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.
This article was translated to English using an AI tool.
FashionUnited uses AI language tools to speed up translating (news) articles and proofread the translations to improve the end result. This saves our human journalists time they can spend doing research and writing original articles. Articles translated with the help of AI are checked and edited by a human desk editor prior to going online. If you have questions or comments about this process email us at info@fashionunited.com