REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Regulation EU/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 (the EU Timber Regulation)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: European forestry policy, forest conservation, illicit trade, market approval, market supervision, single market, wood product, wood production

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.2.2016  COM(2016) 74 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL  Regulation EU/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 (the EU Timber Regulation) {SWD(2016) 33 final} {SWD(2016) 34 final}  
 
 
Commission Report to EP and Council 

1. 

Introduction 

The European Union (EU) adopted in 2010  Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 laying down the 
obligations  of  operators  who  place  timber  and  timber  products  on  the  market1  (the  Timber 
Regulation,  hereinafter  the  EUTR  or  the  Regulation),  as  part  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT AP). The FLEGT 
AP is  the EU policy instrument to  combat the illegal logging in  the world's forests and the 
EUTR is  the  key  instrument to  address  the problem  from the demand  side. The Regulation 
entered into application in March 2013. 

Article  20(3)  of  the  EUTR  requires  the  Commission  to  review,  on  the  basis  of  Member 
States' reports and the experience with the application of the Regulation, "the functioning and 
effectiveness of the Regulation, including in preventing illegally harvested timber or timber 
products  derived  from  such  timber  being  placed  on  the  market".  According  to  such 
requirements,  this  report  presents  the  first  review  of  the  Regulation  conducted  by  the 
Commission.  

The  review  carried  out  by  the  Commission  takes  the  form  of  an  evaluation  conducted  in 
accordance with the EU 'Better Regulation'2 guidelines. It provides replies to five evaluation 
questions:  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU-added  value.  The 
evaluation covers the first two years of application of the EUTR. Its findings are based on the 
Member States' reports on the application of the Regulation submitted to the Commission, a 
comprehensive consultation, analysis of relevant scientific articles, a trade flow analysis and 
an evaluation report produced by an external consultant.  

This  report  summarises  the  main  results  of  the  evaluation,  draws  conclusions  and  makes 
recommendations  for  follow-up  actions.  It  is  complemented  by  a  Staff  Working  Document 
showing the results of the evaluation in greater detail. It should be noted that only two years 
of implementation experience has proved to be a limiting factor for the evaluation. 

 2. 

Background 

Illegal  logging  is  a  pervasive  problem  of  major  international  concern.  It  has  a  devastating 
impact on some of the world's most valuable remaining forests as well as on the people who 
live  in  them  and  who  rely  on  the  resources  that  forests  provide.  It  contributes  to  tropical 
deforestation  and  forest  degradation,  which  may  be  responsible  for  7  to  14%3  of  total  CO2 
emissions  from  human  activities;  it  threatens  biodiversity  and  undermines  sustainable  forest 
management  and  has  a  negative  impact  on  poverty  reduction,  sustainable  and  inclusive 
economic  growth  and  sustainable  development,  including  by  undermining  the  commercial 
viability of operators who do act in accordance with applicable legislation. 

1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010R0995  
2 Commission communication on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) - COM(2014)368.  
3https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/reporting-greenhouse-gas-emissions-deforestation-and-forest-degradation-pan-
tropical-biomass-maps. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
The  2003  FLEGT  AP  sets  out  processes  and  measures  to  prevent  the  marketing  of  illegal 
timber  in  the  EU,  improve  the  supply  of  legal  timber  and  increase  the  demand  of  timber 
sourced  from  responsibly  managed  forests.  The  FLEGT  AP  recognised  the  possibility  of 
developing new legislation to address  the demand side of illegal logging, which resulted in 
the adoption of the EUTR. 

The EUTR establishes the following three key obligations:  

1.  It prohibits the placing on the market of illegally harvested timber or timber products 

derived from such timber; 

2.  It requires operators who place timber products on the EU market for the first time to 

exercise ‘due diligence’ (DD);  

3.  It  requires  traders  in  timber  and  timber  products  after  the  first  placement  on  the 

market to keep records of their suppliers and customers. 

The product scope covered by the Regulation is set out in its Annex.  

The EUTR  outlines  the DD obligation and  requests that  operators develop  and apply  a due 
diligence system (DDS) or use the DDS of a monitoring organisation (MO).  

The  EUTR  was  adopted  in  December  2010  but  only  entered  into  application  on  3  March 
2013.  The  interim  period  was  intended  to  allow  the  Competent  Authorities  (CAs)  in  the 
Member  States  and  the  private  sector  to  prepare  for  its  application.  During  this  time,  the 
Commission adopted a delegated and an implementing act to facilitate implementation4. 

3.   Methodology 

The evaluation of the EUTR started in April 2015 and covers the period March 2013 - March 
2015.   

In compliance with Article 20(2) of the EUTR, the main information source for elaborating 
this  report  has  been  the  Member  States'  reports  on  the  application  of  the  Regulation, 
submitted  to  the  Commission  by  30  April  2015.  In  addition,  the  Commission  launched  an 
open public consultation on the dedicated website “Your Voice in Europe” (15 April - 3 July 
2015).  Other  targeted  stakeholders`  surveys  and  spontaneous  comments  received  from 
interested parties have also been used. 

The evaluation is based on a broad evidence base; however, assessing the performance of an 
innovative  legislative  tool  only  two  years  after  its  entry  into  application  proved  to  be 
challenging.  Limited  information  is  available  on  the  impacts  of  the  legislation  and  it  is  not 
possible to unconditionally ascribe some of the effects and trends emerging from the analysis 
to the EUTR application. 

4  Commission  delegated  Regulation  (EU)  363/2012,  OJ  L  115,  27.4.2012,  p.  12–16  and  Commission 
implementing Regulation (EU) 607/2012, OJ L 177, 7.7.2012, p. 16–18. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
4. 

Implementation state of play  

The Regulation requires5 Member States to designate CAs; to adopt effective, proportionate 
and  dissuasive  penalties  for  infringements;  to  elaborate  plans  for  checks,  and  to  conduct 
consistent checks on operators and monitoring organisations (MOs). In addition, the EUTR 
provides6 for technical assistance and guidance to operators by the Member States, assisted 
by the Commission, as well as for exchange of information among relevant stakeholders. 

The evaluation has revealed that, within the period of March 2013 – March 2015, the general 
state of implementation has  shown discrepancies across the EU. Some Member States have 
started implementing the EUTR only late in the reporting period. The Commission engaged 
in bilateral dialogue with eight Member States, which proved successful in rapidly bringing 
the majority of them to compliance. The Commission started nevertheless legal action against 
four non-compliant Member States in the course of 20157. 

4.1 Designation of Competent Authorities  

With  the  exception  of  Spain,  all  Member  States  reported  that  they  have  designated  a 
Competent Authority (CA) to monitor the compliance of operators with the requirements of 
the  EUTR8.  The  institutional  structures,  legal  powers  and  status  of  these  institutions  vary 
between Member States, reflecting their different legal and institutional frameworks. A wide 
variation in human and financial resources available for the application and enforcement of 
the  EUTR  was  reported.  Available  human  resources  range  from  approximately  1  to  200 
person/month9. 

4.2 Penalties for Infringements of the EUTR 

24 Member States reported on sanctions set in their national legislation for infringements of 
the  obligations  of  the  Regulation  (the  prohibition,  DD  and  traceability).  Greece,  Hungary, 
Romania and Spain are still in the process of elaborating adequate sanction provisions.  

The range of sanctions varies considerably across the Member States from notice of remedial 
actions, fines, seizure of timber, suspension of authorisation to trade to imprisonment. Some 
Member  States  have  enacted  only  administrative  sanctions  while  others  have  made  the 
violation of some obligations a criminal offense. Penalties for violation of the prohibition are 
generally higher than those for breach of the DD and traceability obligations. Factors taken 
into  account  by  the  Member  States  to  determine  the  level  of  sanctions  include  the  national 
economic conditions and levels of sanctions imposed for infringements of other comparable 
obligations, e.g. in the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations10. While the Member States have the 
power to set sanctions, too much variation in levels of sanctions means that operators in the 
EU are not operating on a level playing field.  

5 Article 7(1); 10(1) and 19 of the EUTR. 
6 Article 13 of the EUTR.  
7 Hungary, Greece, Spain, Romania. 
8 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/EUTR%20implementation%20scoreboard.pdf.  
9 Member States biannual reports. 
10 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006.  

4 

 
 
                                                            
In 19 Member States checks resulted in remedial actions or penalties for infringements of the 
EUTR obligations.  Some investigations were initiated on the basis of substantiated concerns 
from third parties. As a limited number of penalties have been applied so far, it cannot yet be 
determined whether they are “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”.  

4.3 Checks on Operators and Monitoring Organizations 

26 Member States11 reported that their CAs have plans in place, as required by article 10(2) 
of the EUTR, for checking operators. All CAs apply a risk-based approach for the preparation 
and  review  of  their  plans.  Risk  factors  include  the  characteristics  of  suppliers  and  their 
products,  the  type  of  operators,  as  well  as  information  received  from  third  parties  (i.e. 
"substantiated concerns").  

Not all Member States reported that they have conducted checks. In several countries checks 
started late due to delays in the adoption of relevant national legislation and were sporadic at 
the beginning, although they became more systematic and rigorous over time. 

Recognition  of  MOs  by  the  Commission  started  in  August  2013,  when  the  first  two  MOs 
were recognised. At the time of the evaluation, the Commission has recognised nine MOs12. 
Since  the  CAs  are  obliged13  to  carry  out  checks  on  a  MO  at  least  once  every  two  years, 
checks on the first recognised MO have been carried out in the second half of 2015, that is to 
say after the evaluation period covered by the report.  

4.4 Communication, dissemination, cooperation and information exchange  

In  2012  the  Commission  conducted  a  communication  campaign  on  the  EUTR14  and  the 
Member States reported to have carried out national awareness-raising campaigns as well. To 
help align the interpretation of key provisions of the Regulation with a view to achieving a 
uniform  application  across  the  EU,  an  EUTR  Guidance  document  was  developed  by  the 
Commission  in  close  collaboration  with  the  Member  States15.  However,  guidance  and 
assistance  focused  on  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  by  the  Member  States, 
assisted by the Commission, have been rather limited.  

Cooperation  between  the  Commission  and  Member  States  has  been  extensive  and  included 
expert  meetings  on  the  implementation  and  meetings  focused  on  enforcement  as  well  as 
contacts with a range of non-EU timber producing and consuming countries. In January 2015 
the Commission established an electronic communication platform for information exchange 
between Member States CAs.  

5.  Evaluation  

5.1. Relevance 

the 

evaluation 

11 Greece and Hungary did not provide information on the risk factors applied. 
12After 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/mos.htm.  
13 Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 607/2012. 
14 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eutr2013/.  
15 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/Final%20Guidance%20document.pdf. 

3  more  MOs  were 

recognised 

period, 

by 

the  Commission: 

5 

 
 
                                                            
The  Union  is  committed  to  fight  illegal  logging  and  related  trade,  which  continues  to  be  a 
persistent  problem  worldwide  with  high  negative  environmental,  social  and  economic 
consequences. Part of the FLEGT AP, the EUTR was adopted as an overarching instrument 
to  ensure  that  only  products  made  of  legally  harvested  timber  are  marketed  in  the  EU. 
Evidence  shows  that  since  its  entry  into  application,  the  Regulation  has  encouraged  more 
responsible  sourcing  policies  and,  therefore,  demonstrated  its  potential  to  change  operators' 
market  behaviour  and  establish  supply  chains  free  of  illegally  harvested  timber,  thus 
contributing to the achievement of the overall objectives of the FLEGT AP. 

The  relevance  of  the  Regulation  was  confirmed  in  the  Seventh  Environmental  Action 
Programme (2013-2020), which refers explicitly to the EUTR "as a legal basis for the Union 
to  address  the  global  problem  of  illegal  logging  through  its  demand  for  timber  and  timber 
products"16. 

The  evaluation  has  shown  that  the  Regulation  is  regarded  by  many  stakeholders  as  adding 
significant  value  to  the  international  efforts  to  halt  deforestation  and  forest  degradation, 
conserve biodiversity and address climate change (by reducing emissions from deforestation, 
enhancing  the  conservation  role  of  forests,  the  sustainable  management  of  forests  and  the 
enhancement  of  forest  carbon  stocks  in  developing  countries,  based  on  the  Warsaw 
Framework  for  REDD-plus)17,  thus  contributing  to  compliance  with  the  EU's  international 
obligations. 

5.2. EU added value  

The  fight  against  illegal  logging  and  related  trade  is  a  global  challenge,  which  cannot  be 
addressed effectively by the Member States operating individually. By establishing uniform 
rules at EU level, the EUTR allows the Union and its Member States to take full advantage of 
their  combined  market  leverage  to  ensure  demand  for  legally-harvested  timber  and  avoid 
distortions  of  the  EU  market,  which  would  have  occurred  if  varying  rules  had  been  put  in 
place by individual Member States.  

The EUTR aims at creating a level playing field by setting equal requirements for legality on 
both  domestically  harvested  timber  and  imported  timber  products  and  introduces  an 
additional  control  layer  applicable  to  all  operators  across  the  EU.  Without  the  EUTR,  the 
process of establishing a  level  playing field for economic operators would be  discontinued, 
leaving operators that already apply DD requirements in a disadvantaged position, especially 
as cheaper illegal timber would freely enter the EU market. Without the EUTR, the progress 
achieved on other elements of the FLEGT AP, such as the Voluntary Partnership Agreements 
(VPAs), as well as the possibility for the EU to make commitments to combat illegal logging 
in recent bilateral trade agreements, would be seriously undermined. 

16  Decision  No  1386/2013/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  November  2013  on  a 
General  Union  Environment  Action  Programme  to  2020  ‘Living  well,  within  the  limits  of  our  planet’,  OJ  L 
354/171, 28.12.2013, p. 177– 200.  
17 http://unfccc.int/land_use_and_climate_change/redd/items/8180.php. 

6 

 
 
                                                            
5.3. Efficiency 

The EUTR entails compliance costs for the Member States. One of these costs is to carry out 
checks  on  operators  and  MOs.  In  many  cases,  human  and  financial  resources  dedicated  to 
checks  on  operators  appear  disproportionately  low  compared  to  the  number  of  operators  in 
those countries, leaving the deterrent effect of the enforcement activities rather limited. The 
evaluation has shown that the financial resources allocated to CAs vary considerably among 
Member  States.  In  this  regard,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  some  Member  States  have  not 
allocated  any  additional  financial  resource  for  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the 
EUTR.    

The EUTR entails compliance costs for the private sector as well. These costs depend on the 
existence  of  previous  responsible  sourcing  policies,  the  type  and  complexity  of  traded 
products, the number and geographic location of suppliers and, finally, the complexity of the 
supply chains. Business costs may include investments in information systems, development 
of  in-house  expertise  and  training  of  staff.  This  assessment  largely  concurs  with  the  cost 
prognosis in the Impact Assessment18 carried out in 2008 when the Commission put forward 
its proposal for a Regulation. Compliance costs for the prohibition obligation were expected 
to  be  neutral  while  compliance  costs  for  the  DD  obligation  were  deemed  to  depend  on 
previous existence and the quality of control systems in the companies` supply policy.  

The  compliance  costs  for  the  private  sector  are  generally  considered  manageable,  for 
companies already applying responsible sourcing policies. This may also be the case for those 
opting  for  cost-effective  practices  (see  below)  or  trading  in  timber  products  with  relatively 
simple supply chains.   

Administrative consequences for SMEs  

The DD obligation of the EUTR applies to all company sizes. Large companies seem to have 
been able to adapt better and quicker to the new requirements than SMEs. SMEs may seem to 
be in a disadvantaged position due to their low economies of scale as the costs of the DDS 
need to be covered by a lower turnover. However, there are no clear indications that being a 
smaller business is a barrier to apply an effective DDS19. 

The  evaluation  is  based  on  a  very  small  sample,  which  responded  to  the  online  public 
consultation.  It  has  showed  that  some  SMEs  consider  the  compliance  with  the  EUTR  a 
challenge, due to difficulties in understanding the technical requirements of the DDS, lack of 

Illegally  Harvested  Timber  or  Products  Derived 

18 Study for Assessment of the Impact of Potential Further Measures to Prevent the Importation or Placing on 
from  Such  Timber.  See  on 
the  Market  of 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/ia_report.pdf.  See  also  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
accompanying  the  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  determining  the  obligations  of  operators  who  make  timber  and 
timber products available on the market on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/impact_assessment.pdf.  
19 See a Survey of Small and Medium size Enterprises’ approach to due diligence carried out by Global Timber 
Forum 
in  2015:  http://www.illegal-logging.info/content/gtf-supplier-and-consumer-due-diligence-
analysis.  

(GTF), 

7 

 
 
                                                            
staff with adequate knowledge and experience necessary for exercising the DD and/or limited 
financial resources to update their existing control systems.  

Evidence  shows  that  the  EUTR  compliance  costs  for  SMEs  can  be  reduced  if  companies 
apply  cost-effective  practices  (see  below);  avoid  expensive  IT  solutions;  and  benefit  from 
external technical support for developing and applying adequate DDS. 

Cost-effective practices 

In  the  course  of  the  EUTR  implementation,  several  cost-effective  practices  have  been 
identified:  (i)  cooperation  between  Member  States  authorities  as  well  as  between  them  and 
counterparts  in  third  countries;  (ii)  CAs  use  of  substantiated  concerns  received  from  third 
parties  concerning  the  compliance with  the  Regulation  and  (iii)  operators  developing  DDS, 
which meet not only the EUTR requirements but also other legal instruments (i.e. the USA 
Lacey Act and the Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Act); iv) operators using voluntary 
third-party verified schemes (i.e. voluntary forest certification) in the risk assessment and risk 
mitigation process; v) use for DD purposes of the results from the EU negotiations with the 
VPA countries concerning legality definitions and contacts with national authorities. 

Since the entry into force of the EUTR, the main timber certification schemes have adapted 
their standards to reflect the scope of the legality definition embedded in the Regulation and 
have emerged as a practical option that can be used by EU operators to contribute to their risk 
assessment  and  risk  mitigation  process.  The  role  of  third-party  verified  schemes  in  the 
implementation of the legislation could be further clarified in the EUTR Guidance document. 

5.4. Effectiveness 

The following major challenges to the effective application of the EUTR have been identified 
in  the  evaluation  process:  insufficient  human  and  financial  resources  allocated  to  the  CAs, 
varying  types  and  level  of  sanctions  across  Member  States  and  a  lack  of  uniform 
understanding and application of the Regulation throughout the EU. Those challenges have 
translated  into  uneven  enforcement,  which  creates  a  non-level  playing  field  for  economic 
operators. 

However,  the  evaluation  has  shown  that  the  Regulation  and  the  communication  campaigns 
carried  out  by  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  have  increased  awareness  of  the 
problem of illegal logging. The Regulation, a text with EEA relevance, has been included in 
the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) and is currently implemented also by 
Norway,  Iceland  and  Lichtenstein.  It  has  created  an  incentive  for  producer  countries  to 
develop  systems  to  verify  and  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  legality  requirements,  and 
also encouraged some third-countries to conclude FLEGT VPAs with the EU20. Furthermore, 
it has, together with the US Lacey Act, encouraged other consumer countries to expand their 
national legislation with similar legislative acts (Australia, Switzerland) or start considering 

20  There  is  evidence  that  exports  from  Indonesia  into  the  EU  increased  in  2014  and  2015,  which  can  be 
attributed also to the facilitated compliance with the EUTR of timber covered by a Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas 
Kayu (SVLK) certificate, i.e. the Indonesian Timber Legality Assurance System. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
measures  with  similar  objectives  (China,  Japan,  Korea).  The  EUTR  has  also  influenced 
amendments  of  the  EU  Wildlife  Trade  legislation21  where  the  Commission  regulation  was 
reinforced with a provision of legal basis for the Member States` Management Authorities to 
refuse  the  issuing  of  an  import  permit  in  case  of  serious  doubts  as  to  the  legality  of  a 
shipment of CITES specimens. 

Effectiveness of the prohibition of placing on the market (Article 4(1)) 

The  Member  States  have  not  reported  any  closed  investigation  cases  for  violation  of  the 
prohibition  obligation22.  Due  to  the  limited  time  and  given  the  insufficient  experience  with 
the  enforcement  of  the  prohibition,  no  conclusion  could  be  drawn  with  regard  to  its 
effectiveness due to the absence of experience with its enforcement. 

Quantitative evaluation of the impact of the EUTR on trade  in  illegally harvested timber is 
challenging due to the clandestine nature of the activities. The trade statistics analysed do not 
show a clear change over the past two years in the imports in timber and timber products that 
could be unambiguously attributed to the application of the EUTR. 

Exercise of the due diligence (DD) systems (Article 6) 

Operators across the EU have not consistently implemented the DD requirements during the 
first two years of application of the Regulation. Although evidence shows that the situation is 
gradually  improving,  the  overall  compliance  by  the  private  sector  remains  uneven  and 
insufficient.  

Checks carried out by the CAs revealed that while many operators had some type of DDS, 
they  did  not  always  meet  the  EUTR  requirements,  which  called  for  imposition  of  remedial 
actions. Some stakeholders stated that the DD obligation poses a significant implementation 
challenge due to its novelty and insufficient guidance.  

The main barriers to achieve fully operating DD systems include difficulties to understand all 
the elements needed in order to put in place a solid DDS, difficulties in gathering information 
on  applicable  legislation  in  producer  countries,  lack  of  cooperation  with  suppliers  and 
appropriate risk assessment and mitigation measures. 

The recognised MOs provide operators with a DDS if they do not have in-house capacity to 
develop their own. Interest amongst operators for MO services has been very low and only a 
fraction  of  them  currently  use  DDS  of  MOs  and  their  verification  services.  A  low  level  of 
enforcement  by  the  CAs  does  not  encourage  the  uptake  of  a  DDS  and  there  is  reluctance 
amongst  operators  to  contract  an  MO,  since  MOs  have  an  obligation  under  the  EUTR  to 
report to the CAs on major failures.  

Although the uptake of the DD obligation has been slow, there is evidence that operators are 
gradually implementing DDS, demanding more information and legality assurance from their 

21  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  2015/870  of  5  June  2015  amending,  as  regards  the  trade  in  species  of  wild 
fauna  and  flora,  Regulation  (EC)  No  865/2006  laying  down  detailed  rules  concerning  the  implementation  of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, OJ L 142, 6.6.2015, p. 3–20. 
22 In a few individual cases, investigations of legality of imported timber products have been carried out based 
on substantiated concerns.   

9 

 
 
 
                                                            
suppliers.  This  demonstrates  that  the  DD  obligation  has  the  potential  to  change  market 
behaviours  of  operators,  thus  creating  supply  chains  free  of  illegally  harvested  timber. 
However, more time is needed before a definitive assessment can be made. 

5.5. Coherence 

The EUTR is coherent with other relevant legislative acts in the forest and other sectors and 
in  particular  with  the  FLEGT  VPA  licensing  schemes  and  the  EU  Wildlife  Trade 
Regulations. 

Progress related to FLEGT VPAs 

A key element in the FLEGT AP is the VPAs. These are bilateral agreements between the EU 
and  third  timber  producing  and  exporting  countries,  negotiated  upon  a  request  from  those 
countries.  The  VPAs  provide  for  the  establishments  of  a  FLEGT  licensing  system  with  a 
view to ensuring the legality of imports of timber products from these countries into the EU. 
The EUTR provides for a presumption of legality for timber products covered by a FLEGT 
license23. 

Six24 VPAs have been signed so far, and nine25 more are in process. The two most advanced 
countries  are  Indonesia  and  Ghana  and  the  first  FLEGT-licensed  timber  products  from  one 
(or both) of these countries are currently expected to be imported to the EU in 2016.   

Notwithstanding the progress achieved in a number of FLEGT VPA countries, in the absence 
of  FLEGT-licensed  timber  on  the  EU  market  there  is  no  clear  evidence  that  the  VPAs 
contributed to minimising the presence of illegally harvested timber and timber products on 
the internal market.  

6. Product coverage 

The product coverage of the EUTR is defined in its Annex using a combination of references 
to codes from the EU Combined Nomenclature (CN) and description of products. The EUTR 
covers a significant number of timber-based products, but not all are included in its scope. 
Exemptions  exist  in  the  text  of  the  Regulation26  and  in  its  Annex.  Some  timber-based 
products, such as musical instruments (CN 92), wooden coffins (CN 4421) or wooden seats 
(CN 94), are not covered by the Regulation. 

Consultations  with  stakeholders  have  shown  that  many  do  not  consider  the  current  EUTR 
product  scope  optimal  and  feel  it  should  include  more  timber  products,  such  as  the  above 
mentioned and printed paper (see below). However, others consider that the product coverage 
should not be expanded before the EUTR is fully implemented and effectively applied.  

23 Article 3(1) of the EUTR. 
24 Cameroon, Central African Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia, Republic of the Congo. 
25 Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guyana, Honduras, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, 
Vietnam.  
26 Article 2(a) and (b); and Article 3 of the EUTR. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In  terms  of  market  share,  an  important  group  of  products  currently  exempted  is  "printed 
books,  newspapers,  pictures  and  other  products  of  the  printing  industry;  manuscripts, 
typescripts  and  plans".  Unlike  domestically  printed  media,  where  imported  pulp  and  paper 
material  is  controlled  for  legality,  imported  printed  media  do  not  undergo  DD  and  are  not 
subject  to  checks  for  the  legality  of  wood  fibres  imbedded  in  them.  Therefore,  they  may 
carry a higher risk of originating from illegally harvested timber. The difference in treatment 
of domestically-produced and imported printed products would be overcome if printed paper 
were included in the product scope. The variety and complexity of printed goods would need 
to be taken into account when considering enlarging the current product scope. 

7. 

Conclusions  

The  evaluation  of  the  EUTR  comes  after  only  two  years  of  its  application,  which  is  an 
insufficient time to assess its performance, particularly given the novelty of the compulsory 
DD requirement. 

The implementation and enforcement of the EUTR was slow and uneven during the first two 
years  and  still remains  incomplete.  Recently,  significant  progress  has  been  made,  even  if  at 
the time of the evaluation not all Member States have fulfilled all their obligations under the 
Regulation.  Evidence  shows  that  operators  are  gradually  taking  up  the  DD  obligation. 
However, the uneven implementation and the patchy enforcement during the first two years of 
application  did  not  facilitate  the  establishing  of  a  level  playing  field,  which  would  protect 
operators from unfair competition of products made of illegally logged timber. 

Due to the relative short period of time elapsed since the Regulation entered into application, 
the evaluation could not quantify the impact of the Regulation on the trade in illegal timber 
and timber products on the internal market, which made it challenging to determine whether 
the Regulation had met its objective to prevent illegal timber and timber products from being 
placed on the market. 

The EUTR is globally perceived as an important legislative instrument to combat and reduce 
illegal logging and trade in illegal timber and timber products. The Regulation has  inspired 
other  consumer  countries  to  develop  similar  legislative  acts.  Furthermore,  it  represents  the 
necessary  demand-side complement  to  the  main  supply-side  instrument:  the  FLEGT  VPAs. 
Without the EUTR, there would be much less incentive to implement the VPAs, as legality 
assurance would not be required in the EU.  

The Regulation has raised awareness of the problem of illegal logging and its impacts on the 
environment  and  climate  amongst  the  industry  and  amongst  consumers.  It  influenced 
reinforcing amendments of the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations. 

As regards the specific review points listed in Article 20 of the EUTR, the evaluation showed 
the following: 

11 

 
 
 
 
I. 

II. 

The  administrative  consequences  for  SMEs  are  highly  dependent  on  the 
complexity  of  the  business  context  and  on  the  existence  of  previous  responsible 
sourcing policies. SMEs may seem to be in a disadvantaged position in applying 
effective  DDS  due  to  their  low  economies  of  scale;  however  there  are  no  clear 
indications that being a smaller business is a barrier to apply an effective DDS.  

Regarding  the  product  coverage,  some  stakeholders  consider  it  incomplete  and 
suggest expanding it to musical instruments, coffins, chairs, and/or printed paper. 
Some  stakeholders  have  even  suggested  reversing  the  approach  to  the  product 
scope  by  including  all  wood-containing  products  with  possible  exceptions,  while 
others consider that the product scope should not be expanded until the EUTR is 
applied  uniformly  across  the  EU.  The  Commission  may  consider  expanding  the 
product scope, subject to an impact assessment of options.  

III.  With regard to the effectiveness of the prohibition of the placing on the market, 
no  conclusion  could  be  drawn  given  the  insufficient  experience  with  the 
enforcement of the prohibition. Regarding the effectiveness of the DDS, although 
difficult to understand and apply, this obligation appears to have some  impact on 
the practices of operators. 

8. 

Recommendations and next steps 

In  order  to  address  the  shortcomings  identified,  Member  States  should  significantly  step  up 
their  implementation  and  enforcement  efforts.  The  current  level  of  technical  capacity  and 
resources (both human and financial) allocated to the CAs does not match with the needs and 
must  be  reinforced  in  most  of  the  Member  States  with  the  aim  to  increase  the  number  and 
quality  of  compliance  checks.  This  in  turn  will  prompt  the  industry  to  use  a  reliable  and 
workable  DDS.  Additional  efforts  should  also  be  made  by  the  CAs  to  inform  operators, 
especially SMEs, about the requirements of the EUTR. In particular, cost-effective practices 
to implement the DD obligation that have been identified should be further promoted.   

The  Commission  will  continue  to  provide  guidance  to  Member  States  and  operators  by 
supplementing  the EUTR Guidance  document,  where  necessary, with  a view to  achieving a 
uniform  application  of  the  Regulation  across  the  EU.  The  Commission  will  continue  to 
facilitate  communication  and  assist  approximating  of  enforcement  approaches  between  CAs 
at expert group meetings.  

Based on the above, the Commission does not consider it necessary to propose amendments 
of the substantive provisions of the EUTR as the evaluation did not identify a clear need for 
changes  in  the  core  elements  of  the  legislation.  However,  the  Commission  may  consider 
expanding  the  product  scope,  set  out  in  the  Annex  of  the  EUTR,  through  a  delegated  act 
subject to an impact assessment of options.  

12