EU to remove leather from anti-deforestation law after industry pressure, officials say

The European Commission is set to exclude leather imports from its anti-deforestation law, EU officials told Reuters, following a campaign by industry groups arguing that leather production does not incentivize the cattle farming that fuels forest destruction.

The exemption will remove leather, hides, and skins from the world-first law, which from December will require companies selling goods—including soy, coffee, beef, and palm oil—into the EU to prove their products did not cause deforestation. Those breaking the rules risk hefty fines and a potential ban on accessing the EU market. Environmental groups have urged the EU not to exempt leather, arguing that doing so would weaken the law's ability to curb deforestation.

Leather industry groups contend that as a low-value by-product of the meat industry, leather production does not drive the cattle farming that causes deforestation. Beef imports remain covered by the EU law. Including leather "will have a devastating impact on the EU tanning industry," Europe's tanning and dressing industry body, COTANCE, said in a public submission to the EU last year, adding that tanneries would be unable to force cattle farming firms further up the supply chain to comply with the law.

Industry groups have stepped up their calls in recent weeks, making their case to EU lawmakers and European Commission representatives at an event at the European Parliament on April 8. Europe's tanning industry is the world's largest supplier of leather, according to the EU. Industry data shows that European tanneries import around 40% of their raw materials, such as hides, from countries including Brazil and the U.S.

The Commission's initial 2021 analysis stated that leather is "a relevant factor of deforestation according to literature and feedback from stakeholders." Brussels had already delayed the policy's launch by two years following opposition from Brazil, Indonesia, and the United States, which argue that compliance would be costly and damaging to their exports to Europe.