Discussing Fur's International Future in Amsterdam

By Teresa Platt, Executive Director, FCUSA

IN 1998, AUSTRIA BOUGHT OUT its final fur farmer (who continues to farm across the border) and moved onto the next discussion: fur farming is illegal so should fur wearing be banned in Austria? Home to 8 million people (94 per square mile), Austria covers an area a little larger than South Carolina (42 people per square mile). Average temperature ranges from 44 to 48 ° F. Austria illustrates high population density which often precedes urban/rural conflicts and loss of farmland but it has perfect weather for wearing fur.

Elsewhere in Europe, other battles are being fought to outlaw fur farming. In December, a Norwegian court threw out a case brought by the group Dyrebeskyttelsen, and ordered it to pay costs, after it filed suit on animal welfare grounds against two randomly chosen farmers in a bid to close the country's 2,000 farms. And in England, January saw the introduction of a bill to ban fur farming. So far, apart from cries by animal rightists/abolitionists, there is no talk of prohibiting the wearing of fur.

Against this backdrop, in mid-January I traveled to Amsterdam along with representatives from over two dozen fur farming countries. The occasion was a seminar arranged jointly by the European Fur Breeders' Association (EFBA) and the International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF).

The agenda was packed with presentations on research, discussions on existing controls on fur farming in various countries, and public relations workshops. And in a city with a history so rich in trade, it was appropriate to discuss the future of the international fur industry.

Council of Europe Recommendation

Of particular interest to all at the meeting was the Council of Europe's Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes, and the Committee's Recommendation Concerning Fur Animals. It is assumed this recommendation will be passed at the Council's meeting in June. This will lead to a push for EU legislation modeled on the Council's recommendation.

The Council's recommendation spells out codes and practices very similar to the FCUSA's Animal Welfare Committee's Standard Guidelines for the Operation of Mink and Fox Farms in the U.S., and Canada's Code of Practices.

The delegates to the EFBA/IFTF Joint Seminar were not surprised to learn, however, that codes from one country or trading block are not perfect matches for codes from other parts of the world. Immediately, the brain makes the leap, "Well, if we have to comply, shouldn't you? And, if you don't, shouldn't we put up a trade barrier against your product?" This is the "level playing field" theory which too often in politics translates into leveling the locals then battering the rest of the world into submission.

Closing Markets?

When a trade barrier is put in place, the blacklisted product continues to be absorbed by the world market. But closing major markets without a concomitant reduction in production drags down prices globally for all producers. Welcome to the global economy.

Worse yet, trade barriers may be legal under national law but they are illegal under international trade obligations as detailed in the World Trade Organization (WTO, formerly GATT). We, the fur industry, are at risk of sanctions by the WTO for losses from this illegal trade barrier. The national treasuries do not pay these penalties. The fur industry does. According to the WTO rules, those who benefit from the illegal trade barrier will bear the burden of the sanctions. Duties will be levied on fur products and distributed to the countries damaged by the illegal trade barrier in a settlement of business losses across borders.

Fur retailers can pass on the costs of these sanctions but the consumer can also freely turn to other clothing choices. No one is forced to buy fur and, unless the resellers or producers absorb the price fluctuations, the market will simply equalize itself.

Searching for Solutions

What's the solution? For the global fur producers, multi-lateral programs are WTO-legal and result in people working together to identify and solve real problems. No, there is little glory, grandstanding or glamour in it, and the solutions are simply what they always are: international cooperation, education, individual responsibility and science, science, science. "Beggaring my brother" policies and "big stick" politics may make us feel like we're getting somewhere, but don't really solve anything. Worse yet, they yield predictable and troubling results: ill will among neighbors, diminished opportunity and increased poverty.

U.S. fur farmers applaud the efforts of our European neighbors to harmonize their standards across 80 countries, an amazing project. We are encouraged by the willing attitudes we encountered in Europe. We look forward to the opportunity to solve real problems with sustainable solutions built on open trade patterns. Along with exquisite pelts, let's export opportunity and goodwill in 1999 and beyond.

See also:
Existing Controls Over Fur Farmers in the United States, FCUSA report to the IFTF, Jan. 15, 1999.

Teresa Platt, executive director of Fur Commission USA, represents 400 mink-farming families, and serves on the boards of the National Animal Interest Alliance and Alliance for America, groups working to restore people and common sense to the environmental equation. For further information contact: Teresa Platt, Executive Director, Fur Commission USA, PMB 506, 826 Orange Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118-2698 USA, (619) 575-0139, (619) 575-5578/fax, furfarmers@aol.com, www.furcommission.com.

Home

© 1998-2008 Fur Commission USA