The planned introduction of an import ban on fur products produced through animal cruelty is fundamentally very welcome. The common methods of fur production cause immense suffering for the animals involved. For this reason, animal welfare organizations have been advocating for such a ban for many years. Only through such a measure can we prevent domestic demand from promoting fur production practices abroad that are clearly rejected by the majority of the Swiss population. Two legal opinions also confirm that such an import ban is compatible with Switzerland's international trade obligations (Stohner Nils/Bolliger Gieri, GATT Legal Admissibility of Import Bans on Fur Products, Publications on Animal Law, Vol. 4, Zurich/Basel/Geneva 2011; Rüttimann Andreas/Gerritsen Vanessa/Blattner Charlotte, Legality of Trade Restrictions on Fur Products Produced through Animal Cruelty, Publications on Animal Law, Vol. 16, Zurich/Basel/Geneva 2017).
It is also commendable that the current counterproposal includes not only an import ban but also a trade ban on fur products produced through animal cruelty. This would serve as a sensible and logical complement to the import ban and contribute significantly to a coherent regulation of fur product circulation. The same applies to the proposed provision regarding procedures for suspected unlawfully imported or traded fur products, which would lay the groundwork for consistent implementation of the new regulations.
From an animal welfare perspective, however, it is unacceptable that the ban, according to the explanatory report on the current indirect counterproposal to the Fur Initiative—as well as the planned adjustments to the EDAV-DS and EDAV-EU—does not extend to furs from animals killed using leg-hold traps. Such an arrangement or implementation of the measure would run counter to its intended purpose and is logically indefensible (see the detailed comments below on the planned adjustment of Art. 14).
It is also critical to note that the explanatory report contains various misleading or imprecise statements regarding the compatibility of the Fur Initiative with international trade obligations. For example, under Point 4.4, it is claimed that different treatment of products based on a production method that does not manifest in the physical characteristics of the product, and which uses domestic law as a standard, fundamentally constitutes a violation of trade obligations and specifically contravenes the GATT. In reality, whether such unequal treatment constitutes a violation of trade obligations does not depend on whether the standard is domestic law or an international norm. According to prevailing opinion, such unequal treatment generally violates trade obligations, regardless of the legal basis for the distinction. However, such a violation can be justified under certain conditions. In this context, Art. XX(a) of the GATT is particularly relevant, and its applicability does not depend on whether the distinguishing criterion is based on domestic or international law (see the detailed discussion below on the planned adjustment of Art. 14 of the Animal Welfare Act).
Furthermore, under Point 4.4, the Federal Council takes the position, without detailed reasoning, that the initiative does not meet the stringent requirements for exceptions that justify fundamental violations of the GATT. Such a serious statement has the potential to significantly influence the opinion of both Parliament and the public regarding the initiative. A detailed explanation is therefore urgently needed. Lastly, under Point 5, it is stated that the initiative is "problematic from a trade law perspective and therefore incompatible with Switzerland's international obligations." However, the fact that the initiative is problematic from a trade law perspective does not automatically mean it is incompatible with Switzerland's international obligations. A measure can indeed be problematic under trade law—by violating specific provisions of the GATT—but still be justified under an exception provision, such as Art. XX(a) of the GATT, and thus remain consistent with Switzerland's trade obligations.
These inaccuracies give the impression that the intent was to influence the reader in a particular direction. It would be preferable, however, for the public and Parliament to be informed about the legal background of the Fur Initiative in a factual and neutral manner.
Our submitted statement is based on a well-founded fact sheet from other renowned animal welfare organizations, including the Stiftung für das Tier im Recht, the Zürcher Tierschutz and the Schweizer Tierschutz STS.