Mes: novembre de 2024

Leather is not a driver of deforestation

Original content by: La Conceria

While “combating deforestation is a global priority” – as it obviously is – the truth is that leather should not be considered as a driver of the issue. A truth that has been repeatedly states, demonstrated and forcefully reiterated yesterday in Geneva by UNIC – Italian Tanneries. Location: the Palais des Nations. Occasion. The Deforestation-Free Trade Dialogue organized by UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe), one of the 5 “regional commissions” of the United Nations. A body whose mission is “to foster pan-European economic integration”.

Leather is not a driver of deforestation

On Nov. 13 2024, UNIC was hosted at UNECE’s Deforestation-Free Trade Dialogue, in the afternoon panel “Learning from current experiences by markets actors: possible challenges and solutions”. The experience and truth of Italian leather in relation to the implementation of the EUDR Regulation was presented and explored in depth by President Fabrizio Nuti (photo right) with a speech that from the very title set the record straight: Why leather is not a driver of deforestation: social and economic consequences”.

Three key points

Three, in particular, were the points of Nuti’s talk. First: data in hand, UNIC has shown that leather is not a cause of deforestation. Second: the EUDR could a very dangerous boomerang. The reason? By effectively blocking European tanning production, it does not prevent products made from hides coming into Europe from deforested areas. Third, the list of countries deemed to be at risk of deforestation needs to be clarified and updated, as it’s currently not yet defined.

An important opportunity

UNIC’s presence at the UNECE table, and in front of a parterre of speakers and delegates from all over the world, presented an important opportunity to give visibility and authority to its clear position on the EUDR. A position shared by the entire European tanning industry and by many other institutions (including international ones) that have expressed strong critical opinions against this regulation. Not because of what it’s trying to achieve, which is an objective shared by all. But because of the current way of working of its implementation.

You can access the original article HERE

Durability versus fast fashion

Original content by: Lederpiel

The international leather (Cotance), footwear (CEC), fur (IFF) and wool (IWTO) associations have joined forces to defend natural and durable materials against fast fashion. These four organisations have produced a joint statement addressed to the Technical Secretariat of the Product Environmental Footprint Standards Category (Pefcr) on Clothing and Footwear (A&F). In it they express their disagreement with the current method for calculating the “service life” of clothing and shoes. According to Cotance, CEC, IFF and IWTO, the main concern is the precedent that this calculation method is setting in the broader EU regulatory context. “An immature methodology for calculating the environmental footprint of clothing and footwear products risks having highly damaging effects on the diversity and competitiveness of industries in the ecosystem”, the associations say.

What is wrong with current durability metrics for clothing and footwear? According to these four representative organisations for leather, footwear, fur and wool, they penalise natural and longer-lasting materials, and consumer products made from them.

Joint statement

The main concern lies in the unit of measurement adopted by the Technical Secretariat, which develops the methodology and the representativeness of the default values ​​for the durability of clothing and footwear products taken from Higg.

The signatories of the joint statement oppose the measure being expressed in a number of “uses” rather than in real time in “years”. This approach, taken from the Higg Product Module, “does not reflect the real lifespan of products or the opinion of all stakeholders in the sector”, explain the four associations. In addition, neither the product segmentation nor the default values ​​for service life take into account the unique properties of the different materials. “As a result, the method favours products that are purchased and thrown away after just a few ‘uses’ and penalises those designed to last much longer than the methodology can deliver,” the signatories of the joint statement say.

The organisations representing the views of the footwear, fur, leather and wool industries propose that service life be expressed in years rather than uses and that the durability characteristics that materials confer on products be appropriately integrated into product segmentation or the reference flow. “This change would provide a more accurate and meaningful assessment of a product’s lifespan, helping both consumers and manufacturers make informed decisions,” they say.

You can access the original article HERE