Facts, not words: leather is not a driver of deforestation. On 3 June 2025, the Italian and European tanning industries — represented by UNIC – Italian Tanneries and Cotance — appeared before the European Parliament in Brussels to deliver a “clear and scientifically supported message: leather is not a cause of deforestation”. This marked another crucial step in reinforcing the credibility and constructive stance of the tanning industry with respect to the EUDR regulation.
The tanning industry sets the record straight in Brussels
The event, titled “EUDR: is Leather a Driver of Deforestation? – Bringing facts to the European Parliament”, was hosted by MEP Salvatore De Meo (EPP). “This high-level workshop brought together over 50 in-person participants from across the globe”, said organisers. “Among them were diplomatic representatives from the United States, Argentina, Turkey, and Australia; officials from EU Member States (Italy, Poland); the European Commission; MEPs; international organisations; industry experts; and representatives of leading companies and tanneries”. “We are grateful to MEP De Meo”, UNIC stated, “for listening to our concerns and giving us the opportunity to highlight to European institutions the real-world impact of a regulation disconnected from the realities of the tanning industry”.
Presenting the facts
The “facts brought to Brussels” were primarily based on a study conducted by the Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies (University of Pisa), which you can read by clicking here. The report is backed by extensive academic research (over 94 million records, 29,200 active titles, 330,000 books) and 28 interviews with stakeholders. Presented by Luca Marrucci (Institute of Management at the Tuscan university), the study offers a comprehensive review of scientific literature and available data on the actual impact of leather on deforestation.
“The answer to the core question is: absolutely not”, explains Marrucci. “Ours is a socio-economic study on the effects of the EUDR. It clearly shows there is no direct link between leather and deforestation. It is widely recognised that the EUDR will trigger a geographical shift in the market, with a drop in demand of 10–15% and job losses comparable to the 2012 crisis. Moreover, it could paradoxically result in negative environmental consequences”. In short: the facts are clear. What’s needed now is to elevate the level of constructive dialogue between the industry and the EU.
A sound regulation, but…
“I’m proud to defend a sector that represents the pride of Italian fashion and is being unfairly stigmatised by the EUDR”, commented De Meo. “We all want to fight deforestation. But the credibility of European regulation is undermined when measures are introduced that do not bring real environmental benefits and simultaneously strangle the competitiveness of the European industry”. According to MEP Roberto Vannacci (PfE), who attended the meeting, revising the EUDR in relation for the tanning sector is a matter of “common sense and pragmatism”.
Strong support also came from the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union: “The issue you’ve raised is real”, said Tiberio Schmidlin. “We hope the impact can be simplified and minimised for a sector with an almost non-existent link to deforestation. You have our full support. In pushing for a one-year delay, we made it clear that the burdens must be simplified and reduced. This is a widely shared need: it is now up to those in power to take action. The Member States have raised the issue and reinforced the message”.
The next step
For UNIC and Cotance, a new phase begins — one rooted in the shared understanding that no one is questioning the fundamental aims of the EUDR. And with the awareness that the legislature is clearly aiming for a more streamlined approach. As Silvia Melegari, Secretary-General of CEI-Bois & EOS (European Confederation of the Woodworking Industries), highlighted: “We have 38 articles accompanied by 150 pages of clarifications and interpretations. We all want to fight deforestation, but not with this legislative monster. We fully support the leather industry’s position. A legislative intervention is needed, despite the recent FAQ guidance — which, however, has no binding force”. As UNIC suggests, a first step could be eliminating certain unnecessary but highly burdensome requirements from the regulation. For example, the obligation to geolocate raw materials in low-risk or negligible-risk countries. The EUDR debate, therefore, remains very much alive.
Read also:
