Is more than 100k USD somehow exorbitant? I would expect a VP (in Switzerland, no less!) to make at least that much.

I think a lot of charity's function this way. You could argue that paying towards the VP salary is helpful because of his potential ability to increase revenue through fund raisers which eventually provides even more support to the WWF. Some charity's also mention that a certain % is guaranteed to directly support the cause. Not sure what % that is for the WWF though.

I used to donate to WWF. I stopped after I watched the ARD greenwashing documentary which alleged that WWF accepted money from large corporations in return for certifying their activities as "sustainable".

I visited Kaziranga in Assam, India which has the highest density of tigers. The local rangers said they don't get any help from these aid organizations. Looking at WWF activities in detail suggests they do almost nothing for the local people. The WWF leadership ( http://www.worldwildlife.org/about/leadership ) has no representation of people who actually live in the areas which are key to survival of these species. In my opinion, that dooms it to failure. My belief is that to save tigers, you have to provide the people who are poaching tigers with a viable financial alternative. I would much rather the person taking a photo of a tiger in the jungle be a genuine local rather than a corporate employee doing greenwashing. http://tigers.panda.org/t2/mars-cindy-jiang-joins-wwfs-tiger...

It's very simple : never donate to a charity that can afford TV campaigns and appear at all the big conferences around the world.

Keep it local and real. Charities for sick/underprivileged children in your local region are everywhere and do much good in the world.

If you want to help children in far-flung countries do it by always pushing for free trade laws and speak out against barbaric religious practices.

Alternatively, http://www.givewell.org and in particular http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities .

Though neither your advice nor mine is gonna do much for animal conservation, if that happens to be what acd cares about.

I guess my point is that giving for animal conservation is very inefficient and nt at all transparent. If you want to protect the animals, push for things that will help the economies grow in the countries with the animals. Animal poaching and habitat destruction are usually results of poor people seeking a way to make a living. Rich countries have the best environmental policies and records. Protecting the environment is a matter of wealth.

Also, don't support biofuels and speak out against them and especially subsidies that favor biofuel production.

Isn't this the same issue as CEOs of private enterprises making millions? If that is the market rate of someone with those skills, shouldn't that be what they're paid?