Conservation vs Animal Welfare: Could Python Skin Trade Save the Rainforest?
Conservation vs Animal Welfare: Could Python Skin Trade Save the Rainforest?
Gucci, Bottega Veneta, Balenciaga, and other well-known brands that are now under Kering Holding have been involved in the reptile skin industry—among other exotic resources—for the last 100 years. In the past decade, the whole industry has been spotlighted for using wild species in its supply chain, causing some major players to retreat. Still, studies and experts understand the use of reptile skin and other wild-based resources as useful tools for the conservation of species and environments.
“There are numerous examples where sustainable use of wild resources has provided benefits for species, habitats, climate change mitigation, and for the livelihoods of local people and their spiritual connection with the natural world.” Said Daniel Natusch, Chairman of the IUCN SSC Snake Specialist Group.
In 2013, Kering focused on auditing the Southeast Asian python harvest and farming industry, which supplied a big chunk of its operation. To improve the reptile supply chain, Kering fostered the creation of the PCP (Python Conservation Partnership), a collaboration between Kering, the International Trade Centre (ITC), and the Boa and Python Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), inviting other firms to join in the future.
PCP’s investigation aimed to cover five different layers of the issue:
• Monitoring wild capture to improve sustainable sourcing
• Differentiating between captive-bred and wild animals through innovative
technology
• Developing and promoting the highest standards of animal health and welfare
• Exploring ways to improve captive breeding
• Better understanding of the impacts of the python trade on local livelihoods
“It is encouraging to finally have some concrete information about the feasibility and role of farming pythons for skins,” said Daniel Natusch, a leading member of the IUCN and current Chairman of the Snake Specialist Group, in a press release. “Captive breeding is only part of a possible solution for a sustainable python skin trade. We shouldn’t lose sight of the greater potential of wild harvest systems to encourage conservation of wild pythons and their habitats.”
In 2018, Chanel Group announced it was terminating all animal skin production in its factories. This forced Kering to review its supply chain, possibly jeopardizing a decade of research and alliances with major conservation players.
At the same time, PETA conducted an undercover investigation of some of the farms owned by Kering, shooting disturbing footage that showed the killing and skinning methods used by local farmers.
"It's as cruel and disgusting as any place, where their heads are bashed with hammers, and some are still moving while being inflated with water," the investigator told CBS earlier this year.
PETA’s claims are based on animal welfare standards and the ethics behind its philosophy. However, specialized biologists and conservation authorities have different opinions on the matter.
“Science faces the challenge of public sentiment and emotion,” said Natusch, “Despite the science saying ‘it is fine’, or ‘there are benefits’ to that form of sustainable use, emotions are what influence policy - not science.” he added.
Biologists argue that the industry's use of wild animals does not directly address the issues of species conservation or habitat preservation.
“Are we debating conservation, or are we debating animal welfare and rights? Because they are two totally different things. Besides, the work that we did not only was focused on sustainability but also ensuring the most humane killing methods,” said the Boa and Python Conservation Group ex-chairman, Tomás Waller, “While we debate this, all Southeast Asian rainforests are being lost to palm oil plantations.”
Scientists and conservation groups are almost unanimous in their message about the relationship between conservation and wild sourcing. They claim that recognizing communities’ rights to live from their natural resources is the best way to fight the destruction of habitats by monocultures and exhaustive industries.
“Any strategy that promotes that a country or a community develops based on the genuine resources of its ecosystems, allowing them to live from that as they have lived historically, is favorable for valuing and protecting that ecosystem,” Waller said.
Tomás Waller saw how the industry enabled local communities to live off their resources without threatening their ecosystem.
"The industry selects these species because they allow for a constant flow of a product that is already a well-known commodity," he said.
In his paper titled “Conservation and sustainable use of wildlife — an evolving concept.” Grahame J. W. Webb, Director of Wildlife Management International, explains how decontextualized pressures can affect the conservation of habitats and the culture of the community that lives in them. “Animal welfare needs to be context-specific and not species-specific,” he writes.
Conservation academicians warn of the dangers of decontextualized regulation. The lack of understanding of humans' relationship with their ecosystems and the narrowing of usable resources jeopardizes the conservation of the inhabited biome and the socio-economic development in these regions.
“Prohibiting wild resource use always has a negative impact on local communities and businesses. Sometimes, this is severe. People have no alternative livelihood options,” said Natusch.
Pushing Western values coined in university buildings far from the rainforests and savannas implies a disregard for the true resilience of wild animal populations.
“The worst thing you can do is to deprive communities of their resources. Because you're telling them that their values and natural resources are useless,” said Waller, warning that prohibition will only lead to the loss of ecosystems and their replacement by ‘more humane’ resources such as intensive agriculture and cattle ranching.
The debate continues to expand outside the fashion industry into other commercial areas. As the demand for goods and raw materials rises and the financial gap between countries’ populations widens, certain questions about control policies emerge.
“Organizations can help to support countries by ensuring that natural resource use is sustainable, managed well, and socially acceptable. By meeting various standards and managing appropriately, CITES and IUCN can ensure wild species populations remain stable while at the same time benefitting people and local economies,” said Natusch.