Officials say that the EU will remove leather from its anti-deforestation laws after pressure from industry.

EU officials have confirmed that the European Commission will exclude leather imports from its anti-deforestation laws. This follows a campaign led by industry groups who argued that leather production did not incentivise cattle farming, which fuels forest destruction.

The exemption will?remove?leather, hides, and skins?from the law that, from December, requires companies to prove they are not deforestation-causing when selling products like soy, beef, palm oil, and coffee into the EU.

Un spokesperson for the Commission declined to comment.

Anyone who breaks the rules could face heavy fines or even be banned from accessing the EU's market.

Environmental groups have urged the EU to not exempt leather from the law, arguing this would weaken its ability to curb deforestation.

Leather industry groups argue that leather is a low-value by-product from the meat industry and does not encourage cattle farming, which leads to deforestation. The?EU law covers beef?imports.

In a submission to the EU, the European tanning and dressing association COTANCE stated that including leather would have "a devastating impact" on the EU tanning sector. It also said that tanneries could not force other firms in the supply chain up to comply with EU law.

In recent weeks, industry groups have intensified their efforts to convince EU legislators and representatives of the European Commission at a meeting at the European Parliament in April.

According to the EU, Europe's tanning industry is the world's largest leather supplier.

Industry data shows that European tanneries use raw materials from Brazil and the U.S. to the tune of 40%.

When the Commission first designed the law, in 2021 it had stated that leather is "a significant factor?of deforestation, according to literature and feedback from stakeholders".

After Brazil, Indonesia, and the United States objected, Brussels delayed the launch of this policy by two year. They claimed that complying with the policy would be expensive and harm their exports to Europe. (Reporting and editing by Elsa Hardcastle; Kate Abnett)

(source: Reuters)