a strategy aimed at earning profit instead it gives to the society. It, therefore, takes interactions with business-oriented institutions and corporations for the organizations to receive donations from them (Guillette Jr, Crain, Rooney, and Pickford, 2003, p. 157).

Effects on other stakeholders

         World Wildlife Fund in its daily operations has not failed to let is surrounding feel impacts. In 2014 the organization in collaboration with Brazil government converted Brazilian rainforest which is bigger than all the USA national parks put together into a keenly protected area and of sustainable use (Myers, 2000, p. 195). Through this practice, a place that is home for incredible biodiversity and a stabilizer to the world’s climate was created. In the same year World Wildlife Fund provided ideas and support to Global Environmental Facility, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Bank on developing go ahead met to address the impact of the production of agriculture commodity (Wikramanayake, Dinerstein, Seidensticker, Lumpkin, Pandav, Shrestha, Mishra, Ballou, Johnsingh, Chestin and Sunarto, 2011, p. 222). The three organizations have now relying on the advice given to them by the World Wildlife Fund to improve impacts caused by agriculture. These three organizations are performing on individual bases to achieve the same ultimate goal. The Convention on Biological Diversity is on a two-year project purposed to develop biological indicators for agricultural commodity production. The World Bank on its part as incorporated the rehabilitation of underperforming and degraded land in its projects. Lastly, the Global Environmental Fund is on a five-year project whose main focus is on the environment and agricultural commodities (Frunsen and Kolk, 2007, p. 927).

Strategy Evaluation

          In July 2017 the launching the 2015-2020 strategic plan of the World Wildlife Fund took place. This strategic plans contained well-elaborated strategies on how the organization is to conduct its activities in the five years. This strategy focuses on the protection of wildlife, freshwater, and forest. By so doing the organization will have minimized cases of poverty by sustaining management of natural resources (Andrade and Rhodes, 2012, p. 7). Among all the strategies outlined in the plan, three best strategies are responsible production, investment and production, landscape management and planning and lastly wildlife and protected areas. They are aimed at the most wanting conservation challenges. To achieve the planned encounters, World Wildlife Fund is set to serve by example. In this way, the organization should ensure proper conservation practices and results, developing proper partnership with significant stakeholders, conducting campaigns to educate people on the importance of implementing sustainable and lasting conservation practices, giving support to government policies, providing ultimate comfort to their conservation approaches and interaction with corporations where needed (Organ and Ellingwood, 2000, p. 69).

Effects on stakeholders

         The World Wildlife Fund in collaboration with Greenpeace talked sense into the Russian government to protect the forest which is home for the Amur tigers. The government took the advice and through the Federal Forestry canceled new amending in regards to timber cutting regulations. This act saved about 80% of the aged Korean pine. This significant activity took place on January 10th, 2017. In 30th June the same year the Mexico government implemented a ban on gillnets in vaquita habitat, this ban was a permanent one aimed at protecting the critically endangered species some of which are represented in the appendices. This implementation took place after the World Wildlife Fund coordinated a campaign that was joined by members of the public aimed at protecting the species (Stuart, Chanson, Cox, Young, Rodrigues, Fischman and Waller, 2004., p. 2014).

Recommendation

       World Wildlife Fund need to organize campaigns aimed at educating people and most especially governments on the importance of banning the use of polyethylene papers within their territories; this is because they are not biodegradable thus causes great harm to the environment (Brundtland, 2010, p. 853).  Secondly, my recommendation affects countries that are greatly affected by the flood. Secondly, the organization should encourage the countries affected by flood on the importance of extending the consumption of cost-effective green infrastructures that is in regards to flood management in orders to save on the cost incurred during flood protection processes. World Wildlife Fund can achieve these two recommendations through coordination of campaigns that are welcome all based, conducting general meeting involving all interested parties and subsiding the cost involved in the implementation of the same in the developing countries (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010, p. 15). They should also persuade other organizations based on environmental conservation to take the two recommendation at heart for they bring them closer to achieving their ultimate goal.

Summary and Conclusion

        The World Wildlife Fund is an organization deserving the position it holds now for it is an organization that has undergone significant growth. In its growing process, it has not changed its ultimate purpose of taking care of the wildlife thou it as adjusted its working strategies over time. The organization interact with its stakeholders greatly and in accordance to its ethics (Burns and Howard, 2013, p. 704). These interactions are always purposed to achieving its goals. It is an organization that takes its stakeholders option at heart as evidenced in the numerous meetings it organizes and works towards meeting their expectations (Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, Fonseca and Kent, 2010., p. 853). In my view, world wildlife is an organization that is determining in achieving its goals. Its operation is centered on the desire to protect wildlife and the environment at large. It is with this that it has achieved serving more than 100 countries around the world and with the same dream, it is to achieve more (Olson, Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake and Loucks, 2011, p. 933).

References

Andrade, G.S. and Rhodes, J.R., 2012. Protected areas and local communities: An inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies? Ecology and Society,17(4).

Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E., Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V., Madden, J. and Munro, K., 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297(5583), pp.950-953.

Brundtland, G.H., 2010. What is sustainable development? Our common future, pp.8-9.

Burns, G.L. and Howard, P., 2013. When wildlife tourism goes wrong: a case study of stakeholder and management issues regarding Dingoes on Fraser Island, Australia. Tourism Management, 24(6), pp.699-712.

Constance, D.H. and Bonanno, A., 2004. Regulating the global fisheries: The world wildlife

Deegan, C. and Blomquist, C., 2006. Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4-5), pp.343-372.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S., 2010. Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International journal of management reviews, 12(1), pp.8-19.

Ehrlich, P.R. and Pringle, R.M., 2008. Where does biodiversity go from here? A grim business-as-usual forecast and a hopeful portfolio of partial solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(Supplement 1), pp.11579-11586.

Fransen, L.W. and Kolk, A., 2007. Global rule-setting for business: A critical analysis of multi-stakeholder standards. Organization, 14(5), pp.667-684.

Fund, unilever, and the marine stewardship council. Agriculture and Human Values, 17(2), pp.125-139.

Gregory, R. and Keeney, R.L., 2005. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Management Science, 40(8), pp.1035-1048.

Guillette Jr, L.J., Crain, D.A., Rooney, A.A. and Pickford, D.B., 2003. Organization versus activation: The role of endocrine-disrupting contaminants (EDCs) during embryonic development in wildlife. Environmental health perspectives, 103(Supple 7), p.157

Hoekstra, J.M., Boucher, T.M., Ricketts, T.H. and Roberts, C., 2005. Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology letters, 8(1), pp.23-29.

Infield, M., 2001. Cultural values: a forgotten strategy for building community support for protected areas in Africa. Conservation Biology, 15(3), pp.800-802.

Lamoreux, J.F., Morrison, J.C., Ricketts, T.H., Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., McKnight, M.W. and Shugart, H.H., 2006. Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism. Nature, 440(7081), p.212

Mahanty, S. and Russell, D., 2002. High stakes: lessons from stakeholder groups in the biodiversity conservation network. Society &Natural Resources, 15(2), pp.179-188.

Mawdsley, J.R., O’malley, R. and Ojima, D.S., 2009. A review of climate‐change adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 23(5), pp.1080-1089.

Myers, N., 2010. Threatened biotas:“ hot spots” in tropical forests. Environmentalist, 8(3), pp.187-208.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A. and Kent, J., 2010. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), p.853.

Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D. and Loucks, C.J., 2011. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on EarthA new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience, 51(11), pp.933-938.

Organ, J.F. and Ellingwood, M.R., 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for black bears, beavers, and other beasts in the east. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5(3), pp.63-75.

Pomeroy, R.S., Watson, L.M., Parks, J.E. and Cid, G.A., 2005. How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(7-8), pp.485-502.

Sanderson, E.W., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M.A., Redford, K.H., Wannebo, A.V. and Woolmer, G., 2002. The human footprint and the last of the wild: the human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not. AIBS Bulletin, 52(10), pp.891-904.

Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodrigues, A.S., Fischman, D.L. and Waller, R.W., 2014. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science, 306(5702), pp.1783-1786.

Wikramanayake, E., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., Lumpkin, S., Pandav, B., Shrestha, M., Mishra, H., Ballou, J., Johnsingh, A.J.T., Chestin, I. and Sunarto, S., 2011. A landscape‐based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conservation Letters, 4(3), pp.219-227.

Wilkie, D.S. and Carpenter, J.F., 2006. Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: an assessment of impacts and options for mitigation. Biodiversity & Conservation, 8(7), pp.927-955.

Appendices

A. Logo

B. Stakeholder analysis

C. Supporting forests

D. WWF Program cycle

E. Carbon productivity portfolio

F. Partnership logo

G. Climate savers