Simulation of International Trade and Environment (SITE)

1. Schedule of Events

July 21 (1-3): Lecture and Introductions
Dr. Lee will introduce students to the idea of trade concerns that are not economic in nature, but may in fact involve environmental or cultural issues or both. These non-economic issues are of great concern to countries and to the World Trade Organization. You will be introduced to the FUR simulation.

July 23 (1-3): Using Computers and the Web for Research
You will go to a computer lab and use the Web to look at materials useful to researching issues in the FUR simulation.
There will be a press conference where decision-makers from the two sides will be interviewed.

August 6 (1-3):The FUR Simulation
The actual simulation will take place during this session. It will include the following teams and actors. You will notice that each student will be part of the simulation in a unique capacity. Not only will they have a role, but this role is tied to specific nationalities operating within a muli-national context.

This simulation has six groups of five, for a total of 30 potential participants.

WTO Judges (5) [Aki]
(Korea, Brazil, Kenya, Turkey, India)

Canada Team (5) [Seth]
(1 English descent, 1 Scottish descent, 1 French descent, 1 Chinese descent, 1 )

EU Team (5) [Brent]
(Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, and UK)

Native Americans (5) [Beth Jenkins]
(Cree, Ojibway, Inuit, Inupiat, Mohawk)

Greepeace (5) [Emmanuel/Damian]
(Switzerland, Thailand, Mexico, Israel, Russia)

Media (5) [Barbara Pando]
(US, Japan, Spain, China, South Africa)

Canada takes the European Union (EU) to the World Trade Organization (WTO) panel for Dispute Resolution over its ban on the importation of furs from animals caught in leg traps. In many parts of North America, including Canada, the United States and Greenland, leg traps are the main method for obtaining animal pelts. Greenland is actually administered by Denmark, a member of the EU.

The forum for the simulation will be the WTO and a hearing before a three-judge panel regarding the case. The panel will be preceeded by a press conference. There are two parties directly involved in the case: the government of Canada and the European Union. There are also other interested parties in the case who can make statements before the panel.

Students in the simulation will be divided into the following teams.

1. The WTO judges
2. The Press
3. Government of Canada
4. European Union representative
5. Native American Group spokesperson

3. Background

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. Exports of these products are largely from Greenland, Canada, and the United States. These countries, and their citizens, complained that these acts were economically and culturally unfair.

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 where (a) the leghold trap was still used, or (b) trapping methods fell below internationally agreed humane trapping standards. It also allowed for a 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.

"Territory" is not defined in the Amendment to the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the Importation of Certain Furs, as contained in the Official Journal of the European Communities 34 (April 13, 1991).

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 their 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, 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 population 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 EC banned the imports of pelts from the 13 species because of continued leg-trap practices. The United States and Canada contend that this ban represents a loss of $33 million in exports annually.

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.

Most imports covered by the legislation originate in Canada, although Greenland and the United States are also 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, Greenland would probably be most affected by the legislation.

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 faced a large inflow of product from Russia. Table 22-2 shows the top EC importers of fur products exported by the United States, to indicate the magnitude of some of the trade at hand.

        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

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).

The Environmental Group Viewpoint

The ban on fur was followed in 1984 by the organizing of 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. Synthetic fur products are widely available and more economically sound .

The Native American Viewpoint

Native Americans argue that the ban impinges upon the traditional customs that have historically been in accordance with the needs of their surrounding environment, noting that Europeans practiced leg trapping 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." Still, with the public outrage from fur harvesting and the EC ban on fur imports, demand for seal fur has dropped dramatically, and financially damaged the Arctic Communities. Yet, there has been a recent attempt to increase the demand for fur products by showing pride in native cultures. Labels often read "Authentic Native Design," hoping "to inspire consumer pride about supporting traditional native life styles." It is argued that "any culture, no matter where it is in the world, cannot be stagnant....There must be an economic link between that culture and the rest of the world." It is exactly this linkage that the Eskimo and Inuits are grappling with.

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.