How Racism, Colonialism, and Capitalism Shaped the Origins of WWF

A resignation with significant implications occurred on May 28, when Alexandra Palt was compelled to step down from her position as the president of WWF France, following pressure from the board of directors. Her participation in an anti-racist march on April 4 in Saint-Denis was the trigger for this action. This reflects the organization’s reluctance to embrace the cause of anti-racism.

French historian and professor at the Bordeaux Institute of Political Studies, Guillaume Blanc, discusses this surprising turn of events with Decatur Metro. Blanc, who has been investigating the activities of various international organizations in Africa for over a decade, including WWF, describes the organization as having origins in “racism, colonialism, and capitalism” in his forthcoming graphic novel The Sacrificed of Paradise (Delcourt, March 2026).

Decatur Metro — Were you surprised by Alexandra Palt’s resignation?

Guillaume Blanc — It was quite unexpected, especially since Palt came from a corporate background at L’Oréal. She epitomized the mainstream environmentalism practiced by major institutions that collaborate with multinational corporations rather than opposing them. It was surprising to hear that she resigned on humanitarian grounds.

The day after her participation in the anti-racism event, Palt received an email from Isabelle Autissier, honorary president of WWF France, which stated: “Our organization has always strived to remain apolitical,” and made it clear that fighting racism was not part of its mission. What do you make of this distinction between being “apolitical” and “anti-racist”?

I see it as sheer hypocrisy. What really bothers WWF, though not explicitly stated, are the political values upheld by La France Insoumise (LFI), particularly those of the local councilor Bally Bagayoko who organized the anti-racist rally. WWF was founded on capitalism and racism, and its representatives are unlikely to challenge these systems.

Why do I say it was “born from capitalism”? Look at the past presidents of WWF International. From 1976 to 1981, it was John H. Loudon, a former CEO of Shell. From 2002 to 2009, Emeka Anyaoku, a Nigerian diplomat with long-standing ties to the Commonwealth’s oil sector. And from 2022 to 2023, Edward Neville Isdell, a former CEO of Coca-Cola who had managed the company’s South African branch during apartheid in the 1970s.

Thus, how can WWF claim to be apolitical? It is deeply political. Collaborating with companies like Coca-Cola, Shell, Ikea, and Monsanto, WWF is engaged in politics. What they truly oppose are the anti-capitalist values of LFI.

Why do you also say WWF was “born from racism”?

Since the 2000s, WWF has funded park rangers in places like Nepal, Congo, India, and Gabon. These rangers have expelled, beaten, and sometimes killed local populations living in national parks. These actions are well-documented.

In 2019, investigations revealed abuses committed against indigenous peoples by paramilitary forces funded by WWF in Nepal. Internal documents showed that the NGO had known about these issues for years. Similar concealed atrocities by park rangers supported by WWF occurred in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Three years earlier, Survival International, an NGO advocating for indigenous peoples’ rights, reported these acts of violence in Cameroon to the OECD, because WWF, with an annual budget exceeding 350 million euros, qualifies as a transnational corporation subject to OECD jurisdiction.

No substantial action followed the complaint, and WWF did not further investigate these abuses. Instead, they expressed regret that their partners engaged in criminalizing peasants, committing assaults and rapes, but denied direct responsibility. This is a convenient blindness, or rather, outright hypocrisy, as perfectly illustrated by Isabelle Autissier’s reaction. I wonder if she is truly unaware of such atrocities or if she chooses to ignore them.

In your 2024 book, you described how European colonists established Africa’s first nature reserves at the end of the 19th century. How does this historical perspective relate to what is happening with WWF today?

Starting in 1897, the first hunting reserves were established in Africa. The European colonists, having transformed their own continent through urbanization and industrialization, believed they were rediscovering a lost natural paradise in Africa.

Yet colonial capitalism also destroyed nature. Between 1850 and 1920, European hunters killed around 65,000 elephants annually and cleared nearly 94 million hectares of forest. The ivory trade supplied materials for billiard balls and piano keys. As the large fauna dwindled, the colonists refused to acknowledge their role in these destructions.

Instead, they blamed African populations and created hunting reserves to monopolize hunting rights, later converting these into national parks for nature contemplation. This led to mass expulsions to create an image of Africa as a pristine, unspoiled wilderness.

But WWF did not yet exist at that time.

True. However, as colonization ended in the 1950s and 1960s, a new global endeavor began to continue this dehumanization of Africa through national parks, which I term “green colonialism.” Between one and 14 million farmers and herders were expelled from 350 African national parks in the 20th century. Thousands were criminalized and punished for cultivating their lands or hunting local wildlife.

During this period, two major organizations, UNESCO and the IUCN, played significant roles. In 1961, amidst the wave of African nations declaring independence, they established WWF as a sort of bank to “help Africa help itself,” sending former colonists turned international experts to the continent.

Has WWF completely severed its colonialist roots?

No. The strange alliance of predation and protection, established by colonists in the late 19th century and upon which WWF was founded, persists 120 years later. While it might seem that partnerships with corporations like Shell, Ikea, or Coca-Cola are merely examples of greenwashing, the reality is more complex. For instance, in 2016, the company tasked with expelling populations from Ethiopia’s Simien National Park, Intersocial Consulting, also works for mining and oil companies like Rio Tinto, TotalEnergies, and ExxonMobil to plan their “sustainable development” projects.

In other words, this preservation system goes hand in hand with predation. TotalEnergies can continue exploiting and destroying African ecosystems because it funds park protection. Coca-Cola can continue polluting while simultaneously assisting WWF in cleaning up oceanic waste. This so-called apolitical environmentalism ultimately perpetuates environmental exploitation. And this is WWF’s choice to collaborate with destructive multinationals rather than opposing them.

Does this rhetoric of excluding anti-racism from WWF’s agenda enable it to more easily continue its activities in Africa?

Indeed, it’s impossible for WWF to engage in anti-racist efforts. To do so would be, and I choose my words carefully, like asking a far-right party to champion anti-racism. While WWF’s donors may not be racists nostalgic for colonization, WWF itself was born from racism, colonialism, and capitalism. The very system of establishing nature reserves in African and Asian countries is predicated on the colonial notion that these populations are incapable of protecting their own environments. If WWF were to fight against racism, it would essentially be battling against its very foundation.