Proposed leather carve-out from EU deforestation rules eases exporter pressure but deepens policy dispute
A European Commission proposal to remove leather products from the scope of EU deforestation rules is reducing compliance pressure for some exporters, but it is also provoking strong criticism from environmental groups. The dispute matters to agriculture because it sits at the intersection of livestock traceability, trade access and responsibility for land-use impacts.
A European Commission proposal to exclude leather products from the EU’s deforestation regulation is being welcomed by some exporters but attacked by campaigners who say it weakens the logic of the policy. The issue matters well beyond the leather sector itself. It affects livestock traceability, access to the European market and the way compliance costs are distributed across agricultural supply chains linked to cattle production.
The EU Deforestation Regulation, or EUDR, was designed to reduce the bloc’s contribution to global deforestation by tightening origin checks on commodities sold into the European market. The product groups covered include beef, leather, wood, soy, rubber, palm oil and cocoa. Under the system, exporters are expected to provide due diligence documentation showing that the goods are not tied to forest clearance. Even though agriculture, and especially cattle production, remains a major driver of deforestation, the Commission has now proposed removing leather products from the scope of the rules.
For New Zealand processor Tasman Tanning Company, that would mean less compliance paperwork. The business operates hides and skins plants in Whanganui and Timaru and supplies leather for footwear, upholstery and aviation uses, including products associated with brands such as Rockport, Blundstone and DeWalt. Chief executive Neville Dyer said the company and its supply partners were already well advanced in preparing for EUDR because much of the traceability work had been done through the meat chain. He said batch processing could be linked back to New Zealand’s NAIT animal identification and tracing system, which would have made compliance manageable.
New Zealand’s meat sector has already invested in a nationwide mapping project to identify deforested land associated with beef production, and the industry says less than 1% of the country’s beef-producing land falls into that category. Tasman Tanning employs just under 300 people across its two sites and handles up to 850,000 hides a year. From the company’s perspective, removing leather from the regulation cuts an additional layer of administration without changing the practical traceability standards already used by low-risk suppliers.
Environmental groups argue the move is the wrong signal. Mighty Earth adviser Isabel Fernández Cruz said the Commission’s own analysis had found that leather contributes to deforestation and that keeping it within the regulation would be a cost-effective way to reduce Europe’s land-use footprint. The article also points to the wider background: the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated in 2021 that 90% of global deforestation is driven by agricultural expansion, with more than half linked to conversion to cropland and just under half to livestock grazing. That makes the leather debate a broader policy test of whether the EU should narrow regulation for difficult supply chains or keep pressure on sectors tied to cattle and agricultural trade.