When we heard that the sponsor of the Natural History Museum's Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition was none other than Shell, we thought: "Hmmm, that's a bit like Hitler putting up the funds for a new wing at the Anne Frank Museum." We asked Friends of the Earth their thoughts.

When you think of wildlife do you think of orang-utans or tigers? Do you think of brightly coloured parrots squawking in the rainforest? Or maybe you’re now thinking of a crocodile sitting on the bank of a muddy river safe in the knowledge that it’s one of a handful protected from becoming a handbag or a pair of boots? Probably furthest from your mind is a company like Shell. Well, that is unless you visit the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition at the Natural History Museum, where Shell is the unlikely bedfellow of one of the world’s most prestigious wildlife photography competitions.

  © Ben Osborne /Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2007 Elephant creation - Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year Overall Winner. Ben Osborne took his winning picture in Chobe National Park in Botswana.

© Elaine Gilligan/Friends of the Earth Shell's corporate activities in Africa have caused pollution from oil spills and gas flares, devastating local wildlife.

The Wildlife Photographer of the Year aims to promote wildlife conservation to people around the world. Shell on the other hand is a company whose oil drilling operations threaten the survival of the last remaining grey whales in the western pacific.

In Nigeria, its gas flaring and oil spills have resulted in the loss of precious aquatic life and mangrove forests. Yet the Natural History Museum has chosen Shell, one of the UK’s most environmentally destructive companies, as a sponsor. It is a dangerous move that Friends of the Earth believes helps Shell to promote a green image that is not only misleading, but is also utterly hypocritical and completely undermines the role of the competition in promoting conservation.

© Sakhalin Environment Watch Western Pacific grey whales are threatened by increasing oceanic traffic caused by new oil drilling platforms.

When questioned about their choice of sponsor, the Natural History Museum said that “Shell’s sponsorship is enabling us to make significant enhancements to the competition”. A similar response came from the BBC Wildlife Magazine, co-organisers of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year who said that, with Shell’s sponsorship, “the exhibition can now continue to encourage everyone who visits it to have a greater understanding of, and responsibility towards, the world around us”. This is not really a convincing justification of their choice when you consider what Shell has been up to around the world.

Being associated with the Wildlife Photographer of the Year means that Shell has the perfect platform on which to shout about its green credentials, enabling it yet again to hide its overwhelming negative impact on the environment. Massive campaigning efforts over the past decade, often led by those living next to Shell's plants and refineries, have tried to get Shell to take responsibility for its operations, yet it continues to ignore human rights and local ecosystems. Shell is a major contributor to climate change and shows no sign of letting up on its hunger for new oil and gas reserves, placing only a tiny amount of resources into investing in renewable energy.

  © Arne Naevra / Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2007 Polar Meltdown - One Earth Award (Runner-up)

© Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Polar Bear sow and two cubs on the Beaufort Sea coast in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Shell has a license to explore the border of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil.

If Shell actually cleaned up its act and put systems in place to prioritise environmental improvements across their operations, then it might make some sense for it to declare its support for global biodiversity. But the sad reality is that after years of making green claims, Shell is still damaging wildlife, is still polluting local communities and is still helping to accelerate climate change. Not really a company you want to see standing hand-in-hand with a prestigious wildlife conservation promotion machine is it?

Shell’s current sponsorship is in its final year. We want the Natural History Museum to select a new sponsor that doesn’t fly in the face of genuine conservation. So unless something miraculous happens over the next year, we’d rather it wasn’t Shell again.

You too can ask the Natural History Museum not to renew its sponsorship with Shell: www.foe.co.uk/shell