Investigation: exotic animal skin industry protected by lobbying
Research by the animal rights organisation Collective Fashion Justice (CFJ) reveals that lobbying has distorted the perception of the exotic animal skin industry. Executives from two departments of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)_ an NGO founded in France in 1948_ held commercial interests in continuing the harvesting of exotic skins. These departments_ the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group and the IUCN Snake Specialist Group_ also misrepresented the sustainability of the process.
Hidden agendas
One year ago_ CFJ_ founded by activist and sustainable fashion expert Emma Hakansson_ discovered a series of remarkable connections. For instance_ Grahame Webb_ an executive at the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group_ was also found to be the owner of one of Australia's largest crocodile farms_ Crocodylus Park. This farm supplies skins to luxury brands such as Hermès and Louis Vuitton.
Meanwhile_ the chairman of the Snake Specialist Group_ Daniel Natusch_ has for years led an organisation with a paid partnership with LVMH for its Life 360 initiative. This initiative refers to the responsible sourcing of exotic animal skins which_ according to research commissioned by CFJ_ is not responsible. In 2013_ Kering also entered into a paid partnership with the group.
Gucci and Louis Vuitton are both major buyers of snakeskins_ according to CFJ and_ earlier this year_ the animal rights organisation PETA. PETA is currently running a campaign to ban animal skins in the fashion industry.
Disruptive influence
The CFJ investigation also reveals that the executives often issue joint statements against critics who highlight unsustainable practices behind the wild animal trade for the fashion industry. Natusch reportedly does this as a spokesperson for the snake specialist group_ although this violates IUCN protocol.
When London Fashion Week banned animal skins_ he told The Guardian it was the wrong decision. He claimed exotic skins are a more sustainable choice than leather and synthetic materials. Furthermore_ he argued they provide an economic incentive for local communities to protect species in their habitats.
Dubious science
Scientists who published research showing the snake trade is unsustainable were reportedly removed from the group. To further highlight their position_ CFJ last year commissioned four leading conservation scientists to re-examine the impact of exotic animal skins and feathers. They focused on four species commonly used in the fashion industry: the saltwater crocodile; the reticulated python; the Burmese python; and the South African ostrich.
In the study_ published in the scientific journal Frontiers of Conservation Science_ they concluded that the trade in wild animal skins for fashion does not contribute to species conservation. Furthermore_ a data problem exists as government agencies rely heavily on industry data which is at high risk of being biased.
Declaration
Following the findings_ CFJ last week launched the International Declaration for Effective and Compassionate Conservation. This is a call for fashion brands_ retailers and organisations to end the trade in wild animal skins. 20 conservation biologists have already endorsed the declaration.