THE OPTION OF KUSA'S REVERTING TO ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP OF THE FCI
A WORKABLE COMPROMISE
In the course of KUSA's long relationship with the FCI – first as Associate Member and, since 1993, as Full (Federated) Member - certain breed clubs, or breeders, opted to substitute their Kennel Club standards with the FCI (so-called “country of origin” or “country of patronage”) standards. Others chose to retain the Kennel Club standards, resulting in a situation where breeds have been given their standard of choice.
Given the passage of time and the fact that a number of breeds have settled into their FCI standards it is, in my view, no longer an option for KUSA to leave the FCI. On the other hand, it is also not acceptable that the breed standards of the breeds which chose to retain the Kennel Club standards should come under constant threat as a result of KUSA's obligations as a Full Member of the FCI. It's obviously inequitable to permit only certain breeds to have their standards of choice, while other breeds are denied the same right.
1. Is there a compromise?
Yes, indeed. Associate Membership of the FCI, supplemented by an appropriate Memorandum of Understanding (i.e. “a special agreement” as contemplated by the FCI's Statutes) based on certain key principles:
a) Non-interference by the FCI in KUSA's administration,
b) Exemption from certain of the “special regulations” which the FCI is bound to issue as part of its “Objectives”, as set out in Article 2 of the FCI's Statutes. The pertinent ones KUSA might seek to be excluded from are:
• The mutual recognition of stud books, appendixes to the stud books and pedigrees, exclusive of any other ;
• The promotion of ethics and scientific research, which is of fundamental importance to cynology, and the free exchange of scientific information between members; the observance of the breed standards as approved by the FCI. Those breed standards must be recognized by all the members and contract partners as far as they are not in contradiction with the laws of their respective country ;
• Defining and publishing the characteristics of each breed after previous approval by the FCI (General Assembly or General Committee) based on the breed standards of the country of origin or of the country of patronage . The standard of a new breed or any change in an existing standard will only be internationally acknowledged by following the specific rules of the Standing Orders. Under any circumstances, the welfare of the dogs must be of the utmost priority;
c) KUSA's right to choose whether to hold CACIB shows, or not.
If the above can be negotiated in a Memorandum of Understanding it would, inter alia , relieve KUSA of the obligation to adopt FCI breed standards for all its breeds , to hold CACIB shows , and to refuse recognition of the registries of non-FCI members .
This is exactly what has been achieved by two countries which face much the same problems as South Africa in terms of geographic isolation – Australia and New Zealand . Neither of these countries was either prepared, or able, to conform to the requirements of the FCI ( Australia had a brief flirtation with Full Membership, but rapidly withdrew) in terms of breed standards and CACIB shows and reached a compromise by agreement which seems to be working for everybody.
2. What would it mean if KUSA were to revert to Associate Membership?
In accordance with the FCI's Statutes there's little difference between Full Membership and Associate Membership, other than that Associate Members can
“enter into a special agreement that specifies their relationship with the FCI” [Article 5(b)]; and can
attend and take part in the General Assembly, but cannot vote or propose candidates for the General Committee or mandatory commissions. Associates can take part in their section meetings where they can take the floor, but not vote . [Article 8(b)]
Given Article 5(b), KUSA would be able to negotiate an agreement with the FCI which would be in its members' best interests. The only sacrifice would be the right to vote at the General Assembly where KUSA's vote is of no consequence anyway.
3. Are there any other disadvantages to reverting to Associate Membership?
No. In fact, there seems to be only advantages in such a move, since KUSA would be able to negotiate the terms and conditions which would govern its relationship with the FCI.
4. Is there a possibility that the FCI might not be prepared to enter into an agreement with KUSA on breed standards?
There is, of course, always the possibility that FCI might not be prepared to negotiate on the adoption of FCI breed standards by an Associate Member, but that's thought to be unlikely. Australia and New Zealand have been Associate Members for years and neither country has ever been forced into adopting FCI standards. Despite provisions to the contrary in its Statutes, the FCI appears to have a hands-off approach to Associates. The latter are seemingly left to their own devices and there's minimum interference in the way they conduct their business.
According to Ms Marie Merchant, Chair of three of the Australian National Kennel Council's (ANKC's) standing committees – the National Breed Standards Committee, the National Show Judges Training Committee and the National Breed Councils Liaison Committee - two sets of “Terms of Agreement”, one supplied by the FCI to the ANKC, and another supplied by the ANKC to the FCI, form the basis for the “agreement” between the ANKC and the FCI. She goes on to say, “The original agreement between the ANKC and the FCI when the ANKC was a Full Member of the FCI was extremely loose, basically allowing the ANKC to do what it wanted.”
According to Mr Hugh Gent, President of the ANKC, “We are at present negotiating with the FCI for a new agreement”. Ms Merchant mentions that the ANKC's old Full Membership agreement forms the basis for the Australia 's current negotiation.
In view of the above, one would assume that, in its negotiations with the FCI, KUSA would be able to insist, at the very least, on terms no less favourable that those extended to the ANKC. It would be difficult for the FCI to deny one Associate the same terms as extended to another and one would presumably be able to successfully challenge any attempt at partisanship under Belgian law.
5. What are some of the ancillary advantages to reverting to Associate Membership?
• Security for South African breeders that their breed standards are safe;
• Removal of the suspicion with which KUSA is constantly regarded by those who suspect that a changeover to FCI standards is imminent;
• Restoring confidence in KUSA as an organisation serving the interests of all its members;
• No external pressure on KUSA to hold CACIB shows if these were found to be financially or otherwise non-viable;
• Continued access to all FCI information, research and services;
• Continued participation in all FCI activities and international events.
6. Is there a difference in membership fees?
Yes, Full Membership costs €900 and Associate Membership costs €400.
7. Is there additional information available on the two forms of membership?
Yes, KUSA Circular 808 of 25 August 2003 provides clear and simple answers to a number of questions relating to the two forms of membership.
8. As Associate Members, will the “Working Disciplines” be affected, or the participation of teams in FCI International Events?
Not at all. FCI Events and Competitions are open to all the FCI members, whether associate or federated, and to contract partners too. (Circular 808).
9. As Associate Members, will South African judges be recognised by the FCI, and FCI judges be welcome to officiate at KUSA shows?
Yes, on both counts. Refer to reply in Circular 808.
10. As Associate Members, will South African dogs be eligible for exhibition at World Shows?
Yes. Refer to reply in Circular 808.
