EUROPEAN COMMISSION  
7.5.2021
SEC(2021) 396
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
FITNESS CHECK
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Counci l on the 
making available on the Union market as well as export from the Union of certain 
commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and 
repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010
COM(2021) 706  
SWD(2021) 32 8 
SWD(2021) 329

 
 ________________________________  
This opinion concerns a draft fitness check which may differ from the final version. 
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board 
 
Brussels,  
RSB 
Opinion 
Title: Fitness check of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Council 
Regulation (EC) N° 2173/2005 and the EU Timber Regulation (EU) N° 995/2010 
Overall opinion: POSITIVE 
(A) Policy context 
Illegal logging and related trade contribute to deforestation. This has important negative 
effects, inter alia on climate change and biodiversity. The EU’s policy to tackle illegal 
logging relies on two pieces of legislation: the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) and the 
Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Council Regulation (FLEGT).  
FLEGT entered into force in 2005. It establishes a licensing scheme for imports of timber 
into the EU through a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA). This is a bilateral trade 
treaty for timber and timber products between the EU and timber producing countries.  
EUTR entered into force in 2013. It lays down the obligations for placing timber and 
timber products on the EU market. It requires operators to exercise ‘due diligence’ so as 
not to derive their timber from illegal sources. Traders have to collect relevant information, 
assess the risk of illegally harvested timber in the supply chain, and take measures to 
minimise this risk.   
This fitness check aims to evaluate the functioning and effectiveness of both Regulations 
and whether they are still ‘fit for purpose’.  
 
(B) Summary of findings 
The Board notes the useful additional information provided in advance of the 
meeting and the commitments to make changes to the report. 
The Board gives a positive opinion. The Board also considers that the report should 
further improve with respect to the following aspects: 
(1) The report does not sufficiently identify the benefits of both Regulations in view 
of their high costs and their limited effectiveness to date.  
(2) The report does not draw clear conclusions on whether the Regulations are ‘fit 
for purpose’. It lacks clear take-aways for future decision-making.  
 

2 
 (C) What to improve 
(1) The report should better explain the main driving factors behind the limited 
effectiveness of the Regulations. It should explain the relative importance of each of these 
factors and indicate to what extent they are within EU control (e.g. regulatory design and 
implementation failures).  
(2) The report should bring out the ‘fitness check’ angle of the evaluation more clearly 
and better indicate what links exist between the two Regulations in terms of synergies, 
complementarities, overlaps or streamlining potential (e.g. for monitoring or enforcement). 
(3) The report should better demonstrate the different types of benefits that both 
Regulations intendedly or unintendedly produced. The report should explore (qualitatively 
if quantified evidence is not available) to what extent illegal logging has been reduced 
because of benefits such as increased awareness and better forest governance in wood-
producing countries. The report should explain better whether the benefits outweigh the 
costs of the Regulations. It should indicate what the potential is for reducing the high 
compliance and operating costs of the Regulations. 
(4) In view of possible unintended consequences such as ‘leakage’, the report should 
indicate whether complementary measures might be necessary to fight deforestation 
worldwide based on the evaluation findings. 
(5) The conclusions should make a more critical, evidence-based judgement of how the 
Regulations have performed. They should clarify to what extent they remain relevant and 
draw clearer lessons for policy-makers. 
(6) The report should dedicate more attention to the issue of data limitations and draw 
lessons for future data-collection as a way to facilitate better measurement of the degree of 
future success of both Regulations.  
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.  
 
 
(D) Conclusion 
The DG must take these recommendations into account before launching the 
interservice consultation.  
Full title Fitness check of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and 
Trade Council Regulation (EC) N° 2173/2005 and the EU 
Timber Regulation (EU) N° 995/2010 
Reference number PLAN/2019/6094 
Submitted to RSB on 12 April 2021 
Date of RSB meeting 5 May 2021 
 
Electronically signed on 07/05/2021 12:52 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482