Economic Development comment on P72/2006 – Fur Products: Petition
Introduction
Whilst it is extremely important for Jersey to play its part in the international programme for the protection of animal welfare, proposition P72/2006 inevitably has implications from an economic perspective.
Jersey already adopts the international CITES agreement (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) which allows the Island to closely monitor and control the movement of restricted goods through a licensing system. However, a move from the current situation to a total ban on importing all fur products has the potential for significant economic impact: It is questionable whether such a proposition would achieve its target of further protecting global animal welfare, whilst any impact on Jersey’s economy will indeed be felt locally. If the aim of introducing such legislation is ‘an opportunity for the Assembly to demonstrate a broader commitment to animal welfare’, there may be other, potentially more effective ways to achieve this without the introduction of legislation.
Economic Development issues
This response below highlights only the issues which will have a direct impact on the Island’s economic development.
Business and leisure visitors to Jersey currently travel freely between Europe, the UK and the Island, and ease of access is a significant factor in the promotion of Jersey as a tourist destination. Visitors who be may be carrying fur items (which may be antique and not recently purchased), will have these items confiscated on entry and may be liable for prosecution, which would lead to a very negative experience of the Jersey holiday product. In the longer term, this issue will have a very negative impact on a market Jersey has worked extremely hard to attract, and significant practical implications for Customs and Excise to police such a situation. The success within this scenario in terms of protecting international animal welfare in this situation is questionable.
Jersey residents, (potentially high value 1.1.K residents) may be moving to and from the Island with goods that have been in their family possession for many years (Economic Development is responsible for facilitating this activity). The practicalities of policing trailers or luggage containing personal items which may or may not contain fur, and ban such personal items on entry (e.g. fur coats which have often been inherited many years previously) are indeed an issue. From an economic perspective, such residents are likely to be fully aware of current animal welfare issues, but have not chosen or recently purchased these items, but may possess them as family heirlooms. Such a measure would create a very negative image of the Island, and be counterproductive to the very image of a ‘caring society’ that the legislation is seeking to promote. In the longer term, it could also damage our reputation for welcoming 1.1K residents and facilitating their move and investment into our Island.
Following the points discussed above, an exception for personal items could be considered. However, the retail sector is also impacted by the proposed legislation: UK retailers operating in the Island may or may not be selling products containing small amounts of animal fur. A total ban on importation into Jersey would mean that the Jersey retailer or franchisee will be unable to sell stock that is still readily available elsewhere in the UK, thus penalising the local retailer without in any way solving the core problem. The exact nature and quantity of fur and fur trimmed goods currently trading in Jersey at the current time is unknown, and research would need to be undertaken to ascertain the extent of such items in the local retail marketplace. Indeed the complexity of identifying real and fake fur in the current market place would add to the complexity of such an exercise. There would also be an impact for the logistics companies. Prior to the introduction of such legislation, a publicity/information provision programme would have to be undertaken with the retail industry. It could be suggested that a re-education/publicity programme without the accompanying legislation is potentially likely to have a higher impact than the introduction of further legislation, at a time when the States of Jersey has committed to actually ‘reducing red tape’ for traders. A promotional campaign undertaken in partnership with retailers to encourage and incentivise good practice may be more effective than the legislative approach (An equivalent example of how this approach can work successfully is the promotion of ‘fair trade’ produce in the convenience sector).
Travel to Jersey from the UK is currently perceived as easy and within the national borders, which is an important factor in promoting Jersey as a place to do business, visit, and even live. The attractiveness and competitive advantage of ease of access for business or leisure visits should not be underestimated. The proposition to introduce importation legislation that is not currently in place in the UK or indeed in France, not only raises practical issues with regard to policing, enforcement and control, but raises the issue of how Jersey will be perceived in the future as a place to visit or work.
Conclusion
The introduction of legislation in Jersey without the supporting introduction elsewhere in the UK or Europe has the potential to be detrimental to the Islands’ brand and international image of a destination with which it is easy to do business. It may also be a contributory factor in customers selecting competing destinations in which to trade, to live and to visit, and potentially discourage the very investment we are working to attract.
Whilst the department for Economic Development fully supports and endorses an education/public awareness programme regarding the use of animal fur in products, the introduction of legislation is a severe measure, the impact of which would require deeper investigation, and which may have a negative impact on the Island’s economic activities, whilst not actually solving the very issue it seeks to address.
In preparing this response the Economic Development Department consulted with the Jersey Chamber of Commerce, whose response is quoted below:
‘"Whilst the issue of a ban on the importation of fur into Jersey would appear to be more a moral issue than an economic one, we would ask the States to consider a full assessment of this proposal as there may be a number of difficulties within the detail which have not yet been considered.
Chamber is not aware of the current volume of goods imported into the island which contain fur and we would recommend some research was conducted to understand the market better.
We would also question how such a ban could be effectively policed. With many fake fur products on the market it is not clear how these could be easily differentiated from the real thing by those responsible for upholding the ban?
The definition of what constitutes a fur product may also prove complex.
Surely it is best to leave it to the customer to decide rather than introduce more legislation." (Andrew Goodyear, Chief Executive, Jersey Chamber of Commerce).
Connétable G. Fisher
Assistant Minister for Economic Development
1st September 2006.
gov.je