Mike Redwood

Columnist

International Leather Maker

The European tanning association, Cotance, has done a remarkable job on pushing the leather industry forward by thoughtful use of applicable EU initiatives. From RESTORM at the start of the century to the current SYMBIOS project complex and inspirational areas have been covered, all with serious attempts to maintain wide-ranging involvement from all countries and bodies.

It is therefore disappointing that the current style and density of EU regulation is so clearly putting at risk the viability of sectors like leathermaking. It is not that their concept of regulation is wrong but rather that their technocratic methodology sits in glorious isolation, blatantly ignoring the reality of political and economic context, fair enforceability and proportionality.

In principle, these instruments are aimed to support narratives about rules-based markets, consumer health and climate‑aligned trade. They are largely intended to make activity within Europe and access to Europe conditional on higher standards. For Europe to lead in this way is good; but it must not be done arrogantly, unsympathetically and without careful collaboration. It is a typical less-is-more situation where full agreement on certain items is much better than a failure to agree on all.

Since my younger days, I have believed in the concept of a strong united Europe. When the British national newspaper The Guardian put its archive online last week, my vanity took me to the front page from February 15, 1969. I had just won a student election and been casually interviewed while wandering through the Campus. To my astonishment, they had nothing better than this for their front page and in it I see I was defined as “a fourth-year student in leather science, solidly behind Mr Heath” (Heath being the surname of the Prime Minister at the time). And indeed, I was a supporter of Heath’s determined move to get Britain into what was then called the EEC (now known as the EU), which he achieved during his Premiership with the UK joining fully in January 1973.

Despite the 2016 Brexit vote, I still believe in the EU project and see the current world situation making it imperative that the EU steps up into a stronger leadership role. But at every stage this well-meaning but technically dense approach appears to damage the EU’s reputation and even more to business sectors such as leather in which Europe does uniquely well.

The Mercosur deal is typical. It is much more than merely trade. It stretches into being an economic, social and geopolitical imperative for the EU. In purely economic terms for leather and some other industries, it brings:

  • Access to key raw materials, such as raw hides and skins
  • Creation of jobs in Europe including the strengthening of regional and rural areas
  • Access to a market of 270 million consumers

However, even with the more favourable current Brazilian administration, Mercosur governments resent what they see as EU green conditionality involved in the negotiations: Green Deal, Farm‑to‑Fork, EUDR, mirrored standards debates all make trying to achieve a trade deal based around traditional market access harder. It is not so much that such agreements are incompatible with the EU’s newer sustainability legislation but that the continued introduction of new legal instruments to fit with REACH and EUDR paralyses negotiations at the very moment when such a strategic alliance will serve supply chain resilience, climate and maintaining a rules-based system of world trade. Instead, while the negotiations continue some Mercosur countries are shifting their activities more towards China and BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) which make accepting any regulatory requirements from the EU less acceptable. Ratification looks further away not closer.

Admin overload

Such administrative overload as with the EUDR’s demands to prove no deforestation post‑2020 along with REACH revisions, PFAS debates, and wider supply‑chain rules all coming one on top of another; not forgetting demands to push limits for CrVI (hexavalent chromium) below the capability of the test methods. Lower legal limits functionally become a market ban on chrome‑tanned leather without any clear incremental health gain.

If the EU wants to trade within well intentioned environmental rules the message could not be clearer: do not be stupid with them, only cover the minimum of items of which you are certain and time them so they can be sensibly managed by all parties and sizes of business.

Europe like most of the west desperately needs economic growth to move above 2% and for this it must support its SMEs as well as bigger industries. There is little sign of this in their approach. For many value chains, including leather the current regulations only encourage consolidation into large, highly capitalised operators that can carry compliance overheads. Yet in leather the innovation and excitement continues to come from smaller units perfectly spread throughout parts of Europe where governments want to be seen to be making a difference.

To reinforce the problems of this dangerous granularity in EU regulations the getting the press these days is a €2 elephant being sold by the furniture store IKEA. It is 12cm in length but is required to carry a 20cm multilingual label plus complex traceability paperwork. This adds fixed costs designed for industrial scale hazards to small low-risk goods and, frankly, makes the EU look foolish in the eyes of consumers.

Criticism of EUDR

Brazilian and other producer‑country actors now criticise EUDR as an EU‑centred system that externalises administrative burden and ignores their domestic governance improvements. Europe risks damaging its own industrial base just as it needs resilient supply for defence, energy transition, and strategic autonomy vis‑à‑vis Russia and an unstable global trading order.

The leather industry may be small in all this, but not insignificant. A glance at Italy, Spain and France takes in communities such as Arzignano (Veneto); Santa Croce sull’Arno (Tuscany); Solofra (Campania); Igualada (Catalonia); Ubrique (Andalusia); Inca (Mallorca); Graulhet (Tarn, Occitanie); Millau (Aveyron); Beaulieu‑sur‑Layon in western France among many others around Europe where value is added to hides, skins and leather: and with it to entire communities who want their governments to realise that the work they are doing is adding to national wealth and security as well as to all the positives of a circular economy in terms of climate, biodiversity and preservation of planetary resources.

The EU should take a deep breath and rebalance its regulatory demands to give industries like leather the chance to prosper for the benefit of all.

mike@internationalleathermaker.com

You can find Dr Mike Redwood across social media at @michaelredwood.

Publication and Copyright of “Redwood Column” remains with the publishers of International Leather Maker. The articles cannot be reproduced in any way without the express permission of the publisher. The views are those of the author and not necessarily those of ILM.