TED Case Studies
EC Fur
Ban
CASE NUMBER: 22
CASE MNEMONIC: ECFURBAN
CASE NAME: EC Fur Import Ban
A. IDENTIFICATION
1. The Issue
In March, 1991, the EC adopted a provision which prohibited the
importation for commercial purposes of certain goods (including the
furs of eight animals) when these goods originated in a country
where animal trapping methods fell below internationally accepted
standards of humanity. In June, 1991, the EC adopted an amendment
which broadened the scope of the agreement to include five more
species and to reduce prohibition periods. Imports of these
products come mostly from Greenland, Canada, and the United States.
These countries, and the people in them, complained that these acts
were economically and culturally unfair.
2. Description
The original proposal for the Council Regulation prohibited the
importation, for commercial purposes, of certain goods (consisting
of or including the fur of beaver, otter, coyote, wolf,lynx,
bobcat, sable, raccoon) when these goods originated in a country
there (a) the leghold trap was still used, or (b) trapping methods
fell below internationally agreed humane trapping standards. It
also allowed for the two-year suspension of the prohibition
(expiring December 31, 1977), in which the Commission and
appropriate authorities of the countries concerned determined
before July 1, 1994, that sufficient progress was being made
towards the development of humane trapping methods in their
territory (Recital 5).
The text of the amendment to the proposal for a Council Regulation
on the importation of certain furs contains the following
modifications:
1. Recital 4: The amendment makes the prohibition effective as
of January 1, 1995, rather than January 1, 1996.
2. Recital 4: The prohibition includes goods consisting of
or including the fur of the species contained in the original
proposal (see above) and adds the musk-rat, fisher, badger,
marten and ermine.
3. Recital 5: Amends the suspension period from two to one
years (expiring December 31, 1995), if the Commission and
appropriate authorities from the countries concerned determine
before January 1, 1995, that sufficient progress is being made
towards the development of humane trapping methods.
4. Article 3(1): Specified goods which consist of or include the
pelt of any of the aforementioned species shall be denied free
circulation for commercial purposes from January 1, 1995 (rather
than January 1, 1992), unless the Commission has certified
otherwise.
5. Article 3(2): The prohibition of Article 3(1) shall be
suspended for one year, expiring on December 31, 1995, is the
Commission and appropriate country authorities find that
sufficient progress in the development of humane trapping methods
within their territory.
The parties to the Council Regulation are the 12 Member States of
the EEC/EU Treaty: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the
United Kingdom. The amendment's objective is to broaden the
Regulation's scope to include five additional species and to reduce
suspension provisions from two to one year. In addition, the
amendment implements the prohibition one year earlier than the
original proposal.
The ban on fur followed an intense campaign by environmental groups
and occurred after a similar campaign against the import of seal
skin from eastern Canada, where baby seals were killed for their
fur. Prominent figures, such as the actress turned activist
Bridgett Bardot, were involved in the effort. The legislation
banned the import of furs from animals that were caught in leghold-
traps which are believed to be inhumane because the animals
suffered in the process. It was reported that before the trappers
came to check their traps, many animals starved to death or
(purportedly) gnawed off the own limbs in order to escape. Numerous
other animals, not intended to be caught, were also snared in the
traps and died needlessly.
The leg trap is used in remote parts of Canada, the United States,
and particularly Greenland. Many trappers are Caucasian, but many
are also Native American (such as the Aleut) tribes that have used
the leghold trap method for millennia and long before Europeans
came to the Americas. Native Americans argued that the ban
conflicted with their traditional values and customs. Moreover,
they added that the ban deprived them of the means for earning a
living. Many have made a living through the trade of fur products.
It is argued by the Arctic natives that "the consumptive use of
wild animals is not only critical as a source of cash income but
also integral to subsistence economies and cultures." Finally, in
remote areas wildlife managers argued that leg traps were the only
sensible means for control of certain species.
The ban was at best symbolic. Clearly there was no way that
customs import officials in Europe could determine whether a fur,
or clothing made from the fur, was taken from an animal that was
caught with a leg trap. There was no attempt to institute rules of
origin, as in textile trade, so that such a determination might be
made.
In January 1996, the EU banned the imports of pelts from the 13
species because of continued leg-trap practices. The United States
and Canada contend that this will represent a loss of $33 million
in exports annually. The U.S. Trade Representative favors the
lifting of the ban.
The European Union's regulation No. 3254/91 would prohibit member
countries from importing any raw furs made out of fur from 13
species unless the country of origin adopts internationally
recognized standards of humane trapping procedures. This
regulation's implementation, originally scheduled to go into effect
on January 1, 1996 had been delayed until January 1, 1997 in order
to allow trapping communities, largely in North America and Russia,
to meet the terms of the EU legislation. However, the legislation
has once again been delayed for an indefinite period.
John Wisse of the Associated Press discussed the development of
internationally accepted humane trapping standards in a press
release on November 22, 1996. He wrote, "Such standards have not
yet been developed, however, and even when they are, they could
take a great deal of time to be implemented. This is especially
the case in the United States, where wildlife management is
governed at the state level, which means that all 50 states would
probably have to implement the standards before U.S. wild furs
could be exported to the EU."
EU countries as a whole are the largest consumers of North
American wild fur pelts (approximately 75% of North American wild
fur pelts end up in the EU). European fur buyers and North
American trappers are extremely worried about the potentiality of
this regulation's eventual implementation. Those who favor the
permanent ban view the delay skeptically, while those who favor the
ban, largely animal rights activists, view the delay as a major
setback.
According to Wisse, a major contribution factor to this latest
delay in implementing the fur ban is due in large part to a joint
North American trade delegation tour of six European countries.
The delegation focused its efforts on disseminating educational,
scientific-laden evidence that the claims made by animal rights
workers are unfounded and misleading. For example, it was found
that some individuals in the EU actually believed that several of
the 13 species included in the ban are endangered, which simply is
not the case.
The majority of national fur councils and wildlife experts in North
America and Russia hail the delay by the Commission in implementing
the ban. According to Tom Nacos, president of the Canadian Fur
Council, "The decision to delay implementation of EU Regulation
3254/91 for another year shows that the Commission now recognizes
the need to allow time for such standards to be developed." Del
Haylock, vice president of the Canadian Fur Council, went on to
state, "...If animal welfare is to be improved, it is important
that international standards should be agreed upon and then
applied to the international community evenly and fairly...A
realistic time-table for change will ensure that countries are not
penalized whilst making every effort to implement the new
standard."
3. Related Cases
BEAR case
VEAL case
BIRDS case
TUNA case
TUNA2 case
TUNA3 case
BABYSEAL case
HARP case
HUDSON case
LUMMI case
MOHAWK case
JAMES case
Keyword Clusters
(1): Species = Land Mammal [LMAM]
(2): Bio-geography = COOL
(3): Domain = North America [NAMER]
4. Draft Author: Jennifer Fedor/Janet Herrlinger (June,
1995); Updated (March, 1996); Updated by Beth Walsh, (November,
1997)
B. LEGAL Clusters
5. Discourse and Status: DISagreement and COMPlete
The case is one of disagreement because it involves the amendment
of a proposal by treaty signatories over the objections of various
groups in North America. The amendment was adopted by the EC
Council at the June 13-14, 1991, meeting.
6. Forum and Scope: EURCOM and REGION
7. Decision Breadth: 15 (EURCOM and Greenland, Canada, and
USA)
8. Legal Standing: TREATY
C. GEOGRAPHIC Clusters
9. Geographic Locations
a. Geographic Domain : North America [NAMER]
b. Geographic Site : Northern North America [NNAMER]
c. Geographic Impact : European Community [EURCOM]
The geographic domain of the species includes territories within
the EC/EU, Canada, the United States, Greenland (Denmark)and most
likely several other nations.
10. Sub-National Factors: NO
11. Type of Habitat: COLD
D. TRADE Clusters
12. Type of Measure: Import Ban [IMBAN]
13. Direct vs. Indirect Impacts: DIRect
14. Relation of Measure to Environmental Impact
a. Directly Related : YES FUR
b. Indirectly Related : YES TEXTile and Apparel
c. Not Related : NO
d. Process Related : YES HUMANE treatment
15. Trade Product Identification: FUR
The products involved in the EC Fur Ban Case basically fall
under:
(1) Section VIII of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule or
HTS (raw hides and skins, leather, furskins and articles
thereof; saddlery and harness; travel goods, handbags and
similar containers; articles of animal but, other than
silkworm gut),
(2) Chapter 43 (furskins and artificial fur and
manufactures thereof) of the HTS, including:
(a) Heading 4301 of the chapter which covers raw
furskins, other than hides and skins;
(b) Heading 4302 which includes tanned or dressed furs
(assembled or unassembled);
(c) Heading 4303 which encompasses articles of apparel,
clothing accessories and other articles of furskin.
Some subheadings specifically mention the furs involved in the
case, while others simply place furs in one generic category.
Disaggregation proves difficult for such fur products as apparel
and clothing accessories (Heading 4303). The HTS only provides a
choice between apparel/clothing accessories made of mink and those
of all "other" furs. Similar complications arise with Subheading
4302.30.00, which groups together all assembled tanned or dressed
furskins. Table 1 shows the various places in the tariff schedule
where the legislation might apply.
Table 1
HEADINGS/SUBHEADINGS IN HTS CHAPTER 43 THAT
SPECIFICALLY MENTION FURSKINS/FUR MANUFACTURERS
RELATED TO THE EC FUR BAN CASE
Headings/Subheadings:
4301 Raw Furskins
4301.40.00.00 Of beaver, whole, with or without head, tail or
paws
4301.50.00.00 Of muskrat, whole, with or without head, tail or
paws
4301.80.00.20 Of lynx, whole, with or without head, tail or
paws
4301.80.00.40 Of marten, whole, with or without head, tail or
paws
4301.80.00.60 Of sable, whole, with or without head, tail or
paws
4301.80.00.70 Of fisher, whole, with or without head, tail or
paws
4301.80.00.75 Of racoon, whole, with or without head, tail or
paws
4302 Tanned or Dressed Furskins
4302.19 Whole skins, with or without head, tail or paws, not
assembled
Other: Of beaver...ermine, fisher,...lynx,
marten,...otter,...racoon, sable or wolf
4302.19.30.40 Not dyed: Of racoon
4302.19.45.40 Dyed: Of racoon
4302.20.30.00 Heads, tails, paws and other pieces of
cuttings, not assembled:
Of beaver...ermine, fisher...lynx, marten,
otter, racoon, sable or wolf
Source: Adapted from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States.
16. Economic Data
The ban was supported by Europe's own large pelt industry, which
relies on "farming" techniques. Because of "anti-fur" movements
around the world over the last decade, the industry has faced tough
economic times. More recently, European producers have had a large
inflow of product from Russia. Table 2 shows the top EC importers
of fur products from the United States, to indicate the magnitude
of some of the trade at hand.
Table 2
Top Five EC Importers of U.S. Fur Products
(1992, in thousands of dollars)
(1) West Germany 6,350
(2) Greece 5,935
(3) Spain 2,842
(4) Italy 2,283
(5) France 1,719
17. Impact of Measure on Trade Competitiveness: BAN
18. Industry Sector: TEXTile and Apparel
19. Exporter and Importer: CANada and EURCOM
Most imports covered by the legislation originate in Canada,
although Greenland and the United States are also be affected.
Greenland's status in the case is further complicated by virtue of
its relation to Denmark, another EC member. In terms of actual
industry impact coverage, Greenland would probably be most effected
by the legislation.
E. ENVIRONMENT Clusters
20. Environmental Problem Type
Environmental Problem Type: HUMANE treatment
21. Name, Type, and Diversity of Species
Name: MANY
Type: Animal/Vertebrate/Mammal/Carnivore
Diversity: 14 mammals per 10,000 km/sq (Canada)
Following are the 13 species expressly encompassed by the
Council Regulation: Beaver (Castor canadensis), Otter (Kutra
canadensis), Coyote (Canis latrans), Wolf (Canis lupus), Lynx (lynx
canadensis), Bobcat (Felis rufus), Sable (Martes zibellina),
Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Musk-rat (ondatra zibethicus), Fisher
(Martes pennanti), Badger (Taxidea taxus), Marten (Martes
americana) and Ermine (Mustela erminea).
22. Resource Impact and Effect: LOW and PRODuct
The ban on fur was followed up in 1984 by organizing a boycott
of Canadian fish products in American and British markets. The
result of the boycott was a collapse in the world market for seal
skins.
23. Urgency and Lifespan: LONG and 5-20 years
24. Substitutes: SYNTHetic products
Synthetic fur products are widely available and more economic.
VI. OTHER Factors
25. Culture: YES
Native Americans argue that the ban impinges upon the
traditional customs that have generally been in accordance with the
needs of their surrounding environment, noting that Europeans
practiced leg trap methods for thousands of years. Arctic
communities have for centuries relied on seals for food, fuel and
clothing. In fact, in many ways the life and economy of the
Eskimos has been based on sustainable subsistence from the land and
wildlife. Yet, as times change and the world becomes more
interconnected even subsistence cultures cannot adequately survive.
"Today the Eskimos have to pay for electricity and water, and they
must make contributions to social security."(1) Still, with the
public outrage from fur harvesting and the EC ban on fur imports,
demand for seal fur has dropped dramatically, and thus, financially
strapping the Arctic Communities. Yet, there is a recent attempt
to increase the demand for fur products by showing pride in native
cultures. Labels often read "Authentic Native Design," with hopes
"to inspire consumer pride about supporting traditional native life
styles."(2) It is argued "any culture, no matter where it is in
the world, cannot be stagnant....There has to be an economic link
between that culture and the rest of the world."(3) It is exactly
this situation that the Eskimo and Inuits are grappling with.
26. Trans-Border: NO
In general this is not a trans-border problem although many of
the species cross back and forth between Canada, Greenland, and the
United States.
27. Rights: YES
Besides the human rights question of allowing Native Americans
a right to earn a livelihood as they have for millennia, the case
obviously involves questions of animal rights as well.
28. Relevant Literature
Amendment to the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the
Importation of Certain Furs. Contained in the Official Journal of
the European Communities 34 (13 April 1991).
"Animal Welfare: EEC To Ban Imports of Furs From Animals Caught
with Leg-Hold Traps." Europe Environment (June 25, 1991): section
367.
"Animal Welfare; 40,000 People Sign Petition Calling for Ban on Fur
Imports." Europe Environment (June 11, 1991): section: 366.
Brown, Amanda. "Trapper Backs Fur Traps Ban." Press Association
Newsfile (June 13, 1991, Home News Section).
Driscoll, Patrick O. "Aspen Fur Fight Springs Back over Animal
Steel-Jaw Trapping." Denver Post (March 20, 1990): B1,2.
Dumanoski, Diane. "3 Groups File Suit to Halt Use of Leghold
Traps." Boston Globe (October 25, 1989): 91,6.
"European Ban on Fur Imports." New York Times (June 17, 1991):
D3, 4.
Kakonen, Jyrki. Politics and Sustainable Growth in the Arctic.
Brookfield: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1993.
Lindsay, Debra. Science in the Subarctic. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993.
Lynge, Finn. Arctic Wars, Animal Rights, Endangered Peoples.
Hanover: University Press of New England, 1992.
Native Trappers See Many Threats To Fur Industry." The
Christian Science Monitor (April 12, 1990): 6.
Nilsson, G. Facts about Furs. Washington, DC: Animal Welfare
Institute. 1980.
"Pride In Fur Is Promoted By Alaskans." The New York Times 20
(March 1990): A20.
Rosen, Yereth. "Native Alaskans Defend Tradition" The Christian
Science Monitor (April 12, 1990), 6.
Trocheck, Kathy Hogan. "Trapping the Social Conscience." Atlantic
Constitution (November 1, 1989): B1,3.
Wiedemann, Erich. "Is Saving the Seals Killing the Eskimos?"
World Press Review (July 1987): 35-37.
Vegetarian Times, "GATT Threatens EU Animal Laws." February, 1996.
Wenzel, George. Animal Rights, Human Rights Ecology, Economy and
Ideology in the Canadian Arctic. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1991.
References
(1) Erich Wiedemann, "Is Saving the Seals Killing the Eskimos?",
World Press Review (July 1987), 36.
(2) "Pride in Fur is Promoted By Alaskans," The New York Times 20
(March 1990), A20.
(3) Yereth Rosen, "Native Alaskans Defend Tradition" The Christian
Science Monitor (April 12, 1990), 6.
Go to Super
Page
11/22/97
