Special Report EU support to 
timber‑producing 
countries under the  
FLEGT action planEN 2015  NO 13
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
Email: eca-info@eca.europa.eu  
Internet: http://eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA  
YouTube: EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015
Print ISBN 978-92-872-2759-1 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/11370 QJ-AB-15-011-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-2813-0 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/7405 QJ-AB-15-011-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-2765-2 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/69005 QJ-AB-15-011-EN-E
© European Union, 2015
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
EU support to 
timber‑producing 
countries under the  
FLEGT action plan
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2015  NO 13
02
 Audit team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber III — headed by ECA Member Karel Pinxten — which specialises 
in external actions spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member Karel Pinxten, supported by the head of his office, 
Gerard Madden and Mila Strahilova, attaché; Gérald Locatelli, head of unit; Piotr Zych, team leader; Ruurd de Jong, princi ‑
pal auditor, Laetitia Cadet and Peter Kovacs, auditors.
From left to right:  G. Madden, R. de Jong, K. Pinxten, M. Strahilova, P . Zych, 
G. Locatelli.

03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Glossary and abbreviations
I-VI Executive summary
1-9 Introduction
1-3 Illegal logging is a global problem
4-9 FLEGT is the EU response
10-12  Audit scope and approach
13-56  Observations
13-34  FLEGT support to timber‑producing countries was not sufficiently well designed and targeted
14-18  The Commission identified a wide range of potential measures
19-26  The Commission did not develop a proper work plan
27-34  The Commission did not clearly prioritise its assistance
35-56  EU support to timber‑producing countries was not sufficiently effective
36-43  The main projects examined were problematic
44-52  Progress on the road towards licensing is slow
53-56  Monitoring and reporting procedures were unsatisfactory
04 Contents
57-59  Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I  —  Implementation of FLEGT, forest governance and trade‑related programmes from 
2003 ‑2013
 Annex II — List of projects audited
 Annex III — List of project evaluations and ROMs reviewed
 Annex IV  — Transparency International  — Corruption perception index 2007 ‑2013
 Reply of the Commission
05
 Glossary and abbreviations
ACP : African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
CSP : country strategy paper
DCI : development cooperation instrument 
DG International Cooperation and Development : Directorate‑General for International Cooperation and 
Development
DG International Cooperation and Development implements a wide range of the Commission’s external assistance 
instruments financed by the EDFs and the general budget.
DG Environment : Directorate‑General for the Environment
EDF : European Development Fund
The EDFs are the main instrument by which the European Union provides aid for development cooperation to 
the ACP States and overseas countries and territories (OCTs). The partnership agreement signed in Cotonou on 
23 June 2000 for a period of 20 years (‘the Cotonou Agreement’) is the current framework for the European Union’s 
relations with ACP States and OCTs. Its main focus is on reducing and eventually eradicating poverty.
EFI: European forest institute
ENPI : European  Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
EU FLEGT : European Union  — forest law enforcement, governance and trade
EUTR : European Union timber regulation
FAO : Food and agriculture organisation of the United Nations
GIZ : Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German international cooperation agency)
NGOs : Non‑governmental organisations
06 Glossary and abbreviations
REDD+ : Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation +
The United Nations’ ‘Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation’ programme (or ‘REDD’) assigns 
a financial value to the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions 
from deforestation and invest in low‑carbon paths towards sustainable development. ‘REDD+’ goes beyond 
deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and 
enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
ROM : results‑oriented monitoring
The ROM system was established by DG International Cooperation and Development in 2000 to strengthen the 
monitoring, evaluation and transparency of development aid. It is based on brief, focused, on‑site assessments by 
external experts.
SMEs : small to medium‑sized  enterprises
SVLK : Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu (Indonesian timber legality assurance system)
VPA : voluntary partnership agreement
07
I
Illegal logging and the trade in illegally logged timber 
are persistent problems, despite the international 
efforts that have been underway since the late 1990s 
to combat them. They cause environmental damage 
and a loss of biodiversity, have a negative impact on 
the livelihoods of forest‑dependent people, distort 
markets, fuel corruption, and undermine the rule of 
law and good governance.
II
In 2003, the Commission issued a proposal for an EU 
action plan on forest law enforcement, governance 
and trade  (FLEGT) to tackle the problem of illegal 
logging and related trade. The FLEGT initiative aims 
to reduce illegal logging globally by supporting for ‑
est governance in timber‑producing countries and 
by reducing the consumption of illegally harvested 
timber in the EU. The cornerstone of the action plan 
is a bilateral agreement between the EU and a wood 
exporting country  — the FLEGT voluntary partner ‑
ship agreement (VPA) — committing this country 
to trading only legally harvested timber products. 
Under these agreements, exporting countries develop 
systems to verify the legality of their timber and are 
allowed to award FLEGT licences when the required 
conditions are met.
III
The Court examined whether the Commission man ‑
aged well the support provided under the EU FLEGT 
action plan to timber‑producing countries to address 
illegal logging. The Court concludes that the support 
was not sufficiently well managed by the Commission.IV
FLEGT support was not sufficiently well designed and 
targeted. The Commission conceived the FLEGT action 
plan in an innovative way and identified the possible 
measures to be taken. However, it did not devise an 
appropriate work plan with clear objectives, mile ‑
stones and a dedicated budget. While these would 
have been difficult to prepare at the very start of the 
initiative, they should have been established in its 
early years. When assistance was granted this was not 
done in accordance with clear criteria, and the impact 
of the aid was diluted because of the many countries 
involved. The regulation prohibiting the imports of 
illegally produced timber into the EU (EUTR), which 
was mentioned in the action plan back in 2003 as one 
of the possible measures, is still not fully implemented.
V
The EU support to timber ‑producing countries was 
not sufficiently effective. The main projects exam ‑
ined, which were meant to increase the capacity of 
the public administrations were not successful. While 
many of the projects undertaken increased awareness 
of the illegal logging issue and bolstered civil society 
organisations, they were frequently beset by prob ‑
lems. It has now been 12 years since the action plan 
was presented and, although interest in the VPAs has 
been extensive, no FLEGT licensing system is yet in 
operation and successive target dates for their intro ‑
duction have been missed. Monitoring of progress 
has been inadequate, particularly due to the lack of an 
accountability framework, and reporting on progress 
was also unsatisfactory.
VI
The report goes on to make a number of recommen ‑
dations in order to improve the future management of 
the initiative.Executive  
summary
08
 Introduction
Illegal logging is a global 
problem
01 
Illegal logging and the trade in illegally 
logged timber are persistent prob ‑
lems, despite the international efforts 
that have been underway since the 
late 1990s to combat them. They cause 
environmental damage and a loss of 
biodiversity, have a negative impact 
on the livelihoods of forest‑dependent 
people, distort markets, fuel corrup ‑
tion, and undermine the rule of law 
and good governance. They deprive 
governments of revenues from natural 
resources, thus hindering sustainable 
development in some of the poorest 
countries of the world.
02 
Illegal logging and trade occur when 
timber is harvested, transported, 
bought or sold in violation of national 
laws. What is ‘illegal’ will therefore 
depend on the particular national 
legislation in force.
03 
Given the illicit nature of the activities 
in question, the scale of illegal logging 
is difficult to measure. The value of 
this illegal timber has been estimated 
at up to 100 billion US dollars annu ‑
ally1 but, indeed, estimates of this 
nature vary considerably. However, it 
is widely accepted that illegal logging 
is an endemic problem in many major 
producer countries, particularly where 
corruption is rife and easy market 
access is available.FLEGT is the EU response
04 
In response to global concerns2 about 
the negative impact of illegal logging 
and the related timber trade, in 2003 
the Commission issued a proposal 
for an EU action plan on forest law 
enforcement, governance and trade  
(FLEGT)3. FLEGT aims to reduce illegal 
logging globally by supporting forest 
governance in timber‑producing coun ‑
tries and by curbing imports of illegal 
timber to the EU. It is a package of 
measures designed to tackle the issue 
of illegal logging and trade both from 
a supply ‑ and demand‑side perspec ‑
tive (see Box 1).  The Council welcomed 
the action plan as a first step towards 
tackling the urgent issue of illegal 
logging and associated trade in a col ‑
laborative and coordinated way with 
consumer and producer countries, the 
private sector and other stakehold ‑
ers4. In 2005, it adopted a regulation 
establishing a FLEGT licensing scheme 
for the import of certain timber prod ‑
ucts from countries which enter into 
a Voluntary Partnership Agreement 
with the EU5.1 UNEP, Interpol, Green carbon, 
black trade: illegal logging, tax 
fraud and laundering in the 
world’s tropical forests. A rapid 
response assessment , 2012.
2 International action against 
illegal logging was catalysed 
by the G8 action programme 
on forests, launched in May 
1998. The G8 discussions 
prompted a series of forest law 
enforcement and governance 
(FLEG) conferences, 
coordinated by the World 
Bank, in East Asia (Bali, 2001), 
Africa (Yaoundé, 2003) and 
Europe (St Petersburg, 2005). 
They brought together 
governments, industry 
representatives, NGOs and 
researchers, with the aim of 
establishing cooperation 
frameworks between 
producer and consumer 
countries.
3 COM(2003) 251 final of 
21 May 2013 ‘Forest law 
enforcement, governance and 
trade  (FLEGT) — Proposal for 
an EU action plan’.
4 Council conclusions 2003/C 
268/01 (OJ C 268, 7.11.2003, 
p. 1).
5 Council Regulation (EC) 
No 2173/2005 on the 
establishment of a FLEGT 
licensing scheme for imports 
of timber into the European 
Community (OJ L 347, 
30.12.2005, p. 1).
09 Introduction
05 
The cornerstone of the action plan is 
a bilateral agreement between the EU 
and a wood exporting country — the 
FLEGT voluntary partnership agree ‑
ment (VPA) — committing both parties 
to trading only legally harvested 
timber products. Under these agree ‑
ments, exporting countries develop 
systems to verify the legality of their 
timber. When the Commission is satis ‑
fied that the requirements have been 
met the countries will qualify for FLEGT 
licensing. An example of the proce ‑
dures required to acquire the licences 
and subsequent export permits is 
given in the action plan (see Box 2).  In 
practice, most of the partner countries 
decided to apply their future licensing 
schemes not only to timber exported 
to the EU but also to timber export ‑
ed to other markets and for internal 
consumption.The composition of the EU FLEGT action plan
‘The following measures in the FLEGT action plan aim to increase consumer demand for verified legally pro ‑
duced timber: (a) encouraging the private sector in the EU to adopt purchasing policies to ensure that only 
legal timber enters their supply chains […]; (b) encouraging countries in the EU to adopt public procurement 
policies that require all timber supplied to be verified as legal […]; (c) preventing illegal timber from enter ‑
ing the EU market through the enforcement of the EU timber regulation […]; (d) creating measures to avoid 
investment in activities that encourage illegal logging. […]
The action plan contains the following measures designed to support developing countries in building capac ‑
ity to supply legally produced timber: (a) providing technical and financial support from the EU for improved 
governance and capacity building of government and non‑government actors; (b) supporting efforts by 
timber‑producing countries to combat illegal logging by preventing illegal timber from entering the EU mar ‑
ket through bilateral trade agreements called voluntary partnership agreements.’
Source:  http://www.euflegt.efi.int/documents/10180/118682/Introduction%20to%20FLEGTBox 1
10 Introduction
Example of the procedures required for timber legality certification provided for 
a VPA
‘Step 1 : The FLEGT partner country designates an accreditation body, which is empowered to appoint bodies 
to certify the legality of wood products.
Step 2 : The FLEGT partner country designates an independent monitor and sets out a transparent dispute set ‑
tlement mechanism.
Step 3 : The European Commission confirms that the proposed system constitutes a credible system to verify 
that timber has been legally harvested.
Step 4 : Certificates are issued for legally harvested timber, allowing customs authorities to clear legal ship ‑
ments for export. […]
Step 5 : The export permit denoting legal harvesting is produced at the European Union port where timber is 
declared for free circulation in the EU, and checked by Member State customs authorities against the descrip ‑
tion of the consignment provided under pre‑shipment notification. […]
Step 6 : Customs only accept declarations for release for free circulation into the EU when timber is accompa ‑
nied by the necessary export permit.’
Source:  COM(2003) 251 final, p. 13.Box 2
06 
The Commission, together with the 
EU Member States, supports partner 
countries financially and technically 
to improve forest governance and to 
establish or improve systems which 
verify compliance with their legal 
requirements. The FLEGT component 
‘Support to timber‑producing coun ‑
tries’ consists of the following.
(a) Supporting processes of policy 
reform, creation of effective laws 
and simplification of procedures 
while protecting forest‑dependent 
communities and integrating them 
into forest ‑protection schemes.(b) Assistance for developing reliable 
monitoring and tracking systems, 
which would distinguish legal from 
illegal production and track timber 
from the point of harvest, through 
processing mills and ports to final 
markets, and encourage greater 
transparency of information within 
the forest sector.
(c) Supporting broad governance 
reforms through capacity building, 
in particular in the judiciary, police 
or military sectors, to better tackle 
corruption, to gather evidence of 
environmental crime and to build 
legal cases.
11 Introduction
07 
To this end, the EU provides funding 
through the EDF and the general 
budget. In total, an estimated 300 mil ‑
lion euro have been allocated to 35 
countries for FLEGT‑related support 
over the period 2003 ‑20136 (see 
Annex I).
08 
In the Commission, activities related 
to the FLEGT action plan are led by DG 
International Cooperation and Devel ‑
opment and the Directorate‑General 
for the Environment (DG Environment). 
DG International Cooperation and 
Development  is responsible for man ‑
aging FLEGT‑related funding to third 
producer countries. It implements de ‑
velopment cooperation programmes 
and negotiates the VPAs with ACP 
countries as well as with Guyana and 
Honduras. DG Environment negotiates 
VPAs with Asian countries, is responsi ‑
ble for the EUTR, for political dialogue 
on environmental matters with both 
timber ‑producing and consumer 
countries (such as China, Brazil, Russia, 
United States, Japan) and for multilat ‑
eral dialogue. Both DGs share responsi ‑
bilities for Latin American countries.
09 
The Commission entrusted the Eu ‑
ropean Forest Institute (EFI) and the 
Food and agriculture organisation of 
the United Nations (FAO) with some 
specific activities to support partner 
countries’ efforts under the FLEGT 
action plan. The EFI hosts and man ‑
ages the EU FLEGT Facility, which is 
a multi‑donor trust fund established 
in 2007. It provides country support 
(mainly through technical assistance to 
governments and other stakeholders), 
performs studies and disseminates 
information on FLEGT. The FAO imple ‑
ments the ACP FLEGT support pro ‑
gramme, of which the main aim was 
initially to promote the FLEGT process 
in ACP countries.6 Excluding sector budget 
support allocations. The 
budget support allocations 
cover issues related to forest 
policy, but are not necessarily 
FLEGT‑specific. There is no 
recognised method for 
attributing the assistance to 
specific areas.
12
 Audit scope and approach
10 
The Court examined whether the Com ‑
mission managed well the support 
provided under the EU FLEGT action 
plan to timber‑producing countries 
to address illegal logging. The audit 
focused on two main questions.
(a) Was the FLEGT support well  
designed and targeted?
(b) Has the FLEGT support been 
effective?
11 
The audit covered the Commission’s 
support provided to timber‑producing 
countries from the EDF and the gener ‑
al budget during the entire period of 
the EU FLEGT action plan application, 
i.e. from 2003 to 2014.
12 
The audit was carried out in the period 
from August to December 2014 and 
included the following.
(a) An analysis of the FLEGT strategy 
documents and relevant reports 
on timber trade patterns and il ‑
legal logging.
(b) An examination of the allocation 
of funding to objectives, countries 
and projects.
(c) Interviews with Commission of ‑
ficials at DG International Coop ‑
eration and Development and DG 
Environment, and with the EFI, and 
representatives of the Member 
States, international organisations 
and European NGOs active in the 
area of the environment and forest 
protection.(d) Visits to two beneficiary countries 
which are signatories of a VPA 
(Indonesia and Cameroon), com ‑
prising a review of the progress in 
the VPA process and an in‑depth 
review of a sample of ten projects 
(see Annex II ).
(e) A review of the findings from the 
results‑oriented monitoring (ROM) 
system and programme evalua ‑
tions for a sample of 35 projects 
(see Annex III ).
13
 Observations
FLEGT support to 
timber‑producing 
countries was not 
sufficiently well designed 
and targeted
13 
The Court examined whether: 
(a) EU support was based on a sound 
assessment of needs and the Com ‑
mission correctly identified the 
potential measures to be taken; 
(b) EU support was properly planned; 
and 
(c) the priorities for funding were 
properly set.
The Commission identified 
a wide range of potential 
measures
14 
The FLEGT action plan tackles the per ‑
sistent problem of illegal logging and 
trade in an innovative way. It combines 
trade incentives in the form of easier 
access for partner countries’ producers 
to the EU timber market with devel ‑
opment aid, both to governments and 
to civil society. Partner countries are 
obliged to ensure coherent legislation 
in the forestry sector, to implement 
tracking and licensing schemes and to 
establish control systems at different 
levels. In addition, the FLEGT action 
plan foresaw the development of 
several demand‑side measures aimed 
at reinforcing the impact of the actions 
taken in producer countries. Policy dia ‑
logue at international level to promote 
the main objectives of FLEGT was also 
envisaged.15 
The impact assessment of the EU 
action plan7 analysed the potential 
impact of the implementation of a tim ‑
ber‑licensing scheme through partner ‑
ships with timber‑producing coun ‑
tries8. The study contained an analysis 
of the main drivers of illegal logging. 
It examined the general economic, 
environmental and social impacts, and 
the legal and institutional implications 
of the proposed solutions both in the 
EU and in potential partner countries. 
It also analysed the risks which might 
impair the effectiveness of potential 
measures9.
16 
The impact assessment examined 
three main options to tackle the illegal 
logging problem. The bilateral option, 
of concluding VPAs with individual 
countries, was considered to offer the 
best means by which to act quickly 
and flexibly. A multilateral scheme, 
including a potential international 
agreement  — in theory the most 
effective  — was considered unrealistic. 
The third option, a unilateral prohibi ‑
tion on placing illegal timber on the EU 
market, was seen by the Commission 
as less acceptable than VPAs based on 
partnerships with timber‑producing 
countries. The Commission decided to 
further analyse this option at a later 
stage.7 Impact assessment of the EU 
action plan for forest law 
enforcement, governance and 
trade  (FLEGT); European 
Commission, 
Directorate‑General for 
Development (2004).
8 SEC(2004) 977 of 20 July 2004 
‘Proposal for a Council 
Regulation concerning the 
establishment of a voluntary 
FLEGT licensing scheme for 
imports of timber into the 
European Community’.
9 The study pointed to risks 
linked to the possible 
diversion of illegal timber to 
other ‘less stringent’ markets, 
such as China or Japan, and 
recognised the limited 
potential effectiveness of the 
action plan, in particular in 
countries where timber 
exports to the EU were low.
14 Observations
10 SEC(2004) 977 of 20 July 2004.
11 An action plan is a sequence 
of steps that must be taken, or 
activities that must be 
performed, for a strategy to 
succeed. An action plan has 
three main elements: (1) 
specific tasks; (2) time horizon; 
and (3) allocation of funds to 
specific activities ( http://www.
businessdictionary.com/
definition/action‑plan.html )
12 FLEGT action plan progress 
report; EFI (2011); p. 34. See: 
http://www.euflegt.efi.int/
documents/10180/23029/
FLEGT+Action+Plan+Pro ‑
gress+Report+2003 ‑2010/
13 Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
18 December 2006 
establishing a financing 
instrument for development 
cooperation (OJ L 378, 
27.12.2006, p. 41).  
Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
11 March 2014 establishing 
a financing instrument for 
development cooperation for 
the period 2014 ‑2020 (OJ L 77, 
15.3.2014, p. 44).
14 Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
24 October 2006 laying down 
general provisions 
establishing a European 
neighbourhood and 
partnership instrument 
(OJ L 310, 9.11.2006, p. 1).
15 The completeness of 
reporting on FLEGT activities 
was also a challenge during 
earlier evaluation exercises of 
the FLEGT action plan. The 
2003 ‑2010 FLEGT progress 
report, prepared by the EFI, 
states that ‘The actions and 
amounts reported here should 
be taken as a rough indication 
of undertakings and financing 
made available, rather than 
a comprehensive and fully 
comparable account’.17 
The Commission decided to imple ‑
ment the first, bilateral, option. The 
Commission acknowledged the chal ‑
lenges of the approach, in particular 
in countries with limited governance 
capacity, where the implementation of 
the action plan needed to be accom ‑
panied by substantial capacity build ‑
ing and institutional strengthening10.
18 
The Commission correctly identi ‑
fied the main elements which might 
require support from donors for 
effective implementation of a VPA, 
including forest and environmental 
policy reform, the development of 
monitoring, tracking and licensing sys ‑
tems, and capacity building in various 
sectors (see paragraph 6).
The Commission did not 
develop a proper work plan
19 
The EU FLEGT action plan lacks some 
key elements of a proper action plan11. 
It has no specific operational objec ‑
tives with corresponding indicators, 
no timetable with concrete milestones 
and no explicit monitoring framework. 
Its progress and the achievement of 
results are therefore very difficult to 
measure. As was stated in the FLEGT 
action plan progress report 2003 ‑2010 
prepared by the EFI: ‘the action plan is 
more than a statement of policy but, in 
the absence of milestones and targets, 
it is not quite a strategy’12.20 
At the time of launching the action 
plan it was considered to be the start 
of a long‑term process. However, the 
planned measures, specific objectives 
and a roadmap to be followed needed 
to be developed in the early years. 12 
years later, FLEGT still lacks a clearly 
stated set of goals to be achieved with 
well‑defined financing instruments in 
a specified time horizon.
21 
The action plan does not have a clearly 
defined and dedicated budget. The 
development cooperation activities 
are financed by various sources, e.g. 
the EU general budget and the EDF, 
through various instruments such 
as the development cooperation 
instrument (DCI)13, including both 
bilateral and regional geographical 
programmes as well as thematic pro ‑
grammes, and the European  neigh ‑
bourhood and partnership instrument 
(ENPI)14.
22 
A complete overview of FLEGT proj ‑
ects was not readily available from the 
Commission. The database of forestry 
projects established by the Commis ‑
sion for audit purposes did not give 
a coherent and complete picture of all 
FLEGT projects. It was subsequently 
found during the audit that this was 
incomplete, with some projects incor ‑
rectly classified as FLEGT while other 
FLEGT projects had not been includ ‑
ed15. The Commission and the Member 
States did not set out a clear definition 
of a FLEGT project and how to account 
for the related funds.
15 Observations
23 
The success in tackling the problems 
of illegal logging and the illegal timber 
trade hinged on a combination of fac ‑
tors, e.g. commitment by the partner 
countries, establishment of the neces ‑
sary governance arrangements, and 
a clear and evidenced commitment 
from the EU and other major pro ‑
ducers and importers to act together 
for a common purpose. It was also 
essential that the activities necessary 
to ensure real progress took place in 
parallel. The implementation of FLEGT 
objectives also depends heavily on 
major producing, processing and/or 
trading countries such as China, Russia, 
India, South Korea and Japan, and their 
commitment to fighting against illegal 
logging and trade in illegal timber 
products. These countries did not par ‑
ticipate in the FLEGT licensing scheme 
and the Commission has over the years 
initiated policy dialogue with them 
on a bilateral basis. These discussions 
have produced varied but generally 
limited results to date.
24 
It was only in 2007  — 4 years after pre ‑
senting the action plan — that a study 
assessed the impact of potential de ‑
mand‑side measures16 to prevent the 
importation or placing of illegal timber 
on the EU market. The study resulted 
in a proposal for a regulation laying 
down the obligations of operators 
placing the timber on the EU market17.25 
The EU timber regulation (EUTR)18 was 
finally adopted in 2010 and came into 
operation in 2013. An earlier adoption 
of the regulation would have passed 
on a clear message, in the initial stages 
of the action plan, that the EU was tak ‑
ing the lead in the fight against illegal 
timber exports. This would also have 
acted as an additional incentive to 
countries wishing to participate in the 
VPA process. More than 10 years after 
the commencement of the action plan, 
the EU timber regulation is not yet 
fully implemented in certain Member 
States19. This sends a negative message 
to countries which are endeavouring 
to ensure that their timber exports are 
legal20.
26 
Over the years and particularly with 
the entry into application of legislation 
such as the amendment to the Lacey 
Act in the United States, the Australian 
illegal logging prohibition act and 
the EUTR, certain private certification 
schemes have increasingly revised 
their standards to better address 
legality requirements. Such schemes 
contribute significantly to meeting the 
EUTR due diligence requirements21. 
However, only three VPAs (Cameroon, 
Congo and Central African Republic) 
provide for the recognition of private 
schemes as part of the FLEGT licensing 
process, with FLEGT support provided 
for this purpose. In view of the difficul ‑
ties faced since the start of the FLEGT 
action plan in setting up state‑run 
licensing schemes in countries facing 
such capacity constraints, the Com ‑
mission did not sufficiently promote 
synergies between FLEGT and private 
certification schemes.16 Commission staff working 
document  — Accompanying 
document to the Proposal for 
a regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
determining the obligations of 
operators who make timber 
and timber products available 
on the Market: Impact 
assessment  — Report on 
additional options to combat 
illegal logging.
17 Without such provisions, 
producers in the VPA countries 
would be disadvantaged 
versus those in non‑VPA 
countries. Legal requirements 
and the associated costs for 
producers in VPA countries are 
generally higher than those of 
producers in countries which 
have not signed a VPA.
18 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
20 October 2010 laying down 
the obligations of operators 
who place timber and timber 
products on the market 
(OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, p. 23). 
This  counters the trade in 
illegally harvested timber and 
timber products through 
three key initiatives: (1) it 
prohibits the placing on the 
EU market of illegally 
harvested timber and 
products derived from such 
timber; (2) it requires EU 
traders who place timber 
products on the EU market to 
exercise due diligence ; and (3) 
obliges said traders to keep 
records of their suppliers and 
customers.
19 Four Member States (Greece, 
Spain, Hungary and Romania) 
did not fulfil their obligations 
concerning the 
implementation of the EU 
timber regulation. http://
ec.europa.eu/environment/
forests/pdf/EUTR%20
implementation%20
scoreboard.pdf
20 Article 20(2), of the EUTR 
provides that in 2015 the 
Commission will submit 
a report to the European 
Parliament and to the Council 
on its application.
21 Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 607/2012 
of 6 July 2012 on the detailed 
rules concerning the due 
diligence system and the 
frequency and nature of the 
checks on monitoring 
organisations as provided for 
in Regulation (EU) 
16 Observations
The Commission did 
not clearly prioritise its 
assistance
27 
Following the adoption of the action 
plan, Member States and the Commis ‑
sion drew up a list of priority countries 
to be approached for informal consul ‑
tations about their possible interest in 
the FLEGT scheme22. The list included 
Cameroon, Gabon, Congo, Ghana, 
Russia, Brazil, Papua New Guinea, 
Indonesia and Malaysia. At the same 
time Member States and the Commis ‑
sion agreed that the EU should remain 
open to trade negotiations with all 
countries that express an interest.
28 
Virtually all countries which showed 
an interest in the FLEGT action plan 
have been able to become involved in 
the process23, including a number of 
Asian and Latin American countries for 
which the Commission’s impact assess ‑
ment had shown that, given their low 
trade volumes with the EU, the poten ‑
tial impact of a VPA would be limited.
29 
The Commission did not allocate its 
resources, both human and financial, 
according to a set of criteria which 
were likely to give the best results. 
Criteria such as the extent of illegal 
logging, the importance of trade with 
the EU, the commitment and potential 
of the countries in question and their 
development needs were not consid ‑
ered together in order to prioritise the 
use of resources.30 
As a result, the limited financial and 
technical support has been spread 
over a large number of countries24, 
some of which were not the key ones 
for tackling illegal logging or were 
most unlikely to develop the level 
of governance necessary to arrive 
at a licensing system in the short to 
medium term (see Box 3).  This diluted 
the support and the impact that could 
have been achieved.
31 
The Commission together with gov ‑
ernments of the partner countries 
identified the main requirements of 
functioning licensing schemes in the 
countries concerned in the prepara ‑
tion for and during the process of the 
VPA negotiations. The assessments 
included reviews of the forest policy 
and legal frameworks, consultations 
with relevant ministries and other 
stakeholders, and an analysis of the 
key VPA aspects. The requirements 
were included as annexes in the VPAs. 
The annexes included a list of fields, in 
which support would be needed25 and 
planned actions26.
32 
The VPAs did not describe how the 
funding responsibilities should be 
divided among the government, the 
Commission and other donors27.No 995/2010 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
laying down the obligations of 
operators who place timber 
and timber products on the 
market (OJ L 177, 7.7.2012, 
p. 16).
22 Minutes from an ad hoc 
meeting on the FLEGT donor 
coordination of 26.2.2004.
23 Currently, 26 countries are 
engaged at various stages of 
the VPA process.
24 As concluded in the EFI 
progress report 2003 ‑2010, 
‘demands for support to VPAs 
already exceed the capacity to 
respond to them all and some 
Member States also wish to 
work with neighbourhood 
countries (Belarus, Russia and 
Ukraine) or regions (Western 
Balkans) which account for 
a larger share of their trade 
than tropical developing 
countries’. See FLEGT action 
plan progress report 
2003 ‑2010; EFI (2011), p. 36.
25 For example, the VPA between 
the EU and the Republic of 
Cameroon includes the 
following: (a) capacity 
building; (b) communication; 
(c) promotion of FLEGT 
products on the Union market; 
(d) monitoring the domestic 
timber market; (e) 
industrialisation; (f) 
monitoring the impact of the 
agreement; (g) helping to 
monitor implementation of 
the legality assurance scheme; 
(h) modernising the 
traceability system; (i) 
strengthening the national 
control system; (j) the legality 
assurance system; (k) the 
system for issuing FLEGT 
licences; (l) establishing the 
independent audit, (m) 
reforms of the legal 
framework; (n) seeking 
additional financing.
26 For example, organisation of 
the domestic timber market or 
establishment of a suitable 
traceability system.
27 The VPAs with ACP countries 
mention only the need to seek 
resources from the EDF and 
other mechanisms to be 
identified. The VPA with 
Indonesia mentions the 
possibility of seeking 
resources in the context of EU 
programming exercises.
17 Observations
33 
Projects implemented together with 
the governments of the VPA countries 
address the needs specified in the 
VPAs, for example the development 
of timber tracking systems, licens ‑
ing schemes and the creation of an 
independent auditor function. How ‑
ever, the objective of enhancing law 
enforcement by national authorities 
was not clearly addressed as very few 
projects concentrated on this key 
issue. Weak law enforcement has a sig ‑
nificant impact on the extent of illegal 
logging activities because the likeli ‑
hood of detection and prosecution of 
environmental crimes is low while the 
incentives to operate illegally are cor ‑
respondingly high. The VPA countries 
have considerable needs in this area, 
as demonstrated for example by their 
rankings in Transparency Internation ‑
al’s Corruption perception index (see 
Annex IV).  While in certain VPA coun ‑
tries a positive trend can be observed, 
most of them remain among the coun ‑
tries with the highest perceived rate of 
corruption in the world.34 
The support to the VPA process was 
not consistently included in the devel ‑
opment cooperation strategies with 
the partner countries. Forest gover ‑
nance is included as part of a focal sec ‑
tor in five28 of the twelve29 VPA coun ‑
tries in the country strategy papers for 
the programming period 2007 ‑2013. As 
illegal logging involves multi‑sectorial 
issues (governance, trade, agriculture), 
FLEGT could be tackled within various 
focal sectors in all the VPA countries, 
but development cooperation strat ‑
egies do not explore this possibility 
or mention the need to mainstream 
FLEGT‑related issues in relevant focal 
sectors.28 Cameroon, Honduras, 
Indonesia, Malaysia and 
Congo.
29 The auditors reviewed 
12 countries which have 
signed or are currently 
negotiating VPAs and which 
receive FLEGT support.
Liberia and the Central African Republic
Liberia and the Central African Republic, both signatories of a VPA, have received significant amounts of 
financial support for the preparation and implementation of their VPAs30. These countries export very limited 
volumes of wood products to the EU and are facing many governance challenges which will prevent them 
from developing a functioning licensing system in the foreseeable future. By contrast, Côte d’Ivoire has ex ‑
ported significantly higher volumes of wood products to the EU than these countries31, yet it did not receive 
any financial assistance to prepare it for a VPA.
30 Wood product imports into the EU from Liberia and the Central African Republic averaged around 5 and 18 million euro per year respectively, 
while total financial support to these countries amounted to 11.9 and 6.8 million euro respectively.
31 Some 166 million euro on average per year.Box 3
18 Observations
EU support to 
timber‑producing 
countries was not 
sufficiently effective
35 
The Court examined whether: 
(a) project outputs were delivered as 
planned; 
(b) the overall progress towards 
licensing systems was satisfactory; 
and 
(c) the Commission properly moni ‑
tored and reported on the imple ‑
mentation of the action plan.
The main projects examined 
were problematic
36 
Projects aimed at strengthening the 
capacity of public authorities were 
not effective. In contrast, FLEGT did 
strengthen civil society organisations, 
thus increasing the transparency of the 
forestry sector. The financially most 
significant projects in Cameroon and 
Indonesia did not bring the expected 
results. The lack of success in Cam ‑
eroon stalled the progress that was 
being made while the failure of the 
project in Indonesia led to a change of 
focus for the use of EU funds.37 
The main project in the VPA process in 
Cameroon, aiming to establish a tim ‑
ber tracking system32, has failed as the 
developed system is not operational, 
meaning that the existing deliverables 
of the project will not be used. The 
project had been running between 
2010 and 2013 and cost 2.27 mil ‑
lion  euro. The failure stemmed from 
a combination of factors, ranging from 
an inappropriate needs assessment to 
serious shortcomings in the implemen ‑
tation of the project. A feature of this 
inadequate needs assessment was the 
Commission’s ineffective coordination 
with the stakeholders and, particular ‑
ly, with the Ministry of Forestry and 
Wildlife. In addition, the contractor’s 
performance was inadequate, and the 
Commission did not take timely reme ‑
dial actions. The failure of the timber 
tracking system is one of the main fac ‑
tors contributing to the delay in VPA 
implementation in Cameroon. A sep ‑
arate project funded by the Deutsche 
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusam ‑
menarbeit  is currently working on 
developing a new system.32 Project: Mise en place d’un 
système de traçabilité du bois au 
Cameroun .
19 Observations
38 
The major achievement of the FLEGT 
process in Cameroon is the involve ‑
ment of the civil society in forest 
governance. Prior to the VPA signature, 
the civil society organisations were 
not recognised by the government as 
legitimate partners with any right to 
express concerns on issues related to 
the management of forest resources. 
Although relations with the ministries 
concerned often remain tense33, the 
local and international NGOs have 
become accepted stakeholders and 
have the possibility to influence for ‑
estry policy in the country at various 
levels. This has a positive impact on 
the transparency and accountability of 
the entire sector. However, although 
projects generally strengthened the 
position of civil society, two out of 
four audited projects implemented by 
NGOs did not deliver all the expected 
outputs, mainly due to over‑ambitious 
objectives.
39 
The financially most important of the 
FLEGT‑related projects in Indonesia34 
was aimed at improving forest law 
enforcement and governance through 
enhanced accountability and trans ‑
parency, reducing illegal timber trade 
through the involvement of trade and 
industry sectors, and supporting the 
coordination of FLEGT activities. It did 
not deliver most of the planned results 
due to an over‑ambitious and unreal ‑
istic project design, problems during 
implementation and weak monitoring. 
The project did not produce any con ‑
crete outputs, was prematurely closed 
down and part of the project funds 
needed to be recovered. Following 
a disagreement with the Commission 
about the handling of the project, the 
Indonesian government decided to im ‑
plement the VPA without further direct 
Commission support.40 
Whereas the Commission’s country 
strategy paper for Indonesia over 
the period 2002 ‑2006 included the 
management of natural resources, in 
particular forests, as one of the focal 
sectors for development assistance, 
this was no longer the case for the fol ‑
lowing period 2007 ‑2013. Apart from 
the Indonesian FLEGT support project 
in 2004, no further EU development 
assistance to the government of Indo ‑
nesia in the forestry sector has been 
programmed in this period.
41 
EU assistance in Indonesia, amounting 
to 10 million euro for 11 projects, had 
been channelled exclusively to NGOs 
since 2004. Projects were generally 
aimed at supporting local participa ‑
tion (by civil society or other non‑state 
actors, including the private sector) in 
various elements of the VPA (includ ‑
ing policy reform), improving forest 
governance, and implementing timber 
tracking and independent monitoring 
systems. While this approach had the 
advantage of engaging with commit ‑
ted organisations, a more coordinat ‑
ed approach was required given the 
extent of the challenges faced. One of 
these challenges is to assist the large 
number of small to medium‑sized en ‑
terprises (SMEs) in their preparation for 
full FLEGT licensing, but this is a task 
way beyond the capacities of the Com ‑
mission projects.33 For example, the Ministry of 
Forestry and Wildlife does not 
follow up reports on cases of 
illegal extraction prepared by 
local communities (project: 
Observation externe et 
communautaire des forêts dans 
la mise en œuvre de l’APV‑FLEGT 
au Cameroun ).
34 EC‑Indonesia FLEGT support 
project.
20 Observations
42 
The four NGO projects examined in 
Indonesia were working to strengthen 
the country’s independent monitoring 
system, support SMEs, and improve 
the preparation and implementation 
of the VPA. One project achieved its 
aims on schedule and on budget35. 
Two projects are still being implement ‑
ed, one of which is likely to deliver the 
planned outputs36. The other project37 
experienced major delays and a con ‑
siderable reduction in its scope due 
to weaknesses in its design and the 
withdrawal of a co‑financing partner.
43 
The main factors identified by the 
Court affecting the achievement 
of project objectives in these two 
countries were also highlighted by 
the Commission’s evaluators in their 
ROM reports and evaluations of 
FLEGT‑related projects in other VPA 
countries. These factors were: insuffi ‑
cient assessment of project risks and 
constraints, improper design, weak 
project management and monitoring, 
and coordination problems between 
project partners.
Progress on the road towards 
licensing is slow
44 
Twenty‑six countries are currently 
engaged in the VPA process. Nine of 
them are negotiating VPAs, while six 
countries have already signed VPAs, 
namely Indonesia, Cameroon, Ghana, 
Congo, Liberia and the Central African 
Republic. The degree of advancement 
towards licensing differs considerably 
among these signatory countries due 
to a variety of factors, such as varying 
institutional capacities and levels of 
commitment to the process.45 
Indonesia, where VPA negotiations 
started in March 2007 and the agree ‑
ment entered into force in May 2014, 
has made considerable progress in 
dealing with outstanding issues and 
is hopeful of a progression to FLEGT 
licensing in the near future. It already 
has a national timber legality assur ‑
ance and licensing system in place, 
which is mandatory for all exports. 
Following the joint assessment carried 
out in 2013 and 2014, it is now address ‑
ing remaining issues. Two major chal ‑
lenges for Indonesia are (1) ensuring 
the required governance in a country 
of its size and diversity, and (2) making 
certain that its numerous SMEs are 
fully compliant with all the regulatory 
requirements.
46 
Cameroon expressed its interest in 
signing a VPA with the EU in 2004. 
However, although forestry law in 
Cameroon is considered to be well 
developed, it is also very complex 
and enforcement remains a major 
challenge. The VPA negotiations took 
place over 4 years, from 2006 to 2010. 
Due to the long ratification process, 
the agreement finally entered into 
force on 1 December 2011. According 
to the schedule set in the agreement, 
the pilot timber tracking system was 
supposed to be tested in 2013 and 
FLEGT licences were supposed to be 
issued in 2015. However, the VPA’s 
main objective  — the development 
of a timber ‑licensing scheme — is still 
far from being attained, mainly due 
to the failure of the project aiming to 
develop the timber tracking system. 
There are thus many challenges to be 
overcome before full FLEGT licensing 
can be achieved.35 Project: Strengthening civil 
society organisations and 
small and medium timber 
industries in VPA preparation 
and SVLK implementation.
36 Project: Promoting the 
implementation of timber 
legality assurance (FLEGT 
licence) as a key step to 
sustainable production and 
consumption in Indonesia’s 
wood‑processing industry.
37 Project: Strengthening state 
and non‑state actors in the 
preparation, negotiation and/
or implementation of 
FLEGT‑VPA.
21 Observations
47 
Ghana, which was the first country to 
sign a VPA in 2009, originally envis ‑
aged that the first FLEGT‑licenced 
products would be exported by the 
end of 2011. The wood ‑tracking system 
is already operational, but licensing 
procedures still need to be tested. Cur ‑
rently, the ambition of the country is to 
have the systems ready for licensing by 
the end of 2015.
48 
In Congo, which ratified its VPA in May 
2010, the forest strategy and new for ‑
estry law are being devised. Progress, 
however, has been slow due to a com ‑
bination of factors, mainly concerned 
with governance.
49 
Liberia and the EU entered into VPA 
negotiations in March 2009 and the 
VPA was signed in July 2011. Illegal 
logging nevertheless continues to be 
a major problem, as does the abuse of 
private use permits38. The main chal ‑
lenge is the weak capacity of the forest 
administration services.
50 
The VPA with the Central African 
Republic was concluded in Novem ‑
ber 2011, but civil war has stalled all 
government action. Many areas of the 
country lie outside the control of the 
forest administration services, thus 
hampering the VPA implementation 
process.51 
Another nine countries are currently 
negotiating VPAs. One of them, Malay ‑
sia, which is an important producer of 
tropical timber, was the first country 
to start negotiations in 2006. However, 
intensive negotiations over the years 
have not managed to overcome the 
difficulties of applying a VPA through ‑
out the whole country and in Sarawak 
in particular. In the absence of a VPA 
Malaysia makes extensive use of public 
and private certification schemes.
52 
While the Commission has managed 
to highlight the issue of illegal logging 
and to maintain considerable inter ‑
est in this subject, progress towards 
licensing has been slow. There is a dan ‑
ger of ‘FLEGT fatigue’ setting in, as 
countries become frustrated with the 
lack of progress and are able to find 
other less stringent markets for their 
products. In most countries, the main 
challenges in the implementation pro ‑
cess are a lack of institutional capacity, 
widespread corruption and poor law 
enforcement.38 See:  http://www.illegal‑  
logging.info/regions/liberia
22 Observations
Monitoring and reporting 
procedures were 
unsatisfactory
53 
The Commission did not report peri ‑
odically on the progress of the FLEGT 
action plan. Although, pursuant to 
Article 9 of the FLEGT regulation, it 
was required to submit a report to the 
Council within 2 years of the entry into 
force of the first VPA, no such report 
was ever prepared. Reports were avail ‑
able on individual partner countries, 
containing information on activities 
implemented in various VPA areas, 
but they did not measure the prog ‑
ress of VPA implementation against 
set milestones, nor did they describe 
achievements and the difficulties 
encountered, together with how they 
were dealt with.
54 
The lack of a framework, incorporating 
a robust database (see paragraph 22), 
which would facilitate accountability 
was problematic. Given the lack of 
objectives and milestones, assessing 
progress was difficult. As remarked 
in the EFI FLEGT action plan progress 
report 2003 ‑2010 this is made all the 
more difficult by the fact that the ac ‑
tion plan is more of a political process 
than a traditional aid programme39.55 
Only in late 2014 did the Commission 
introduce a standardised progress 
monitoring framework for measuring 
achievement of the key steps for VPA 
implementation. To date, it was for the 
Commission’s internal management 
purposes. As the system was intro ‑
duced only very recently, it is prema ‑
ture to comment on how it operates in 
practice.
56 
At the end of 2014, the Commission 
launched an external evaluation of 
the FLEGT action plan, with a report 
planned for October 2015. This evalu ‑
ation, taking place 12 years after the 
action plan was submitted, is long 
overdue, given the difficulties faced 
and the substantial developments over 
this period which should have been 
identified and analysed to assess their 
impact on the existing action plan. The 
following are examples.
(a) The increasing importance of ma ‑
jor Asian economies in the timber 
trade.
(b) The growing impact of the illegal 
conversion of forests for other 
purposes, such as agriculture.
(c) The possibilities for greater syner ‑
gies with the climate ‑change 
mitigation measure REDD+.
(d) The changing trends in timber 
exports to the EU.
(e) The possibility of making more use 
of private certification schemes.39 FLEGT action plan progress 
report 2003–2010, EFI (2011), 
p. 34.
23
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
57 
The Court concludes that the Commis ‑
sion did not manage sufficiently well 
the support provided under the EU 
FLEGT action plan.
58 
The FLEGT support was not sufficiently 
well designed and targeted.
(a) EU support to the FLEGT process 
was based on a sound assessment 
of the illegal logging problem, 
its drivers and possible measures 
to be taken, and the Commission 
conceived the FLEGT action plan in 
an innovative way.
(b) However, the Commission did not 
devise an appropriate work plan 
with clear objectives, milestones 
and a dedicated budget. While 
these would have been difficult 
to prepare at the very start of the 
action plan, they should have been 
established in its early years.
(c) The late adoption and slow imple ‑
mentation of the EUTR acted as 
disincentives for the VPA countries 
in their preparation for eventual 
FLEGT licensing.
(d) The void created by the absence of 
FLEGT licensing has been filled to 
a large extent by private certifi ‑
cation bodies, which contribute 
significantly to meeting the due 
diligence requirements of the 
EUTR. However, the Commission 
did not sufficiently explore the 
possible synergies between FLEGT 
and these private schemes.
(e) The Commission did not set clear 
funding priorities for its support to 
timber‑producing countries.Recommendation 1  
Work plan
The Commission should establish 
a work plan for the various compo ‑
nents of the FLEGT action plan for the 
period 2016 ‑2020, setting out clear and 
specific objectives, priorities, dead ‑
lines, and a budget for EU support 
in timber ‑producing countries. The 
objectives should take into account 
the capacities of countries and their 
specific limitations.
Recommendation 2  
Implementation of the 
EUTR
It is high time that the Commission 
insist on the strict implementation 
in all Member States of the timber 
regulation.
Recommendation 3  
Private certification 
schemes
The Commission should identify the 
extent to which more use can be made 
of the work done by reputable private 
certification bodies.
Recommendation 4  
Resource allocation
Resources should be allocated to 
where they are likely to have the 
greatest impact in tackling illegal log ‑
ging and the related trade. In cases 
where the implementation of the VPA 
requirements appears less feasible, the 
Commission should propose measures 
supporting forest governance, without 
necessarily signing a VPA.
24 Conclusions and recommendations
59 
EU support to timber‑producing coun ‑
tries was not sufficiently effective.
(a) It reinforced civil society and 
raised awareness of the illegal log ‑
ging problem in partner countries, 
but projects aiming to strengthen 
the capacity of public authorities 
did not produce the expected 
outcomes.
(b) The FLEGT licensing scheme, which 
was the cornerstone of the action 
plan, is not yet in operation in any 
of the partner countries. It has now 
been 12 years since the action plan 
was presented and, although inter ‑
est in the VPAs has been extensive, 
no FLEGT licensing system is yet in 
operation, and successive target 
dates for their introduction have 
been missed.
(c) The Commission did not properly 
monitor and report on the pro ‑
gress of the FLEGT action plan. The 
evaluation launched at the end of 
2014 was long overdue.Recommendation 5  
Reporting
The Commission should produce 
a report every 2 years on the progress 
of the FLEGT action plan. This should 
include an assessment of VPA im ‑
plementation, scheduled deadlines, 
difficulties encountered, and measures 
taken or planned.
Recommendation 6  
Evaluations
The Commission should use the cur ‑
rent evaluation as an opportunity 
to assess how the present approach 
could be modified to produce more 
tangible results.
This Report was adopted by Chamber III, headed by Mr Karel PINXTEN, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 8 September 2015.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President

25
 Annexes
Implementation of FLEGT, forest governance and trade‑related programmes 
from 2003 ‑2013
(million euro)
Region/CountryVPAs Management modes
Total Signed
(year)Interest1 Ongoing  
negotiations3Implementation  
by Member 
StatesJoint  
 management  
with  
international 
organisationsOther  
(implementa -
tion by  
partner coun -
tries, NGOs, pub -
lic and private 
companies)
Sub-Saharan Africa 74.89
Multi-country214.92 14.92
Cameroon 2010 13.66 13.66
Liberia 2011 8.00 3.90 11.90
Ghana 2009 3.00 3.00
Burkina Faso 7. 8 0 0.20 8.00
Congo  2010 7. 56 7. 56
Central African Rep. 2011 6.80 6.80
Dem. Rep. of the Congo X 3.00 2.18 5.18
Uganda 2.75 2.75
Madagascar 0.68 0.68
Gabon  X 0.20 0.20
Sudan 0.19 0.19
Malawi 0.05 0.05
Latin America 90.21
Multi-country23.93 3.93
Honduras   X 20.40 21.73 42.13
Brazil 10.79 12.74 23.53
Nicaragua  2.00 6.06 8.06
Colombia X 8.05 8.05
Peru  X 4.03 4.03
Guyana X 0.45 0.45
Chile 0.04 0.04Annex I
26 Annexes Annex I(million euro)
Region/CountryVPAs Management modes
Total Signed
(year)Interest1 Ongoing  
negotiations3Implementation  
by Member 
StatesJoint  
 management  
with  
international 
organisationsOther  
(implementa -
tion by  
partner coun -
tries, NGOs, pub -
lic and private 
companies)
Asia and the Pacific 43.37
Multi-country210.60 1.91 12.51
Indonesia 2011 21.95 21.95
China 3.84 3.84
Philippines  X 1.92 1.92
Afghanistan 1.88 1.88
Thailand 0.61 0.61
Myanmar/Burma X 0.45 0.45
Solomon Islands X 0.18 0.18
Malaysia X
Vietnam X 0.03 0.03
Neighbourhood 25.04
Multi-country215.00 15.00
Morocco 5.63 5.63
Kosovo 2.70 0.41 3.11
Montenegro 0.75 0.75
Lebanon 0.33 0.33
Albania 0.10 0.10
Georgia 0.09 0.09
Belarus  0.03 0.03
Two regions or more 63.65
Multi-country239.60 24.05 63.65
TOTAL 33.10 86.79 177. 28 297.17
1  Six other countries expressed their interest (Bolivia, Cambodia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Papua New Guinea and Sierra Leone) , but there has been 
no financial commitment yet.
2  Multi ‑country projects include: ( for Asia and the Pacific ) agreements with the European Forest Institute for a total of 10.6 million euro (FLEGT 
Asia); and ( for the neighbourhood region ) agreements with the World Bank totalling 15 million euro (FLEGT).  
As regards multi ‑country projects covering more than two regions , main programmes include agreements for 12 million euro with the EFI 
and agreements for 20 million euro with the FAO (FLEGT ACP: 10 million euro and EU FAO FLEGT: 10 million euro).
3  Negotiations are ongoing for three further countries for which there has been no financial commitment yet — Côte d’Ivoire, Laos and 
Thailand. 
Source:  European Court of Auditors on the basis of information provided from DG International Cooperation and Development.
27 Annexes
List of projects audited
Country Project titleEU contribution 
(euro)Implementation 
period
CameroonMise en place d’un Observateur Indépendant au contrôle forestier et au suivi 
des infractions forestières au Cameroun2 480 070 31.12.2009-30.12.2013
Mise en place d’un système de traçabilité du bois au Cameroun 2 496 763 15.2.2010-14.12.2012
Mise en place d’un Audit Indépendant du Système FLEGT au Cameroun 1 164 600 4.5.2012-3.5.2014
Promotion de la production et de l’exportation légales des bois issus des 
forêts communautaires987 139 1.2.2011-31.1.2012
Observation externe et communautaire des forêts dans la mise en œuvre de 
l’APV‑FLEGT au Cameroun113 836 19.1.2012-18.7.2013
IndonesiaEC-Indonesia FLEGT Support Project 11 276 872 1.3.2006-28.11.2011
Collaborative land use planning and sustainable institutional arrange -
ment for strengthening land tenure, forest and community rights in 
Indonesia1 796 619 1.3.2010-28.2.2014
Strengthening state and non -state actors in the preparation, negotiation 
and/or implementation of FLEGT -VPA1 189 228 10.1.2011-31.12.2015
Strengthening Indonesia’s Independent Forestry Monitoring Network to 
ensure a credible timber legality verification system and effective VPA 
implementation188 946 1.5.2011-30.4.2013
Promoting the implementation of timber legality assurance (FLEGT 
licence) as a key step to sustainable production and consumption in 
Indonesia’s wood -processing industry1 091 463 30.1.2013-28.2.2014Annex II
28 Annexes
List of project evaluations and ROMs reviewed
Evaluations
Project titleEU contribu -
tion (euro)CountryEvaluation date 
and typeMain findings of the report
1Regional Support Programme for the 
EU FLEGT action plan in Asia5 800  000
HeadquartersDecember 2010  
midterm οWeak project design: objectives, project 
activities, expected results and milestones 
insufficiently specific.
 οNo clear performance monitoring system, 
resulting in poor efficiency and limited 
accountability.
2VERIFOR — Institutional Options for 
Verifying Legality in the Forest Sector1 902 171November 2009  
final οLack of flexibility of the project to adapt 
or accommodate its logical framework 
(LFA) to the dynamics of certain regions 
in Asia and Africa, thereby reducing its 
effectiveness.
3Timber trade action plan (TTAP) — 
a TFT (Tropical Forest Fund) project3 389 796May 2012  
final for 1st phase 
and midterm for 
2nd phase οVery positive overall project performance.
4Ensuring a seat at the table: support -
ing NGO coalitions to participate in 
FLEGT VPA processes with the aim 
of improving forest governance and 
strengthening local and indigenous 
peoples’ rights960 000June 2012  
final οVery positive overall project performance.
5Forest Governance Learning Group 
(FGLG) — enabling practical, just 
and sustainable forest use1 866 365January 2014  
final οLack of systematic needs assessment and 
insufficiently specific project logframe, 
with no properly defined country level 
indicators.
 οProject -supported actions insufficient to 
achieve the intended level of governance 
improvement.
6Mise en place d’un système de traça ‑
bilité du bois au Cameroun2 496 763
CameroonMay 2013  
final οWeak project design: country risks and 
constraints not properly taken into 
account.
 οInsufficient coordination among 
stakeholders.
 οIneffective monitoring and project 
management.
 οOutputs not delivered as expected.
7Promotion de la production et de 
l’exportation légales des bois issus des 
forêts communautaires987 139December 2012  
midterm οConstraints insufficiently assessed and 
anticipated.
 οProject design not sufficiently realistic.
8Strengthening African Forest Govern -
ance — through high -level national 
‘illegal logging’ meetings and  
mid -level awareness raising and 
training1 890 608May 2013  
midterm οNo proper logical framework with objec -
tively verifiable indicators.
 οDeficiencies in project monitoring: lack of 
regular steering committee meetings.
 οCoordination problems leading to an 
absence of linkages between the various 
project outputs.Annex III
29 Annexes
Project titleEU contribu -
tion (euro)CountryEvaluation date 
and typeMain findings of the report
9 EC-Indonesia FLEGT support project 11 276 872 IndonesiaSept 2010  
final οInappropriate and unrealistic project 
design.
 οIneffective project monitoring and 
supervision.
 οMost outputs not delivered as planned.
10Observation Indépendante de 
l’application de la Loi Forestière et de 
la Gouvernance (OI‑FLEG) en appui aux 
APV FLEGT dans le Bassin du Congo1 598 497 CongoMarch 2012  
midterm οSome weaknesses in the logical frame -
work, notably in the definition of objec -
tively verifiable indicators.
 οDeficiencies in project monitoring: lack of 
regular steering committee meetings.Annex III
30 Annexes
ROM reports
Project titleEU contribu -
tion to the 
programme 
(EUR)Country ROM Date Main findings of the report
11Forest Peoples Programme: A Strong 
Seat at the Table: Effective Participa -
tion of Forest -Dependent Communi -
ties and Civil Society Organisations 
in FLEGT778 271
CameroonMarch 2013 οLogframe not properly elaborated, making 
it difficult to assess the outputs delivered.
 οPartners not properly involved in the 
project design.
 οLimited coordination with other FLEGT 
projects and national actors.
 οLimited monitoring efforts.
12Promotion de la production et de 
l’exportation légales des bois issus des 
forêts communautaires987 139 March 2013 οWeak logframe, with insufficiently specific 
objectives and indicators.
 οNo sufficient risk analysis.
 οWeak monitoring of activities.
 οDelays in implementation.
 οLack of flexible/viable exit strategy.
13Strengthening African Forest 
Governance — through high -level 
national ‘Illegal logging’ meetings 
and mid -level awareness raising and 
training1 890 608 June 2013 οWeak logframe, and poorly designed 
objectives, outputs and indicators.
 οWeak coordination among stakeholders.
 οLow quality of outputs and uncertain 
sustainability.
14Capacity building in the Congo Basin 
and implementation of Independent 
Monitoring of Forest Law Enforce -
ment and Governance (IM -FLEG) in 
the Republic of the Congo1 636  366
CongoApril 2009 οIndicators not always quantifiable.
 οProject dependent on external funding and 
does not create revenue for itself.
 οUnlikely that institutional structure will 
remain without outside intervention.
15Observation Indépendante de 
l’application de la Loi Forestière et de 
la Gouvernance (OI‑FLEG) en appui aux 
APV FLEGT dans le Bassin du Congo1 438 647 December 2012 οIndicators not specific and difficult to 
measure.
 οNo steering committee meetings have 
taken place, despite being planned.
 οSustainability dependent on continued 
donor funding.
16Vulgarisation de l’APV/FLEGT pour une 
appropriation et participation des pop ‑
ulations locales dont les populations 
autochtones dans sa mise en œuvre180 000 December 2012 οWeak logframe, some indicators not 
measurable.
 οStakeholders not properly involved in the 
project design.
 οNo steering committee meetings have 
taken place, despite being planned.
 οSustainability problems: VPA process is still 
ongoing, level of partners’ and other stake -
holders’ technical training insufficient.Annex III
31 Annexes
Project titleEU contribu -
tion to the 
programme 
(EUR)Country ROM Date Main findings of the report
17Governance initiative for rights & 
accountability in forest management 
(GIRAF)865 767
GhanaJuly 2011 οWeak logframe.
 οVague risks and assumptions.
 οWeak coordination between partners.
 οNo supporting policy environment.
 οInefficient implementation of some 
activities.
 οSustainability not integral in project design
18Supporting the integration of legal 
and legitimate domestic timber 
markets into voluntary partnership 
agreements1 999 265 June 2013 οIndicators not always measurable, moni -
toring and measuring results are difficult.
19Pioneering a  new way to conserve 
rainforest: from illegal logging to 
good governance2 560 516
IndonesiaNovember 2011 οIndicators not sufficiently well developed
 οComplexity and number of actors involved. 
underestimated by project implementers.
 οWeak embedding in local institutional 
structures.
20Improving governance of forest re -
sources and reducing illegal logging 
and associated trade with full civil 
society participation in SE Asia1 645 901 September 2007  οIndicators should be more realistic.
21Collaborative land use planning and 
sustainable institutional arrange -
ment for strengthening land tenure, 
forest and community rights in 
Indonesia1 796 619 November 2012 οIndicators lack required detail.
 οWeaknesses in reporting on progress.
 οNo sound exit strategy.
22Strengthening state and non -state 
actors in the preparation, negotiation 
and/or implementation of FLEGT -VPA1 189 228 December 2013 οInadequate indicators.
 οInsufficient coordination: lack of steering 
committee meetings, limited collaboration 
between partners.
 οDelays in implementation.Annex III
32 Annexes
Project titleEU contribu -
tion to the 
programme 
(EUR)Country ROM Date Main findings of the report
23Strengthening Forest Management in 
Post -Conflict Liberia1 616  448
LiberiaJune 2012 οLack of clarity and realism in logframe.
 οLack of monitoring and evaluation tools 
in design.
 οMany beneficiaries not involved in design 
process.
 οCommunication problems between EUD 
and implementing partner.
 οNo sustainability strategy.
24Civil Society Independent Monitor -
ing of Forest Law Enforcement and 
Governance (CSIMFLEG) in Liberia150 000 May 2013 οWeaknesses in logframe: indicators not 
well -defined, unrealistic time frame.
 οPoor beneficiaries and private sector not 
involved in design.
 οWeak monitoring, no project steering com -
mittee involving all stakeholders.
 οNo phasing -out strategy in work plan
 οWeak policy framework.
25Improving forest governance through 
civil society monitoring129 852 May 2013 οLogframe lacks clarity, indicators not smart
 οRural poor and private sector not involved 
in design process.
 οMany outputs seriously late, some not 
delivered.
 οCommunication problems between EUD 
and implementing partner.
 οNo exit strategy.Annex III
33 Annexes
Transparency International  — Corruption perception index 2007 ‑2013
Country2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
CPI
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
Cameroon 2.4 138 2.3 141 2.2 146 2.2 146 2.5 134 2.6 144 2.5 144
Liberia 2.1 150 2.4 138 3.1 97 3.3 87 3.2 91 4.1 75 3.8 83
Ghana 3.7 69 3.9 67 3.9 69 4.1 62 3.9 69 4.5 64 4.6 63
Congo 2.1 150 1.9 158 1.9 162 2.1 154 2.2 154 2.6 144 2.2 154
Central African 
Republic2.0 162 2.0 151 2.0 158 2.1 154 2.2 154 2.6 144 2.5 144
Democratic Republic of 
the Congo1.9 168 1.7 171 1.9 162 2.0 164 2 168 2.1 160 2.2 154
Gabon 3.3 84 3.1 96 2.9 106 2.8 110 3 100 3.5 102 3.4 106
Honduras 2.5 131 2.6 126 2.5 130 2.4 134 2.6 129 2.8 133 2.6 140
Guyana 2.6 123 2.6 126 2.6 126 2.7 116 2.5 134 2.8 133 2.7 136
Indonesia 2.3 143 2.6 126 2.8 111 2.8 110 3 100 3.2 118 3.2 114
Malaysia 5.1 43 5.1 47 4.5 56 4.4 56 4.3 60 4.9 54 5.0 50
Vietnam 2.6 123 2.7 121 2.7 120 2.7 116 2.9 112 3.1 123 3.1 116
The Corruption perception index (CPI) measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (very 
clean). The 2013 rankings included an assessment of 177 countries.Annex IV
34
The Commission also highlights that FLEGT is a joint 
undertaking by the Commission, Member States 
and partner countries. This should be taken into 
account, inter alia when assessing the allocation of 
resources. The Commission resources alone should 
not be expected to address all forest governance 
and law enforcement issues.
IV
The Commission disagrees with part of the Court’s 
observation. 
The innovative nature of the FLEGT action plan, 
the diversity of policy, regulatory and develop ‑
ment cooperation measures and the multiplicity of 
actors and partners are difficult to frame in a single 
work plan with clear milestones and deadlines and 
a dedicated budget. Nevertheless, many of the 
FLEGT measures, such as the VPAs or the projects 
have their own detailed implementation plan. 
Assistance was granted in accordance with clear 
criteria, although using a unique set of criteria for 
all interventions was impossible in the absence 
of a unified dedicated budget and financing 
instrument.
The Commission does not share the Court’s view 
that there was late adoption of the EUTR. The EUTR 
was not mentioned in the action plan, which only 
refers to exploring ‘the feasibility of legislation to 
control imports of illegally harvested timber into 
the EU’. The regulation was only proposed after 
an extensive exercise in which means of address ‑
ing illegal logging using existing legislation were 
examined. The legislation was adopted and entered 
into force on 20 October 2010, and became appli ‑
cable in March 2013. Upon entry of the EUTR into 
application the Commission took action to ensure 
full implementation of the legislation.Executive summary
I
EU leadership in global efforts to tackle illegal log ‑
ging is widely recognised. The EU and 28 Mem ‑
ber States have been working with more than 40 
producer countries and several consumer countries 
around the world to implement FLEGT ‑related 
measures.
II
It should be emphasised that the FLEGT commu ‑
nication responded to a strong call for joint action 
by the Commission, Member States and producer 
countries. The FLEGT action plan is a policy frame ‑
work that was successful in mobilising political 
attention for the issue of illegal logging, policy and 
regulatory measures and governance support by 
the EU, Member States and a number of partner 
countries. It is important to take into account that 
FLEGT is not a funded cooperation programme with 
a dedicated financing mechanism.
The FLEGT action plan ‘sets out a process and 
a package of measures’ across different compo ‑
nents and relies mainly on policy and regulatory 
measures, complemented by traditional develop ‑
ment cooperation support to achieve its objectives. 
III
The Commission does not share the Court’s con ‑
clusion that the support provided under the EU 
FLEGT action plan to timber ‑producing countries 
was not sufficiently well managed. The Commission 
has endeavoured to manage the FLEGT support to 
producing countries as well as possible, taking into 
account the challenges of addressing illegal logging 
globally, the complexity of promoting good for ‑
est governance and law enforcement in a diversity 
of developing countries, as well as the innovative 
nature of FLEGT. The Commission will pursue its 
efforts to improve efficiency, effectiveness and 
economy. It will draw from the Court’s Special 
Report as well as the ongoing FLEGT action plan 
evaluation, which has been able to examine a wide 
range of programmes, projects and measures. Reply of the  
Commission
Reply of the Commission 35
Box 1
The action plan did not include the EU timber regu ‑
lation, but only a commitment to analyse options 
and the feasibility of legislation to control imports 
of illegal timber in the EU.
Box 2
Box 2 reflects the initial thinking of the EU and 
Member States on VPAs; this concept has been the 
subject of in ‑depth discussions between the Com ‑
mission and Member States in 2004 ‑2005, and has 
significantly evolved. This led to the Council direc ‑
tives for the VPA negotiations at the end of 2005.
Each VPA has evolved further through the negotia ‑
tions with partner countries, reflecting the particu ‑
lar context and aspirations of the country.
While the VPA with Indonesia is generally similar to 
the one described in the action plan, the other VPA 
countries have opted for a model that relies mainly 
on public administrations for the legality verifica ‑
tion, rather than on independent bodies accredited 
by the State.
06
As FLEGT is a joint undertaking of the Commis ‑
sion and Member States, the Commission’s sup ‑
port should not be evaluated in isolation from EU 
Member States’ support. Coordination of Commis ‑
sion and Member State support has been ensured 
by the FLEGT ad hoc  group and, at national level, 
by the joint implementation committees and EU 
delegations.
08
It is important to reflect the diversity of actors 
involved in the implementation of FLEGT. Activities 
related to FLEGT are implemented by the Commis ‑
sion, Member States and partner countries. 
Member States play a central role in the implemen ‑
tation of the EUTR and FLEGT regulations, through 
their competent authorities, in public procurement 
policies, in policies on financing and investments, 
and in the support to producer countries. V
The Commission wishes to highlight the following 
issues. Firstly, developing an operational FLEGT 
legality assurance and licensing system requires 
much more than effective projects. Secondly, 
although 12 years have passed since the adop ‑
tion of the FLEGT action plan, the time which 
has elapsed since the conclusion of the six VPAs 
in implementation varies between 1.5 and 4.5 
years ‑ this is a relatively short time to implement 
the ambitious systems and governance reforms 
which the VPA entail, particularly if the challenging 
governance environments of many of our partner 
countries are taken into consideration. As recog ‑
nised in paragraph 45 of the Court’s report, licens ‑
ing systems have been established in Indonesia and 
Ghana and rolled out to the whole country. They 
have both undergone an evaluation and are being 
improved on the basis of the findings and recom ‑
mendations of these evaluations. VPAs set high 
standards for the legality assurance systems, which 
need to be met before FLEGT licensing can start 
Introduction
02
In many cases, a complex and diverse set of laws 
and regulations, often with internal contradictions 
and loopholes, govern the forest sector and con ‑
tribute to legal uncertainty for the forest industry 
and forest ‑dependent people. Defining what is 
legal or illegal requires an in ‑depth review of the 
existing legislation.
04
The design and development of two regulations 
(the FLEGT regulation and the EUTR) and trade 
agreements (the VPAs) are major achievements 
which deserve to be recognised. They absorbed 
a large share of Commission time and resources 
between 2004 and 2010. 
Reply of the Commission 36
21
European Commission (EC) action plans often do 
not spell out budgets (see various EC action plans: 
e.g. European e ‑government action plan; action 
plan on human rights and democracy).
As for development cooperation, the Commission 
has implemented what was foreseen under sec ‑
tion 4.1 of the action plan: a consolidated budget 
was not envisaged and the Commission strived to 
integrate FLEGT in various geographic and the ‑
matic instruments. The Commission is develop ‑
ing a ‘FLEGT flagship’ under the DCI Global public 
goods and challenges (GPGC) with the intent to 
enhance the coherence, complementarity and 
coordination of various EC projects in support of 
producer countries. 
22
Identifying all forest or FLEGT projects was chal ‑
lenging since EU FLEGT actions are funded through 
multiple instruments and are sometimes main ‑
streamed into programmes covering sectors other 
than forests (e.g. trade, sustainable consumption 
and production etc.). This means that there is no 
unique FLEGT ‘tag’ allowing a simple search in the 
Commission information system. Nevertheless, 
the Commission had made an attempt to develop 
a database aimed at compiling forest ‑related pro ‑
jects financed by the EU over the period 2000 ‑2012, 
which was shared with the Court, signalling that 
this was a work in progress and was to be refined. 
The Commission has updated the database to inte ‑
grate contracts signed after 2012. In the framework 
of the ongoing FLEGT AP evaluation, a new exercise 
to compile all FLEGT projects financed by the Com ‑
mission and Member States has been launched. It should also be recognised that activities related 
to FLEGT are also implemented by producing coun ‑
tries, the private sector and civil society.
Observations
17
The Commission pursued the bilateral option but 
also the ‘prohibition’ option, which led to the adop ‑
tion of the EU timber regulation. The Commission 
has also continuously engaged with international 
partners in order to promote multilateral responses 
to the problem of illegal logging.
19
The Commission recognises that the FLEGT action 
plan is a policy framework that defines a general 
approach, general objectives, and outlines a suite of 
possible policy and regulatory measures and other 
actions by the EU, Member States and various stake ‑
holders. It was conceived as the EU response to the 
‘Programme of action’ on forests and illegal logging 
adopted by the G8 in 1998. 
20
The Commission recognises the need to develop 
more specific objectives, milestones and a common 
roadmap, as well as the need to more systematically 
monitor FLEGT AP implementation. The recom ‑
mendations of the ongoing evaluation will certainly 
help in this effort. However, the absence of a more 
specific plan reflects the difficulty of establishing 
specific goals, targets and a timeframe for a policy 
that combines a broad range of policy, regulatory 
and financial/technical assistance measures by 
a broad range of countries and actors. The Commis ‑
sion would like to highlight the fact that detailed 
implementation plans have been developed for 
various elements of the action plan — it is the case, 
for example, for all the VPAs and for all projects and 
instruments to support producer countries.
Reply of the Commission 37
25
The adoption of the EUTR passed a clear signal on 
the EU’s strong commitment to complement the 
arsenal of measures already put in place and to 
tackle illegal logging ‘at home’. The Commission 
commenced preparations for a legislative proposal 
already in 2007 and put forward a legislative pro ‑
posal in 2008. Imposing new obligations on several 
economic sectors requires a considerable amount 
of preparatory work by the Commission. The 
number of countries engaged in the VPA process 
demonstrated that there was no lack of incentive in 
the early stages of FLEGT to engage in a VPA.
Regarding the state of play of implementation of 
the EUTR, it should be noted that the regulation has 
only been enforceable since March 2013 — it is still 
relatively new. The vast majority of Member States 
(24 out of 28) have put in place the measures to 
implement the EUTR and are carrying out checks on 
operators as required by the EUTR. The Commission 
prepared appropriate measures upon the entry of 
the EUTR into application. Possible measures were 
identified and listed in a compliance assurance 
strategy with clear timeline and resource alloca ‑
tion. As a result of the measures taken, a number 
of Member States accelerated the implementation 
process and reported full compliance.
The Commission recognises the crucial importance 
of the effective implementation of EUTR by all 
Member States and will continue to play its role in 
order to achieve this objective. 
26
As envisaged in the FLEGT AP , the Commission has 
explored means to create synergies with existing 
public or private certification schemes and con ‑
tinues to engage with VPA partner countries and 
certification schemes in this respect (e.g. the EC 
guidance documents for VPA negotiations owe 
their inspiration to the work of these schemes and 
deliberately included an option for operator based 
schemes — as is enshrined in the Indonesia VPA; 
a number of studies have been performed, a spe ‑
cific guidance note was developed and a session 
was dedicated to this topic during the 2015 FLEGT 23
Russia and China export significant quantities 
of timber products to the EU and decided not to 
engage in VPAs with the EU. With those countries, 
the EC therefore opted for establishing bilateral 
dialogues on illegal logging.
India, South Korea and Japan are major consumer 
markets and the Commission has an environment 
bilateral dialogue with them that includes timber 
trade.
The Commission does not share the view that the 
bilateral discussions with major producing, process ‑
ing and/or trading countries have produced gener ‑
ally limited results to date. It is generally recognised 
that the EU FLEGT action plan has inspired other 
major countries to adopt demand ‑side measures 
(e.g. the Australian illegal logging prohibition act; 
revised US Lacey Act; Swiss legislation; Japan). 
24
The action plan included a commitment to ‘under ‑
take an analysis of the options for and the impact of 
further measures, including, in the absence of multi ‑
lateral progress, the feasibility of legislation to con ‑
trol imports’ of illegal timber. The Commission had 
to assess the added value and potential impacts of 
these options and to ensure that any further regula ‑
tion enjoyed enough support from stakeholders. 
At the start of the action plan, the only demand for 
further legislation was from NGOs. The private sec ‑
tor focused on voluntary measures such as certifica ‑
tion, codes of conduct, etc. It was only when these 
measures were proven to be insufficient that the 
private sector started to support it and eventually 
called for further legislation (see 2006 petition from 
private sector to the Commission). It was therefore 
only in 2007, as stated in paragraph 24, that the 
Commission considered that there was enough sup ‑
port to start the study.
Reply of the Commission 38
represent 80 % of EU tropical timber imports (2.45 
billion euro per year) and 75 % of the global exports 
of tropical timber. China, which is primarily a pro ‑
cessing country, is covered by a specific bilateral 
cooperation mechanism (BCM) on FLEGT with the 
EU. 
29
The Commission recognises the need to allocate 
resources where they are likely to give the best 
results and will continue its efforts to achieve this 
goal.
Human resources were allocated to key measures 
of FLEGT, namely the VPAs, development coopera ‑
tion support and the EUTR. The largest share of the 
human resources have been allocated to VPA coun ‑
tries as well as to China. The Commission recognises 
that VPAs have possibly absorbed an excessive 
share of human resources allocated to FLEGT — 
possibly at the expense of other FLEGT measures.
Regarding financial resources, the absence of 
a central FLEGT fund — and hence the need to 
seek funding opportunities in existing geographic 
and thematic instruments — prevent the use of 
a unique set of criteria to allocate resources. The 
allocation of geographic funds is the result of a dia ‑
logue between the Commission and the partner 
country. Finally, the targeting of EU support should 
not be assessed in isolation from MS support. 
Most of EU FLEGT ‑related support has gone to coun ‑
tries with; (1) a high prevalence of illegal logging, (2) 
a strong commitment to fighting this problem with 
high priority to countries engaged in VPA processes, 
(3) strong development and capacity needs, (4) high 
forest cover and/or high deforestation rates, as well 
as/or (5) a forest sector contributing significantly to 
the GDP and exports.
In total, the largest share of EU support has been 
targeted to VPA countries and some strategic 
countries having expressed interest in FLEGT such 
as Colombia, the Philippines and Peru. This also 
applies to the global multi ‑country projects/instru ‑
ments. Besides VPA countries, countries that are 
strategic in the fight against illegal logging, such as 
Brazil, China and Eastern neighbourhood countries, 
have received a significant share of the financial 
resources, supported by a political dialogue with 
these countries. The large amounts allocated to week. A number of projects financed by the EU and 
Member States have promoted private certification 
in developing countries. In Indonesia the timber 
trade action plan (TTAP) — a major EU ‑funded 
action, coupled with voluntary certifications (nota ‑
bly the Forest Stewardship Council — FSC and Indo ‑
nesia Ecolabel Institute — LEI certification) resulted 
in the SVLK system and standard. 
Four of the six concluded VPA countries foresee 
the recognition of private certification schemes as 
part of their licensing schemes (Cameroon, Congo, 
Liberia and the Central African Republic) and the 
Commission is supporting work to operationalise 
this recognition. In addition, the Indonesian system 
is an ‘operator ‑based ‑system’ that leaves consid ‑
erable scope for recognising a variety of existing 
systems used by operators. It is up to partner coun ‑
tries, not to the Commission, to decide whether to 
include private schemes in the agreement. Ghana is 
the only country with a concluded VPA that has not 
made this choice, for a variety of reasons.
It would also be fair to recognise the limitations of 
private certification schemes which cover individual 
operators and small portions of territory while 
FLEGT licensing schemes cover the whole national 
territory.
28
The FLEGT action plan identifies four key regions 
and countries recognised as most exposed to illegal 
logging and deforestation: Central Africa, Russia, 
tropical South America and South East Asia. From 
the beginning, the Commission and Member States 
prioritised countries in these regions as follows: an 
important forest industry, significant timber exports 
and trade links with the EU, significant problems of 
illegal logging recognised by the authorities, and 
a strong interest for the FLEGT licensing scheme. 
VPA negotiations were only opened after thorough 
in‑country information and stakeholders consulta ‑
tions confirmed the country’s interest and after an 
official request from the Government to the Com ‑
mission. Currently, 15 countries are engaged in VPA 
negotiation or implementation. A number of other 
countries have expressed interest and have ben ‑
efited from some limited activities. The FLEGT inde ‑
pendent market monitoring baseline report shows 
that the VPA process has achieved a very high level 
of coverage in supply of tropical timber, both to the 
global market and to the EU. The 15 VPA countries 
Reply of the Commission 39
The Central African Republic (CF) is also host to 
large areas of forests, which are highly threatened 
by illegal logging. The forest sector in CAR is the 
second source of employment as well as the second 
contributor to the national GDP , therefore central to 
the country’s development. The strengthening of 
the sector has been important following the politi ‑
cal and humanitarian crisis which struck the country 
in early 2013. The VPA process and systems provide 
the framework to initiate reforms and help the 
sector to gain credibility for exports. If the country 
stabilises, the development of an operational licens ‑
ing system could be relatively quick, considering 
that the export industry is concentrated on a few 
large operators, which all have operational wood ‑
tracking systems. The Commission considers that 
the severe capacity and resources constraints the 
country is facing justify the 6.7 million euro support 
offered to CAR.
Côte d’Ivoire decided to enter the VPA negotia ‑
tion in December 2012. To a large extent, the civil 
war that affected the country in previous years 
prevented FLEGT ‑related support, with the nota ‑
ble exception of technical and financial assistance 
provided by the FAO FLEGT programme and the EU 
FLEGT Facility to prepare the negotiations. Negotia ‑
tions are ongoing and receive adequate financial 
and human ‑resources support through the FAO 
FLEGT programme, the EU FLEGT facility, GIZ techni ‑
cal assistance to the Ministry of Forestry, a FLEGT 
facilitator financed by DFID and broader support to 
the forest sector provided by AFD.
32
The VPA is a trade agreement, not a financing 
agreement. Development assistance being gov ‑
erned by different legal instruments, the Com ‑
mission deliberately avoided specifying financial 
amounts and commitments in the VPA, which 
clearly refers to existing aid instruments — and the 
standard programming procedures that govern 
them — to commit development assistance.Morocco and Honduras result from the choice of 
these countries to select forest as a focal sector.
Among these countries, middle income coun ‑
tries, which have progressively ‘graduated’ out of 
development cooperation receive relatively lower 
amounts (e.g. Gabon, Thailand, Vietnam).
Where possible, the Commission has successfully 
mobilised other funds to provide support to other 
countries that are strategic in the fight against ille ‑
gal logging, such as the neighbourhood instrument. 
30
The Commission has allocated resources to a rela ‑
tively large number of countries. This is partly 
related to the large number of countries where 
illegal logging prevails and which have expressed 
an interest in FLEGT/VPAs and therefore, a meas ‑
ure of the general interest in the FLEGT initiative. 
The Commission is exploring ways to tackle this 
problem in the future and find the right balance 
between the — sometimes conflicting — objec ‑
tives of achieving broad coverage, responding to 
countries’ interest, and effectively managing limited 
resources.
Box 3  
Liberia is host to most of the remaining primary 
forests in western Africa, which are highly threat ‑
ened by illegal logging. Illegal logging has fuelled 
the civil war, a reason why the forest govern ‑
ance reform is high on the agenda of the Liberian 
Government. The Liberian government has dem ‑
onstrated a strong commitment to tackling these 
issues, despite very limited resources. Liberia is one 
of the six countries with a VPA in implementation 
and has decided to prioritise FLEGT in its country 
MIP . In addition, Liberia has decided to include all 
export markets in its FLEGT licensing scheme. As 
such, the VPA can have a significant impact, despite 
the limited volumes exported to the EU. Liberia has 
established an operational wood ‑tracking system 
(Liberfor) and is making steady progress in the 
development of its licensing scheme. The above 
and the severe capacity constraints the country 
is facing justify the significant financial resources 
allocated by the EC to support the process.
Reply of the Commission 40
34
The Commission has strived to integrate FLEGT 
support in the country programmes whenever pos ‑
sible. However there are inherent challenges in this 
endeavour.
— Most country programmes 2007 ‑2013 were 
agreed before the beginning of the VPA negoti ‑
ation, and a fortiori, the VPA conclusion. Despite 
this, the country programmes 2007 ‑2013 of 
most of the countries with a VPA in implemen ‑
tation include FLEGT support: it is certainly 
the case for Indonesia, Cameroon, Liberia and 
Congo.
— The forest sector and FLEGT had to compete 
with other priority sectors and pressing needs.
— It is not easy to assess the future needs at the 
time of starting VPA negotiations. Support 
needs during the negotiation phase are gener ‑
ally well covered by the global instruments (EFI, 
FAO). 
In several countries, Member States have foreseen 
FLEGT/forest support such as the UK through DFID 
(Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia, Guyana) or Germany 
through GIZ (Cameroon, Laos, Côte d’Ivoire). 
Most MIPs for 2014 ‑2020 in VPA countries do include 
FLEGT under one of the focal sectors.
The Commission recognises however that FLEGT 
support could be more systematically foreseen 
under the MIP of VPA countries.33
The VPAs and support projects support forest law 
enforcement by clarifying and promoting consist ‑
ency of forest legislation, increasing stakeholders’ 
knowledge of applicable laws (thereby prevent ‑
ing violations), strengthening the systems and 
capacities to ensure wood ‑tracking and controls of 
operators along the supply chains (and thereby to 
detect violations of the law), promoting stakeholder 
participation and providing a political space where 
governance and law ‑enforcement issues can be 
discussed, reducing the potential for corruption, 
establishing a system of independent audit, ena ‑
bling external scrutiny of law enforcement, promot ‑
ing public disclosure of information and independ ‑
ent forest monitoring to detect violations and to 
achieve better transparency in the sector, etc.
In many partner countries, the ministry of forestry 
or equivalent has the mandate to ensure forest law 
enforcement. Many FLEGT support projects aim at 
strengthening and equipping these institutions. In 
several countries, such as Indonesia and Cameroon, 
there has been long ‑standing forest sector support 
financed by Member States. 
Broader support to law enforcement agencies, such 
as the police, probably goes beyond what can be 
achieved under FLEGT. In several countries, it is 
covered by the broader support to governance pro ‑
vided under the MIP or by Member State support. 
Although it is expected that FLEGT support con ‑
tributes to better law enforcement, one cannot 
reasonably expect EC FLEGT support to cover all 
the needs in this area and to have an impact on the 
Corruption perception index after a few years of 
implementation.
Reply of the Commission 41
39
This project has been subject to standard ROM and 
midterm evaluation procedures and has been the 
subject of very close monitoring by the EU delega ‑
tion through regular field visits to the different pro ‑
ject sites and very frequent meetings with all actors 
concerned. The Commission also notes that the 
project final evaluation concluded that the project 
actually achieved some results.
40
The Commission would like to clarify that the 
FLEGT support project was implemented between 
2006 and 2009 and that resources have been 
allocated to the Government of Indonesia for the 
forestry sector in 2012 (project ‘Support to Indone ‑
sia’s response to climate change’, implemented by 
the Ministry of Forestry). Indonesia also continues 
to benefit from significant assistance through EU 
FLEGT and FAO FLEGT to date. It would also be fair 
to recognise that the UK has continued to provide 
significant FLEGT ‑related investments throughout 
the period.
41
Support to the Government of Indonesia in the 
forestry sector has been provided through several 
projects after 2004 (e.g. South Sumatra forest fire 
management project, FLEGT support project, sup ‑
port to Indonesia’s response to climate change); 
and here again, the continued support provided by 
EFI and to a lesser extent by FAO FLEGT needs to be 
taken into account. 
It is important to remember that support to FLEGT 
in Indonesia is provided by the Commission and the 
Member States. The Commission is of the opinion 
that this joint support has been coherent with the 
needs of and has targeted the different groups of 
stakeholders in a complementary way.36
The Commission disagrees that all projects aimed 
at strengthening the capacity of public authori ‑
ties were not effective. The VPA seeks to address 
broader challenges. Its implementation relies on 
actions from many actors besides the ministry of 
forestry. It is also incoherent to link progress in 
the VPA to one specific project when most donor 
resources to the VPA have come from a multi ‑donor 
fund which has delivered important outputs.
The Commission acknowledges the problems of the 
Cameroon project but wishes to highlight that the 
delays in the VPA implementation are due also to 
other factors.
In Indonesia, the focus on EU cooperation has 
progressively shifted to civil society and the private 
sector, whereas the Ministry of Forestry was ini ‑
tially the main recipient. This process started much 
before the FLEGT support project implemented 
by the Ministry of Forestry, based on the needs to 
implement the VPA and efforts to ensure comple ‑
mentarity with UK support.
37
The project has been the subject of two ROM 
missions and three external evaluations, which 
demonstrate the close attention given to it by the 
Commission. All project annual reports have been 
the subject of exchanges between the Commis ‑
sion and beneficiaries, and two addendums to the 
contract — modifying the project timeframe and 
scope  —  were concluded, demonstrating efforts to 
address the project shortcomings. It should also be 
noted that the project was implemented under the 
decentralised modality, which means that the con ‑
tract beneficiaries were appointed and supervised 
by the Government of Cameroon, which further 
calls into question the assumption that the Commis ‑
sion coordination has been ineffective.
The final evaluation report states that, despite its 
shortcomings, the project produced the basis of 
a wood ‑tracking application and important lessons 
learnt. 
Reply of the Commission 42
49
In Liberia, the abuse of private use permits (PUP)
was halted thanks to reports by civil society organi ‑
sations active in the VPA process. The VPA provided 
a forum for discussing the issue. The EU played an 
active role in monitoring the issue and provided 
support to the Government of Liberia for the inves ‑
tigation. Since then the permits have been subject 
to a moratorium and a new PUP regulation has been 
drafted with EU support. Liberia is making steady 
progress in the establishment of the timber legality 
assurance system (TLAS) and a country ‑wide wood ‑
tracking system is already operational. 
51
The Commission wishes to clarify that Malaysia, 
is a federal country and responsibilities for forest 
management are decentralised at the state level. 
While peninsular Malaysia and Sabah have engaged 
in the VPA process by developing legality grids and 
TLAS, Sarawak has rejected any participation in the 
VPA. This is an internal political issue in Malaysia.
52
Implementing these ambitious and complex agree ‑
ments in some of the partner countries — particu ‑
larly where capacities and governance are weak 
— has revealed more demanding and challenging 
than anticipated.
53
It is useful to distinguish reporting on the imple ‑
mentation of the FLEGT regulation from broader 
reporting on the FLEGT action plan.
The Commission recognises that more systematic 
reporting on the progress of the FLEGT action plan 
is desirable. However, the Commission did report 
regularly through various mechanisms, as Mem ‑
ber States reported on their actions periodically 
at the Council working party on forests (at least 
several times a year), at regular ad hoc FLEGT meet ‑
ings, in the FLEGT committee, and more recently 
in the FLEGT ‑EUTR expert group. FLEGT was also 
discussed at CODEV, at the 133 committee, at the 
customs working party. In addition, subsequent 
Commissioners reported at agriculture council 
meetings over this period. DEV Commissioners also Over the last years, support has increasingly been 
delivered to the private sector and SMEs through 
partnerships between NGOs and timber industry 
associations funded under the EU Active and Switch 
programmes. The EU has also funded the timber 
trade action plan, a global initiative with signifi ‑
cant activities in Indonesia, which was exclusively 
aimed at private sector capacity, including some 
smallholders. SME support was provided by MFP2 
and MFP3 UK ‑supported programmes, and national 
solutions are now being found for their difficulties, 
getting SVLK including regulation improvement 
and substantial budgetary support from national 
and local government. 
Further support to SMEs is foreseen under some 
ongoing initiatives (the new phase of the FAO 
FLEGT programme and the EU FLEGT regional Asia 
component).
43
The factors affecting project achievements men ‑
tioned by the Court are very broad and cover most 
of the typical challenges affecting development 
cooperation projects. 
FLEGT projects are particularly exposed to such dif ‑
ficulties, due to the complexity of tackling sensitive 
natural resource governance matters, the challeng ‑
ing environment where these projects operate and 
the technical and political complexity of the FLEGT 
VPA process. The FLEGT process requires significant 
human resource mobilisation by the EU delegations.
46
The VPA implementation in Cameroon has proven 
to be more challenging than expected and falls 
below EU expectations.
The terms of reference of a new system (SIGIF) 
have been developed and its development is now 
funded by German funds while the EU has also com ‑
mitted resources to support the roll out of the new 
system through activities such as training. 
Reply of the Commission 43
periodically reported on progress and challenges at 
the EU Parliament with several meetings deliberat ‑
ing and reporting at great length. 
Stakeholder meetings and feedback were held for 
all VPA negotiation processes and VPA countries 
publish annual progress reports. 
As regards the obligations under Art.9 of the FLEGT 
regulation to report on the implementation of the 
FLEGT licensing scheme, the Commission decided 
not to prepare a report until FLEGT licences are 
issued as the reporting required under the FLEGT 
regulation specifically concerns a record of receipt 
of FLEGT licences and problems encountered under 
these schemes. 
A progress report on the implementation of the 
FLEGT action plan was prepared in 2011, on the 
basis of input from Member States. It was shared 
and discussed with Member States. The ongoing 
evaluation will provide the opportunity to report to 
Council and Parliament.
54
It is important to distinguish between the notions 
of a project database, monitoring framework for 
VPAs and broader monitoring framework of the 
FLEGT action plan. 
(Please also refer to our reply to paragraph 22.)
The Commission also wishes to clarify that the 
progress report 2003 ‑2010 is not an EFI report but 
a FLEGT action plan progress report requested by 
the Commission.56
Before launching the FLEGT action plan evaluation, 
the Commission has regularly assessed progress of 
various components and the difficulties faced, not 
least in the progress report of 2011. The evaluation 
of the FLEGT action plan will help in addressing new 
issues linked to the evolution of the global context 
as indicated in paragraph 56, and in shaping future 
EU efforts in this area. The Commission has endeav ‑
oured to proactively adapt the implementation 
of the action plan to address new developments. 
Some of the responses already put in place are 
listed below. The Commission however recognises 
that more comprehensive responses will need to be 
developed, on the basis of the evaluation. 
56 (a)
The following steps have been taken to date to 
address the growing importance of Asia in the 
timber trade.
— Memorandum of understanding with China to 
establish a bilateral cooperation mechanism 
(BCM) on FLEGT.
— Opening of VPA negotiations with major pro ‑
cessing countries such as Vietnam and Thailand.
— Expanded VPA preparation phases with relevant 
producer countries in the region (Laos and 
more recently Myanmar/Burma).
56 (b)
The following steps have been taken to date to 
address the growing impact of illegal conversion.
— Increased attention to illegal forest conversion 
and how to deal with this issue effectively in the 
context of the VPA.
— Note prepared for EU delegations.
— Increased attention to forest land governance in 
DG International Cooperation and Development 
programmes.
Reply of the Commission 44
58
The Commission disagrees with part of the Court’s 
observation.
58 (b)
The innovative nature of the FLEGT action plan, 
the diversity of policy, regulatory and develop ‑
ment cooperation measures and the multiplicity of 
actors and partners are difficult to frame in a single 
work plan with clear milestones and deadlines and 
a dedicated budget. Nevertheless, many of the 
FLEGT measures, such as the VPAs or the projects 
have their own detailed implementation plan. 
58 (c)
The Commission does not share the Court’s view 
that there was a late adoption of EUTR. The EUTR 
was not mentioned in the action plan, which only 
refers to exploring ‘the feasibility of legislation to 
control imports of illegally harvested timber into 
the EU’. The regulation was only proposed after 
an extensive exercise in which means of address ‑
ing illegal logging using existing legislation were 
examined. The legislation was adopted and entered 
into force on 20 October 2010, and became appli ‑
cable in March 2013. Upon entry of the EUTR into 
application the Commission took action to ensure 
full implementation of the legislation.
58 (d)
As envisaged in the FLEGT action plan, the Commis ‑
sion has explored means to create synergies with 
existing public or private certification schemes and 
is stepping up its efforts in this area.
58 (e)
Assistance was granted in accordance with clear 
criteria, although using a unique set of criteria for 
all interventions was impossible considering the dif ‑
ferent legal basis of the financial instruments. The 
Commission clearly prioritised VPA countries for its 
support to timber ‑producing countries.56 (c)
The following steps have been taken to date to 
foster synergies with REDD+.
— The Commission is promoting synergies be ‑
tween FLEGT and REDD, notably through the 
EU REDD Facility and the FLEGT ‑REDD+ working 
group.
— The FLEGT and REDD+ agenda are closely linked 
and supporting each other in several countries, 
including Guyana or Liberia. 
56 (d)
The following steps have been taken to date to 
address changing trends in timber exports to the EU.
— Regular monitoring through timber trade stud ‑
ies and the independent market monitoring 
system
— EU timber regulation and BCM with China.
56 (e)
The following steps have been taken to date. 
Steps to promote synergies with private certification.
(Please refer to our reply to paragraph 26.)
Conclusions and recommendations
57
The Commission does not share the Court’s con ‑
clusion that the support provided under the EU 
FLEGT action plan to timber ‑producing countries 
was not sufficiently well managed. The Commission 
has endeavoured to manage the FLEGT support to 
producing countries as well as possible, taking into 
account the challenges of addressing illegal logging 
globally, the complexity of promoting good for ‑
est governance and law enforcement in a diversity 
of developing countries, as well as the innovative 
nature of FLEGT. The Commission will pursue its 
efforts to further improve efficiency, effectiveness 
and economy. It will draw from the Court’s Special 
Report as well as the ongoing FLEGT action plan 
evaluation, which has been able to examine a wide 
range of programmes, projects and measures. 
Reply of the Commission 45
The Commission has approved in 2014 a financing 
decision for a new initiative with FAO that will offer 
country support packages to strengthen forest 
governance in selected countries that are strategic 
for the fight against illegal logging, but do not opt 
for a VPA. 
59 (b)
The six concluded VPA entered into force respec ‑
tively in late 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Con ‑
sidering the ambition of the reforms they entail, the 
complexities of the undertaking and the govern ‑
ance challenges in partner countries, it is under ‑
standable that their full implementation requires 
time and sustained commitment. The Commission 
recognises that the challenges of the implementa ‑
tion were underestimated.
59 (c)
Please refer to the Commission’s reply to paragraph 
53.
The Commission regularly reported to Member 
States and other stakeholders on the progress of 
the FLEGT action plan. Annual reports have been 
produced on VPA implementation. A first progress 
report was produced in 2010. The evaluation was 
launched at the beginning of 2014, on the basis of 
consultations initiated in 2013. 
Recommendation 5
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
Recommendation 6
The Commission accepts this recommendation. 
The ongoing FLEGT action plan evaluation dem ‑
onstrates that the Commission was aware of the 
need to assess the current approach and planned 
the evaluation already in 2013. Based on the results 
of the evaluation, the Commission will draft a staff 
working document.Recommendation 1
The Commission partially accepts the 
recommendation.
As regards the budget, this will be feasible only for 
thematic programmes.
Recommendation 2
The Commission cannot accept this recommenda ‑
tion as formulated.
While the Commission fully agrees with the need 
for a strict implementation of the EUTR by all 
Member States, the Commission wishes to highlight 
that, as outlined in our reply to paragraph 25, it has 
already taken appropriate measures to promote its 
effective implementation and will continue to do 
so in line with its compliance assurance strategy. As 
a result of the measures taken, a number of Mem ‑
ber States accelerated the implementation process 
and reported full compliance. The vast majority of 
Member States (24 out of 28) have put in place the 
measures to implement the EUTR and are carrying 
out checks on operators as required by the EUTR. 
The Commission has initiated infringement proce ‑
dures against three of the non ‑compliant Member 
States and is investigating the fourth. 
The Commission further recalls that EUTR imple ‑
mentation is first and foremost a responsibility of 
Member States and that the reports from Member 
States on the first 2 years of EUTR application were 
due on 30 April 2015. In accordance with Art.20 of 
the EUTR, the Commission will report to the Council 
and the Parliament by 3rd December 2015 on the 
review the functioning and effectiveness of the 
regulation.
Recommendation 3
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
As explained in the Commission reply to paragraph 
26, much has been done in the past to promote 
these synergies. 
Recommendation 4
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
Resource allocations to particular countries will also 
depend on the availability of funding.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy: 
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
•  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Illegal logging and trade in illegally logged timber affect 
most of the forested countries. It causes environmental 
damage and loss of biodiversity, and has negative economic 
and social effects. The EU action plan on forest law 
enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) aims to reduce 
illegal logging globally by supporting forest governance in 
timber-producing countries and by reducing the imports of 
illegally harvested timber to the EU. In this report the Court 
concludes that the Commission’s support to timber-
producing countries in the framework of the FLEGT action 
plan was not sufficiently well managed. While the FLEGT 
action plan was conceived in an innovative way, the 
Commission did not devise an appropriate work plan with 
clear objectives, milestones and a dedicated budget. It did 
not clearly prioritise its assistance, and monitoring and 
reporting procedures were unsatisfactory. The main projects 
examined were not successful and the envisaged timber 
licensing schemes are not yet fully operational in any of the 
partner countries.
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS