COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of 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 (the EU Timber Regulation) Accompanying the document
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  SWD(2016) 34 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation   of 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 (the EU Timber Regulation) Accompanying the document {COM(2016) 74 final} {SWD(2016) 33 final}  
 
 
Evaluation  

of 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 (the EU Timber Regulation) 

Table of Contents 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY     …..……………………………………………………………….…........ 3 

2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 5 

2.1 Purpose of the evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 5 
2.2 Scope of the evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 5 

3. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ............................................................................................... 6 

3.1 Description of the initiative and its objectives .......................................................................................... 6 
3.2 Baseline .................................................................................................................................................... 8 

4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................. 9 

5. METHOD/PROCESS FOLLOWED .................................................................................................... 10 

5.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 10 
5.2 Limitations – robustness of findings ....................................................................................................... 11 

6. IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY (RESULTS) ...................................................................... 11 

7. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................................................... 17 

7.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................................... 17 
7.2 Added Value ........................................................................................................................................... 20 
7.3 Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................ 21 
7.4 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................... 25 
7.5 Coherence ............................................................................................................................................... 31 

8. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 32 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  Staff  Working  Document  evaluates  the  application  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  995/20101  
(the Timber Regulation, hereinafter the EUTR or the Regulation) during its first two years of 
application. 

The  EUTR  was  adopted  in  December  2010  and  entered  into  application  on  3  March  2013. 
The interim period was intended to allow competent authorities (CAs) in the Member States 
and the industry to prepare for its application. The Commission elaborated during this time a 
delegated and an implementing act to facilitate implementation2. 

In accordance with Article 20(3) of the EUTR, the EC has to review by 3 December 2015, on 
the  basis  of  reporting  on  and  experience  with  its  application,  "the  functioning  and 
effectiveness of the Regulation ". The present evaluation, the first since the entry into force of 
the  EUTR,  is  based  on  these  legal  requirements.  The  evaluation  has  been  conducted 
according  to  the  EU  'Better  Regulation'3  guidelines.  It  provides  replies  to  five  evaluation 
questions: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU-added value.  

The EUTR is an EU legislative instrument to address the global problem of illegal logging by 
acting on the side of the demand for timber and timber products. It forms part of a broad set 
of measures introduced with the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Action Plan 
(FLEGT AP), the Union’s overall response to the pervasive problem of illegal logging and its 
devastating impact on forests. 

The  FLEGT  AP  was  adopted  in  2003.  It  sets  out  processes  and  measures  to  reduce  the 
marketing of illegal timber into the EU, to improve the supply of legal timber and to increase 
the  demand  for  timber  sourced  from  responsibly  managed  forests.  A  central  element  of  the 
FLEGT  AP  are  the  Voluntary  Partnership  Agreements  (VPAs)  signed  between  the  EU  and 
non-EU  timber  producing  countries4.  As  the  FLEGT  AP  recognised  the  possibility  of 
developing new legislation to overcome the limitations of a bilateral supply-side approach, in 
2008 the Commission submitted a legislative proposal, which later resulted in the adoption as 
the EUTR.  

The  implementation  of  the  EUTR  has  been  slow  in  most  Member  States.  While  some 
Member  States  have  progressed  in  fulfilling  the  obligations  imposed  by  the  EUTR,  the 
overall  implementation  remains  insufficient  and  there  are  still  four  not  fully  compliant 
Member States. 

The  evidence  collected  suggests  that  insufficient  resources  allocated  to  CAs  are  a  major 
challenge  for  the  effective  enforcement  of  the  EUTR.  Nonetheless,  it  should  be  considered 
that  the EUTR has  been  issued in a period  of reduced  public expenditure, which may have 
impacted  upon  resources  allocation.  The  assessment  also  shows  that  the  types  and  level  of 
sanctions  for  infringements  are  highly  divergent  across  Member  States  and  a  different 
understanding  and  enforcement  of  the  EUTR  exists  among  CAs.  While  there  is  indication 
that  EU  operators  have  increasingly  applied  the  due  diligence  (DD)  requirements, 
implementation and compliance by the private sector has been uneven.  

1 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, p. 23–34.  
2 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 Commission communication on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) - COM(2014)368 
4 Cameroon, Central African Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia and Republic of Congo. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                      
Since the EUTR has been in force for a relatively short period of time, it was not possible to 
determine, with a reasonable degree of certainty, whether it has had significant impacts on the 
market such as causing shifts in trade flows. 

The  evaluation  shows  that  the  EUTR  continues  to  be  highly  relevant  for  tackling  illegal 
logging  and  related  trade  by  changing  market  behaviour  patterns  and  progressively 
establishing supply chains free of illegally harvested timber. This is also confirmed by the 7th 
Environmental Action Programme5, 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". The EUTR is also an important instrument in the EU's international efforts 
to  halt  deforestation  and  forest  degradation,  enhance  and  maintain  biodiversity  and  address 
global climate change.  

Internationally,  the  EUTR  encouraged  other  consumer  countries  (such  as  Australia,  China 
and Japan) to adopt similar legislative acts and created an incentive for producer countries to 
develop  systems  to  verify  and  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  legality  requirements, 
including by concluding VPAs with the EU. 

The EU added-value of the EUTR continues to be valid: the objective can be better achieved 
by  establishing  uniform  rules  that  will  allow  the  Union  and  its  Member  States  to  take  full 
advantage of their combined market leverage to ensure demand for legally-harvested timber 
and avoid distortion of competition.  

The  EUTR  is  coherent  with  other  relevant  policy  instruments  and,  in  particular,  with  the 
VPAs  and  FLEGT-licencing  scheme,  and  the  EU  Wildlife  Trade  Regulations6.  The 
complementarity of these two policy frameworks is demonstrated by the recognition given by 
the  EUTR  to  the  FLEGT  licences  and  permits  issued  according  to  the  Convention  on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).  

In  terms  of  efficiency,  the  EUTR  has  entailed  highly  variable  compliance  costs  for  the 
Member States  and for the private sector, which have to  be considered against  its expected 
benefits  in  terms  of  reducing  illegal  logging  and  creating  a  level-playing  field  that  keeps 
illegal timber and timber-based products out of the market.   

A  quantitative  evaluation  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  EUTR  is  challenging  due  to  the 
clandestine nature of the illegal activities and the absence of precise data on their volume and 
cost.  At  EU  level,  insufficient  human  and  financial  resources  allocated  to  the  CAs  to 
effectively implement the EUTR have prevented it from developing its full potential.  

In  conclusion,  the  evaluation  has  revealed  that  the  EUTR  has  the  potential  to  achieve  its 
objectives. However, further consistent efforts are needed from both the Member States and 
the private sector before an effective and efficient application can be achieved.  

The  EUTR  has,  nonetheless,  produced  some  first  tangible  results:  the  communication 
campaigns carried out by the Commission and the Member States have raised awareness of 
the problem of the illegal logging amongst EU consumers. It has also created an incentive for 
producer countries to develop systems to verify and demonstrate compliance with the legality 
requirements. 

5 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, 
28.12.2013, p. 171–200. 
6 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora 
by regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997, p. 1–69. 

4 

 
 
                                                      
2. INTRODUCTION 

2.1 Purpose of the evaluation 

This Staff Working Document (SWD) of the European Commission  accompanies the report 
to  Council  and  European  Parliament  on  the  first  two  years  of  application  of  the  EUTR 
(March 2013- March 2015), as required by Article 20(2) of the Regulation.  

This evaluation examines to what extent the EUTR has fulfilled its objectives to prevent the 
placing  of  illegal  timber  and  products  derived  from  such  timber  on  the  internal  market.  It 
looks  into  what  works  and  what  does  not  and  whether  some  elements  or  features  are 
particularly  successful  or  not.  It  is  an  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Regulation,  based  on  a 
comprehensive consultation strategy, which includes the April 2015 reports submitted by the 
Member  States,  the  results  from  the  open  public  consultation,  spontaneous  inputs  from 
stakeholders,  targeted  interviews  with  pre-defined  stakeholders  groups,  analysis  of  relevant 
scientific articles, a trade flow analysis and findings from an evaluation report produced by 
an external consultant. In particular, it examines the performance of the Regulation according 
to  the  standard  evaluation  questions  of  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and 
EU-added value, supplemented by replies to specific questions, as required by Article 20 of 
the EUTR. 

The evaluation provides a summary overview of the implementation and the functioning of 
the  Regulation  during  the  first  two  years  of  its  application.  It  considers  how  and  to  what 
extent its objectives were reached. It also describes the challenges and problems the EUTR 
has  faced  with  regard  to  its  compulsory  requirements,  the  domestic  implementation  of  its 
provisions  and  the  shortcomings  and  discrepancies  within  its  application.  It  additionally 
indicates  possible  solutions  to  improve  the  EUTR  and  its  application  on  the  basis  of  the 
gathered evidence. 

The  results  of  this  evaluation  will  be  used  to  further  improve  the  implementation  and 
application  of  the  EUTR,  through  a  range  of  measures  as  presented  in  the  findings  and 
conclusions. 

2.2 Scope of the evaluation 

The  evaluation  covers  the  first  two  years  of  the  EUTR  application.  It  follows  the  areas 
defined in the terms of reference and replies to the specific questions listed in the evaluation 
questions identified in section 4. 

The  evaluation  has  been  conducted  in  accordance  with  Article  20(3)  of  the  EUTR,  which 
specifically  requires  the  Commission  to  review  "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" on the basis of the Member States reporting 
and experience with the EUTR application.  

Pursuant to Article 20 (3) and (4) of the EUTR, the evaluation shall additionally review:  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  The  effectiveness  of  the  prohibition  of  placing  illegally  harvested  timber  and  timber 
products derived from such timber on the market as set out in Article 4(1) as well as the DDS 
set out in Article 6 of the Regulation; 

•  The  administrative  consequences  for  small  and  medium-sized enterprises and the  product 
coverage; 

•  The  current  Union  economic  and  trade  situation  with  regard  to  the  products  listed  in 
Chapter  49  of 
the 
competitiveness of the relevant sectors, in order to consider their possible inclusion in the list 
of timber and timber products set out in the Annex of the EUTR. 

the  Combined  Nomenclature, 

taking  particularly 

into  account 

Concerning the geographic scale, the EUTR applies within the EU but, by prohibiting illegal 
timber  and  timber  products  from  being  traded  within  the  internal  market,  its  impact  is 
expected  to  go  beyond  the  EU's  boundaries.  This  evaluation  focuses  on  how  the  EUTR  is 
applied in the EU Member States and examines to what extent operators and traders dealing 
with timber products covered by the Regulation comply with the new obligations. 

These  guiding  themes  are  investigated  in  line  with  the  Commission  policies  for 
policy/legislative  evaluations  and  responses  are  provided  for  each  of  the  mentioned  five 
evaluation questions.   

3. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

3.1 Description of the initiative and its objectives 

Illegal  logging  is  a  pervasive  problem  of  major  international  concern.  It  has  a  devastating 
impact on some of the world's remaining forests, as well as on the people who live in them 
and who rely on the resources that forests provide. It contributes to deforestation and forest 
degradation,  which  may  be  responsible  for  7  to  14%7  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 
acting in accordance with applicable legislation.  

The  EU  is  one  of  the  largest  consumers  of  timber  products  in  the  world.  Therefore,  EU 
companies  and  governments  may  have  a  significant  impact  on  illegal  logging.  If  they  buy 
illegal  timber,  they  create  profitable  markets  for  illegal  loggers  and  ultimately  undermine 
efforts to enforce forest law in timber-producing countries.  

Taking  its  responsibility  as  one  of  the  biggest  consumer  markets  and  committed  to  fight 
illegal logging and associated trade, in 2003 the EU defined a comprehensive policy through 
the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Action Plan (FLEGT AP). The FLEGT 
AP sets out processes and measures to prevent the marketing of illegal timber into/in the EU; 
to  improve  the  supply  of  legal  timber  and  to  increase  demand  for  timber  from  sustainably 
managed  forests.  The  VPAs  signed  between  the  Union  and  non-EU  timber  producing  and 
exporting  countries  represent a  central  part  of  the  EU  supply-side  strategy  to  reduce  illegal 
logging and related trade on an international scale. The FLEGT AP has also been subject to 
an  evaluation  of  the  eleven  years  (2003-2014)  from  its  implementation,  which  aimed  to 

7 

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/reporting-greenhouse-gas-emissions-deforestation-and-forest-degradation-

pan-tropical-biomass-maps. 

6 

 
 
                                                      
assess  the  progress  achieved  and  its  possible  shortcomings.  Overall,  its  objectives  are 
coherent with the EUTR and reinforce its further implementation.  

The  FLEGT  AP  recognised  the  possibility  of  developing  new  legislation  to  address  the 
demand  side  of  illegal  logging,  which  resulted  into  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”) so as not to derive their timber from illegal sources.  
3.  It  requires  traders  in  timber  and  timber  products,  which  have  already  placed  for  the 

first time on the market, to keep records of their suppliers and customers. 

A wide range of timber products listed in its Annex, which uses the EU Customs’ Combined 
Nomenclature,  are  subject  to  the  above  prohibition,  DD  and  traceability  obligations  of  the 
EUTR. 

The EUTR defines the DD obligations and requests that operators develop and apply a DDS 
or use the DDS of a MO, foreseen by the EUTR as assistance providers to operators. In the 
latter case, the MO is required to verify that its DDS is properly used by operators. 

The EUTR is a binding legislative instrument that must be applied in its entirety across the 
EU. It does not require measures to incorporate it in the national legal system of the Member 
States  (transposition).  It  imposes  obligations  on  the  EU  institutions,  on  the  Member  States 
and on the private entities to which it is addressed.  

In more detail, the EUTR imposes the following obligations to the Member States:  

Article  7  of  the  EUTR  stipulates  that  “Each  Member  State  shall  designate  one  or  more 
competent authorities responsible for the application of this Regulation. Member States shall 
inform  the  Commission  of  the  names  and  addresses  of  the  competent  authorities  by  3  June 
2011”. 

Article  19  states  “The  Member  States  shall  lay  down  the  rules  on  penalties  applicable  to 
infringements  of  the  provisions  of  this  Regulation  and  shall  take  all  measures  necessary  to 
ensure that they  are  implemented”.  Article  19 of  the  EUTR  provides further  guidance  with 
regard  to  the  type  of  penalties  that  Member  States  may  foresee  in  national  legislative  acts, 
which  may  include,  inter  alia,  fines,  seizure  of  timber  and  immediate  suspension  of 
authorisation  to  trade.  The  Regulation  leaves  it  to  the  Member  States  to  further  specify  the 
type  and  level  of  penalties  for  infringement  of  the  EUTR  obligations.  The  only  criteria 
provided by the EUTR for evaluating the appropriateness of the penalties to be chosen by the 
Member  States  are  that  penalties  must  be  "effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive".    As  a 
consequence, penalties foreseen by Member States vary substantially among each other.  

Article 10 of the EUTR requires that CAs designated by Member States carry out checks to 
verify if operators comply with the requirements set out by the EUTR. It specifies that checks 
shall  be  conducted  in  accordance  with  a  periodically  reviewed  plan  following  a  risk-based 
approach.  Article  11 of the EUTR additionally  specifies that CAs shall  keep  records of the 
checks.  

In order to ensure EUTR compliance, article 12 of the EUTR provides for cooperation among 
CAs,  among  CAs  and  administrative  authorities  of  third  countries  and  among  CAs  and  the 
Commission. 

7 

 
 
Additional  detailed  requirements  for  the  application  of  the  EUTR  are  laid  down  in  the 
Commission delegated Regulation (EU) 363/2012 on the procedural rules for the recognition 
and  withdrawal  of  recognition  of  MOs8,  and  in  the  Commission  implementing  Regulation 
(EU)  607/2012  on  the  detailed  rules  concerning  the  DDS  and  the  frequency  and  nature  of 
checks  on  MOs9.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  elaborated,  in  close  collaboration  with  the 
Member States, a Guidance document on the application of the EUTR10. 

3.2 Baseline 

The EU policy regarding illegal logging and related trade was set out in the FLEGT AP, which 
included a number of measures to ensure that timber and timber products placed on the internal 
market have been legally harvested or manufactured from legally harvested timber.  

One of the key measures proposed by the FLEGT AP is a licensing scheme for the prevention of 
illegally  logged  timber  and  products  made  of  such  timber  coming  into  the  EU.  The  licensing 
scheme would be implemented as part of the VPAs, which are negotiated between the EU and a 
number of timber-producing countries.  

Even though the VPAs approach continues to be a key instrument, it has its limitations. First, it 
relies on the willingness of third countries to conclude such agreements. Second, the negotiations 
towards  concluding  VPAs  have  taken  considerable  time.  Besides,  it  has  been  claimed  that  the 
VPAs could be circumvented and illegal timber could still be imported into the EU through third 
countries,  which  had  not  concluded  VPAs  with  the  EU.  Such  concerns  have  ultimately 
highlighted the need to level the playing field and, accordingly, promulgate legislative acts that 
could prevent timber and timber products from being traded within the EU market.  

The EU  FLEGT  AP  foresees  the  possibility  of undertaking  an  analysis  of  additional  measures, 
which could enhance the EU efforts to eliminate imports of illegally harvested timber and timber 
products  into  the  EU  market.  Accordingly,  in  2008  the  Commission  carried  out  a  study  to 
examine the economic (in particular, the regulatory costs for the government sector, the potential 
costs  for  the  private  sector  and  the  trade  impacts  in  both  EU  and  non-EU  countries),  social 
(employment,  other  social  factors)  and  environmental  impacts  of  possible  further  policy  or 
legislative  measures  to  address  the  problem  of  timber  and  timber  products  originating  from 
illegal logging and entering the EU market11. The study identified and compared five options to 
the  "baseline"  scenario,  which  was  the  continuation  of  the  existing  FLEGT  VPAs  approach.  A 
Commission SWD12 on additional options to combat illegal logging was published in 2008. The 
Commission  SWD  concluded  that  future  policy  developments  should  include  demand-side 
measures,  especially  since  at  that  time  no  specific  demand-side  measure  addressing  illegal 
logging existed at the EU level. 

Following the 2008 impact assessment, the Commission put forward the EUTR Proposal.  

8 OJ L 115, 27.4.2012, p. 12–16. 
9 OJ L 177, 7.7.2012, p. 16–18. 
10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/Final%20Guidance%20document.pdf.  
11  Commission  impact  assessment  report  on  additional  options  to  combat  illegal  logging  can  be  found  here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/impact_assessment.pdf. A full consultants` report may be seen here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/ia_report.pdf. 
12 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/impact_assessment.pdf.  

8 

 
 
                                                      
4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  policy  evaluation  is  based  on  a  set  of  questions  to  review  the  progress  towards  the 
objectives and targets of EUTR. The questions address the effectiveness (the extent to which 
objectives  have  been  achieved),  efficiency  (cost  and  benefits  assessment),  coherence 
(interaction with  other  policies and initiatives), relevance (pertinence  of the objectives) and 
EU added value (compared to Member State action) of the EUTR. 

Relevance:  

  Has the EUTR contributed to address the problem of illegal logging on a global scale? (Is 
the  objective  of  the  EUTR  relevant  to  meet  the  need  to  address  deforestation  and  is  its 
scope appropriate?) 

  How does the EUTR facilitate achieving international obligations of the European Union? 

EU added value:  

  What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention, compared to what could 
be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels without any EU action?  
  To what extent do the issues addressed by the intervention continue to require action at 

the EU level? 

Efficiency: 

  What are the costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary) associated with compliance 
with  the  EUTR?  Can  any  cost  be  identified  that  are  out  of  proportion  with  the  benefits 
achieved? 

  What  are  the  administrative  consequences  for  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  in 

particular?  

  What  good  practices  can  be  identified  in  terms  of  cost-effective  implementation  of  the 

EUTR? 

Effectiveness: 

  To what extent has the EUTR been effective in preventing illegally harvested timber or 
timber products derived from such timber being placed on the market, e.g. by change of 
trade flows? How has the prohibition of the placing on the market and the due diligence 
obligation contributed to the fulfilment of the objectives?  

  What main factors have contributed to or stood in the way of achieving this objective?  
  How has the EUTR reinforced the other measures of the FLEGT Action Plan and, if not, 

why? 

  Did the EUTR achieve any other significant change (positive or negative)?  
  Is  the  product  coverage  adequate  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  EUTR?  Given  the 
current  Union  economic  and  trade  situation  with  regard  to  the  products  listed  under 
Chapter  49  of  the  Combined  Nomenclature,  should  those  products  be  included  in  the 
product scope of the EUTR? 

  Can loopholes in the regulatory regime established by the EUTR be identified and, if so, 

what are they and how can they be remedied? 

Coherence: 

  To  what  extent  is  the  EUTR  satisfactorily  integrated  and  coherent  with  other  EU 

legislation with similar objectives? 

  What  gaps,  overlaps,  discrepancies,  contradictions  or  similar  issues  can  be  identified  in 
other relevant legal acts or activities, which hampered or improved the achievement of the 
objectives of the EUTR? 

9 

 
 
5. METHOD/PROCESS FOLLOWED 

5.1 Methodology 

The evaluation of the EUTR started in April 201513 and covers the period of March 2013 – 
March 2015.  

In compliance with Article 20(2) of the EUTR, the main information source for elaborating 
the  Commission's  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  is  the  individual Biennial 
Member States' reports on the application of the Regulation submitted to the Commission by 
30 April of every second year following 3 March 2013. The report format was developed in 
close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  and  endorsed  at  the  19th  FLEGT  Committee 
meeting on 19 November 2014.  

The EUTR evaluation was also based on the following information sources:  

 

Information  obtained  at  the  meetings  of  the  FLEGT  committee  and  the  FLEGT/EUTR 
Expert Group, as well as through direct contacts with the Member States CAs and other 
relevant meetings organised by the Member States CAs or other relevant stakeholders. 

  A  trade  flow  analysis  carried  out  to  assess  the  potential  impact  of  the  EUTR  on 
international timber trade by analysing data on imports of timber and timber products into 
the EU, and taking into account the economic situation and changes in timber production 
within the EU. The study covers all timber and timber products regulated by the EUTR, 
imported  into  the  EU  and  traded  between  the  EU  Member  States  in  2004-2014.  The 
analysis  focuses  in  particular  on  ascertaining  whether  available  trade  data  indicated, 
during the period in question: (i) Shift between domestic production/intra-EU trade and 
imports; (ii) Shift in countries exporting for the EU market; (iii) Shift in entry points of 
imports into the EU. The analysis builds on the value and quantitative data compiled for 
the Baseline Report of the FLEGT Independent Market Monitoring (IMM)14. The main 
sources 
and 
FAOSTAT/PRODCOM databases (production data). Annex I to this document provides 
relevant data from the trade flow analysis. 

are  EUROSTAT/COMEXT 

information 

(import 

data) 

of 

  A  multi-stakeholder  consultation  divided  into  (i)  open  public  consultation  on  the 
dedicated  website  “Your  Voice  in  Europe”  (15  April-3  July  2015);  (ii)  Spontaneous 
contributions15  submitted  over  the  period  January-July  2015;  (iii)  Targeted  email  and 
phone  consultation  with  national  non-governmental  organisations  (NGO)  and/or  civil 
society organisations (CSOs)16;  private operators17 within the Member States, and MOs. 
The findings were analysed to look for commonalities and divergences in opinions across 
different  stakeholders'  groups.  An  overview  of  the  responses  to  the  multi-stakeholder 
consultation is provided in Annex II to this document. 

13 The Commission has used the services of an external contractor to support the collection and processing of 
relevant information.  
14 See on http://www.itto.int/imm/.  
15  12  respondents  representing  industry  and  their  interest  organisations,  government  and  certification  bodies 
submitted feedbacks to the Commission and/ or the consultant team on an ad-hoc basis. 
16 Out of the 74 organisations contacted, six responded to the questionnaire. 
17 Out of the 738 operators contacted, 20 responded to the questionnaire. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
  To  complement  the  analysis,  14  relevant  scientific  articles,  policy  papers  and  research 
literature  from  different  organisations  and  inputs  from  non-EU  stakeholders  made 
available by the evaluation of the FLEGT Action Plan were reviewed. 

The  evaluation  included  a  cost-effectiveness  analysis  to  compare  the  Regulation’s  costs 
against its outputs and/or benefits. 

5.2 Limitations – robustness of findings 

The evaluation is based on a review of evidence. However, assessing the effectiveness of an 
innovative  legislative  tool  only  two  years  after  its  entry  into  application  has  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. 

In  addition,  the  following  limitations  were  identified  in  relation  to  the  main  information 
sources used for the evaluation: 

(1) Even though Biennial Reports were submitted by all Member States, detailed information 
on the nature of penalties applied and the allocation of resources for controlling domestically 
harvested timber and imported timber and timber products was not provided.  

(2) Whereas the public on-line consultation of stakeholders on the Commission's web portal 
resulted  in  an  adequate  number  of  responses,  the  level  of  participation  in  the  surveys 
targeting non-governmental/civil society organisations and private sector operators was very 
low. Hence, the results were not conclusive and can only be used as examples. In particular, 
more  representative  information  about  costs  and  benefits  of  exercising  the  due  diligence 
would be needed. 

(3) The trade flow study was a macro-level analysis, which can disclose larger scale changes 
in  timber trade  between exporting and importing countries. However, the trade statistics do 
not provide information on the legality of traded commodities, or indicate whether there has 
been a switch from high-risk to lower risk suppliers within an exporting country. 

(4) Due to the pervasive but hidden nature of the problem, data on trade in illegal timber and 
timber products is very limited18 and its accuracy is difficult to ascertain. For this reason, the 
impact of the EUTR application on trade in illegal timber could only be inferred from other 
available statistics like e.g. the FLEGT Independent Market Monitor (IMM) project.  

6. IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY (RESULTS) 

The information on the state of implementation is structured as follows:  

1.  Designation of CAs   
2.  Legal Basis for Imposing Penalties for Infringements of the EUTR  
3.  Checks on Operators and MOs  
4.  Human and Financial Resources 
5.  Communication, Public Awareness and Dissemination 
6.  Cooperation on Intelligence 

(1) Designation of Competent Authorities  

18  One  example  can  be  found  here:  http://www.illegal-logging.info/content/illegal-logging-and-related-trade-
indicators-global-response.  

11 

 
 
 
                                                      
27  Member  States  have  designated  CAs  to  monitor  the  compliance  of  operators  with  the 
requirements of the EUTR19. In this regard, it should be underlined that the CAs structures, 
position, powers and status vary among Member States, as they reflect the different legal and 
institutional frameworks of each country. The process of designation is still ongoing in Spain, 
which has still not fulfilled the Regulation requirements.  

 (2) Penalties for Infringements of the EUTR 
In  their  biennial  reports,  24  Member  States20  reported  on  legislative  or  non-legislative  acts 
where  penalties  for  infringement  of  the  EUTR  obligations  were  laid  down  (Table  1). 
Penalties  range  from  notice  of  remedial actions,  fines,  seizure  of  timber,  and  suspension  of 
authorisation  to  trade  to  imprisonment.  Greece,  Hungary,  Romania  and  Spain  have  still  to 
adopt  adequate  legislative  acts  to  comply  with  EUTR  requirements.  The  Commission  has 
taken  legal  actions  against  these  Member  States.  Bilateral  dialogues  were  initiated  with  a 
number of other  Member  States  and proved successful in  bringing the majority  of  Member 
States rapidly to compliance. 

Table 1   

Member States' Legal Framework to Apply the EUTR 

Country 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 

Cyprus 

Applicable laws 
Holzhandelsuberwachungsgesetz 
Law on Sustainable Ways of Consumption & Production (1998) 
Forest Law 
Official Gazzette JSC 54/13), and the Law on Croatian Customs Directorate 
(Offical Gazzette 68/13).  
Law for the Regulation of Trade of Timber and Timber Products (2013) 

France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 

Czech Republic  Act on Placing Timber and Timber Products on the Market (2013) 
Danish European Union Timber Regulation Law 
Denmark 
Law Enforcement Act, Forestry Law, Penalty Law 
Estonia 
Laki Puutavaran ja Puutuotteiden Markkinoille Saattamisesta (Law on 
Finland 
bringing timber and timber products to market) (2013), Criminal Law, Forest 
Legislation 
Law for the Future of Agriculture, Food and Forests 
Timber Regulation Law 
Draft Joint Ministerial Decision (for the Timber Regulation – EUTR) 
Draft amendments to Government Decree No 143/2009 of 6 July 2009  
EU Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the market) Regulations (2015) 
Decree 178/14, Criminal Code 
EUTR, Regulation of the State Forest (SFS) Law, Administrative Violation 
Code, Criminal Law, Law on Accounting, Law on Inventory of Trees and 
Round Timber, Forest Law, Criminal Law 
EUTR, Law on Forests and Administrative Code 
National EUTR Law 
Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the market) Regulations (2015) 
Decree implementing EUTR Regulation, Administrative Law, Nature 
Conservation Act, Economic Offences Act, Criminal Laws,  
Administrative Law 
Decree No. 76 (2013) 
Draft amendment of Act No 171/2010 
Act on Forests (no.182/2014); Act on Environmental Protection and 
Landscape Preservation (no. 543/2002); Act on Internal Market and 
Consumer Protection (no. 128/2002) 

Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 

Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 

19 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/EUTR%20implementation%20scoreboard.pdf. 
20 Greece, Hungary and Romania did not provide this information in their biennial reports. The information in 
Table 1 regarding these three Member States is based on direct communication with EC. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Country 

Slovenia 
Spain 

Sweden 

Applicable laws 
Forest Law, Financial legislation 
Project of Royal Decree/Forest Law, Project of Forestry Law/Constitution  

Law on Trade of Timber and Wood Products (2014), EUTR, Environmental 
Code 

United Kingdom  Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations (2013) 

Source: Biennial reports of EU Member States  

In total, 13 Member States have recently adopted new laws for enforcement of the EUTR or 
have  revised  their  existing  national  legislation  in  order  to  make  a  direct  reference  to  the 
EUTR21. 11 Member States reported that they are using existing rules on penalties to sanction 
violations of the EUTR. Out of these 24 Member States:  

-  20 apply notice of remedial actions (83%) 
-  24 apply fines (100%) 
-  19 apply seizure of timber (79%) 
-  17 apply imprisonment (67%) 
-  14 apply suspension of authorisation to trade (54%) 
-  17 apply other penalties22. 

The  Member  States  that  provided  information  on  their  legal  framework  have  enacted 
sanctions for all three obligations of the EUTR (i) the prohibition of placing for the first time 
illegal  timber  on  the  internal  market,  (ii)  the  DD23  and  (iii)  the  traceability  of  timber  and 
timber products. The type of penalties for infringements of the EUTR obligations vary: some 
Member States have administrative sanctions while others have made the violation of some 
of the EUTR obligations a criminal offence. 

The  range  of  fines  and  other  penalties  applied  for  violation  of  the  prohibition  is  generally 
much higher than those applied for breach of the due diligence  and traceability obligations. 
The range of penalties varies considerably across the Member States, which reported to have 
taken  as  criteria  in  determining  the  type  and  level  of  sanctions  various  factors  such  as  the 
national  economic  conditions  and  levels  of  sanctions  imposed  for  infringements  of  other 
comparable obligations, e.g. the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations24. Since the number of cases 
where  sanctions  have  been  applied  is  still  very  low,  more  experience  is  necessary  to 
accurately  assess  whether  the  penalties  laid  down  by  Member  States  are  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive.  

 (3) Checks on Operators and Monitoring Organisations 

Article 10 of EUTR requires CAs to carry out checks to verify if operators comply with the 
requirements set out in Articles 4 and 6 of the Regulation. In addition, Article 8 of the EUTR 
subjects MOs to checks by CAs.   

Article  10(2)  of  the  EUTR  further  specifies  that  checks  on  operators  shall  be  conducted  in 
accordance  with  a  periodically  reviewed  plan  following  a  risk-based  approach  and, 
additionally, may be conducted when a CA is in possession of relevant information, such as 

21 E.g. establishing sanctions for infringement of the EUTR obligations. 
22 Other penalties are applied including written warnings (Austria), Asset Acquisition (Ireland), Forced Labour 
(Latvia),  Confiscation  of  tools  of  which  the  offence  was  committed  (Lithuania,  Portugal),  Withdrawal  of 
financial  subventions  or  other  public  support  relating  to  forest  activities  (Portugal),  and  additional  penalty 
payment’s applied based on damage (Sweden). 
23 Latvia, however, addresses DD obligation only in the context of notice of remedial actions and has laid down 
no DD related penalties. 
24 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
substantiated  concerns  provided  by  third  parties  concerning  EUTR  compliance  by  an 
operator.  
26 Member States25 reported that their CAs have plans in place for checking operators. All of 
them provide for a range of risk factors for the preparation and review of their check plans. 
The plans and risk factors therein address characteristics of suppliers and their products, and 
type  of  operators.  Risk  factors  also  include  information  received  from  external  parties 
(stakeholders  and/or  other  authorities).  The  most  common  risk  factors  applied  by  Member 
States are summarised in Figure 1.  

Figure 1  

Example  of  Risk  Factors  Applied  to  the  Preparation  and  Review  of  the  Check  Plan

Concerns provided by third parties

Information provided by other CAs

Species of timber or timber product

Country of Harvest of timber/ timber…

Type of Supplier

13 

22 

17 

17 

21 

21 

20 

Type of Business (Operator)

Type of Product

0

Source: Biennial Reports of EU Member States 

10

5
20
Number of Member States 

15

25

The  number  of  checks  reported  by  Member  States  varies  significantly  and  is  not  easily 
comparable.  The  reason  is  that  their  frequency  may  depend  on  the  size  of  the  respective 
country,  the  importance  of  the  forestry  sector  in  the  national  economy,  the  level  of 
preparedness in implementing the legislation by the actual date of entry into application and, 
in some cases, on the different criteria being applied for reporting26. Furthermore, in several 
Member  States  checks  began  later  in  the  reporting  period  due  to  delays  in  the  adoption  of 
relevant  national  legislation  and,  in  some  cases,  due  to  failure  of  the  Member  States  to 
comply  with  the  EUTR  obligations.  More  time  is  therefore  necessary  to  accurately  assess 
whether the number of checks performed by Member States is adequate.  

19  Member  States  reported  having  applied  some  form  of  remedial  action  and  penalties  for 
infringements of the EUTR after checks were conducted, as summarised in Table 2.  

Table 2  Number of Checks Undertaken (March 2013 – February 2015) having resulted in Actions 

Country 

  Austria 
  Belgium 
  Bulgaria 
  Croatia 
Cyprus 

Remedial 
Actions* 

Remedial Actions that 
led to a penalty 

Sanctions* 

Other 
Action* 

0 
2 
320 
27 
0 

0 
0 
2 
0 
0 

0 
0 
1 
0 
0 

2 
3 
0 
2 
0 

25 Greece and Hungary did not provide information on risk factors applied. 
26 Some Member States reported customary controls on domestically harvested timber resulting in thousands of 
checks, while other countries have not done the same. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
  Czech 

Republic 
  Denmark 
  Estonia 
  Finland 
  France 
  Germany 
  Greece 
  Hungary 
  Ireland 
Italy 
  Latvia 
  Lithuania 
  Luxembourg 
  Malta 
  Netherlands 
  Poland 
  Portugal 
  Romania 
  Slovakia 
  Slovenia 
Spain 
  Sweden 
  United 

Kingdom 

1 

9 
0 
2 
17 
120 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
40 
0 
0 
24 
0 
0 
80 
58 
3 
0 

6 
20 

1 

0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
79 
0 
0 

0 
0 

2 

0 
131 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
624 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
few 
1 
0 

0 
0 

126 

1 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
22 
0 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
few 
0 
0 

4 
0 

*  "Remedial  actions"  denotes  issuance  of  notice  of  remedial  actions,  "Sanctions" represents  the  total  number  of  penalties 
imposed and "Other Actions" include other measures such as follow-up controls and other measures related to inadequacies 
in  DDS,  temporary  seizure  of  timber,  open  cases  and  unspecified  actions  taken.  The  data  reported  by  different  Member 
States do not always refer to the same range of actions, and they are not to be used in a comparative analysis. 
Source: Biennial Reports of EU Member States 

It should be noted that checks on MOs have not been performed during the period covered by 
the report as the first checks on MOs are foreseen two years after their recognition and the 
first two MOs were recognised by the Commission only in August 2013. 

(4) Human and Financial Resources 

Member States were requested to provide information on their human resources available for 
the application and enforcement of the EUTR. A wide variation in human resources available 
for the application and enforcement of the EUTR was reported, ranging from approximately 1 
to  200  person/month27.  The  numbers  reported  should  be  analysed  with  care  and  any 
conclusion  should  take  into  consideration  the  specific  situation  of  each  Member  State, 
including but not limited to, the size of the Member State and the importance of the forest-
based sector in its economy.  

Member States were also asked to provide the total annual budget for the EUTR enforcement. 
This information is further discussed under the following efficiency sub-section.  

(5) Communication, Public Awareness and Dissemination 

New  legislation  requires  good  communication  and  dissemination  of  its  implications  at  the 
national level as well as continuous promotion of public awareness. In 2012, before the entry 
into application of the Regulation, the Commission carried out a communication campaign on 

27 Member States biannual reports. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
the  EUTR,  which  included  the  preparation  and  dissemination  of  audio-visual  and  printed 
material  explaining  the  new  requirements  imposed  by  the  EUTR  as  well  as  a  dedicated 
website  translated  in  all  EU  official  languages28.  In  addition,  24  Member  States  provided 
information  in  the  Biennial  Reports  on  how  they  used  different  communication  tools  to 
disseminate  information  on  the  EUTR.  These  included  emails,  magazines,  press  releases, 
workshops, and radio broadcasts.  

(6) Cooperation and information exchange in the EU and internationally 

Sharing  information  and  building  intelligence  is  an  important  aspect  of  the  EUTR 
enforcement and, therefore, the success and efficiency of the EUTR depends on the ability of 
organisations in different Member States to cooperate and share information with each other, 
as well as with responsible institutions in third countries.  

Cooperation  between  public  authorities  is  crucial  and  it  occurs  mainly  on  two  levels:  (1) 
cooperation  between  CAs  and  other  public  authorities  within  a  Member  State;  and  (2) 
cooperation between Member States and the European Commission. Cooperation with non-
Member States on intelligence-sharing is also pursued. 

According to the Biennial Reports from Member  States, areas  of cooperation between CAs 
within  a  Member  State  were  quite  diverse  and  include  the  following:  (i)  sharing  data  on 
customs  declarations;  (ii)  investigations  on  specific  shipments  and  temporary  seizures;  (iii) 
verifying  documents  in  the  country  of  origin;  (iv)  mutual  information  and  coordination  for 
CITES; (v) technical support; (vi) import data; (vii) checks on traders; (viii) testing imported 
wood samples; (ix) risk analysis.  

Member  States  reported  that  more  than  50%  of  their  CAs  cooperates  within  each  other.  
Besides the regular FLEGT Committee and FLEGT/EUTR Expert Group meetings29, regular 
informal  meetings  to  discuss  enforcement  issues  are  organised  by  Member  States.  Other 
meetings organised by different stakeholders are also used for information exchange among 
CAs  of  the  different  Member  States.  In  addition  to  cooperation  within  the  EU,  12  Member 
States  pointed  out  that  they  cooperate  with  non-EU  agencies  from  the  following  countries: 
Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Indonesia, Australia, USA, Brazil, Japan, and 
Democratic Republic of Congo.  

Obligations imposed on the Commission: 

In accordance with Article 7(2) of the EUTR, a list of the Member States' CAs has been made 
publicly available on the webpage of the Directorate-General for the Environment.30 This list 
is regularly updated to reflect changes reported by the Member States. 

To  comply  with  the  obligation  imposed  on  the  Commission  by  Article  13(2)  of  the  EUTR 
and  facilitate  exchange  and  dissemination  of  relevant  information  on  illegal  logging,  the 
Commission  elaborated  and  provided  the  Member  States'  CAs  with  a  dedicated  electronic 
communication  platform31.  Through  this  platform  Member  States  CAs  can  access 
information on relevant legislation in EU Member States and third countries, identify useful 
contacts when additional information is necessary, obtain relevant documents and reports on 
particular cases, and actively exchange information and data to discuss the most appropriate 
ways to handle cases in a harmonised way.   

28 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eutr2013/index_en.htm. 
29 Minutes of FLEGT/EUTR Expert Group meetings  are available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3282.  
30 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/list_competent_authorities_eutr.pdf.  
31 http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/eutr-competent-authorities/.  

16 

 
 
                                                      
A  EUTR  Guidance  document  was  developed  in  2012  by  the  Commission  in  close 
collaboration  with  the  Member  States  to  provide  explanation  on  key  provisions  of  the 
Regulation in order to achieve a uniform application across the EU32. Further sections to the 
EUTR Guidance document can be included when there is a need to clarify additional aspects 
of the EUTR.  

The  EUTR  specifies  that  the  Commission  can  recognise  monitoring  organisations  (MOs), 
after  having  consulted  the  Member  State(s)  concerned,  if  the  applicants  fulfil  the 
requirements  set  out  in  Article  8(2)  of  the  EUTR.  The  Commission  began  recognising 
applicant  MOs  after  the  adoption  of  a  Commission  implementing  act  and  a  Commission 
delegated act33, which completed the EUTR legal framework, provided additional details on 
the requirements for MOs and established the recognition procedure. The recognition of MOs 
by  the  Commission  took  longer  than  expected  due  to  the  complexity  of  the  recognition 
process. At the time of the evaluation, 9 MOs34 have been recognised and further applications 
are currently being processed. A full list of recognised MOs is available on the webpage of 
the Directorate-General for the Environment35. 

7. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

7.1 Relevance 

The  Union  is  committed  to  fight  illegal  logging  and  related  trade,  which  continues  to  be  a 
persistent problem worldwide with far-reaching negative environmental, social and economic 
consequences.  Originally  envisaged  as  part  of  the  FLEGT  Action  Plan,  the  EUTR  was 
adopted also in response to the Sixth Environment Action Programme, which included as a 
priority  action  the  examination  of  the  possibility  of  taking  active  measures  to  prevent  and 
combat trade in illegally harvested timber. The Regulation was designed to address this issue 
in conjunction with other measures in the FLEGT AP and other relevant international efforts 
to eliminate illegalities in the forest sector. Indeed, Recital 8 of the Regulation states that “it 
is  necessary…to  complement  and  strengthen  the  FLEGT  VPA  initiative  and  to  improve 
synergies between policies aimed at the conservation of forests and the achievement of a high 
level  of  environmental  protection,  including  combating  climate  change  and  biodiversity 
loss.”36 The EUTR aims at addressing the problem of illegal logging both within and outside 
the EU as it covers imported timber and timber products and timber and timber products from 
timber harvested within the EU.   

The Seventh Environment Action Programme 2013-2020 (7th EAP) follows up by declaring 
that the Union will continue to promote sustainable development through the negotiation and 
implementation of dedicated provisions in its international trade agreements and the bilateral 
FLEGT VPAs, which ensure that only legally harvested timber enters the Union market from 
partner countries. It explicitly refers in this context 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. 

32 See n. 12 above. 
33 See n. 2 above. 
34 After the evaluation period 3 more MOs were recognised by the Commission. 
35 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/mos.htm.  
36 In full, Recital 8 of the Regulation states that “Given the major scale and urgency of the problem, it is necessary to 
support the fight against illegal logging and related trade actively, to complement and strengthen the FLEGT VPA initiative 
and  to  improve  synergies  between  policies  aimed  at  the  conservation  of  forests  and  the  achievement  of  a  high  level  of 
environmental protection, including combating climate change and biodiversity loss.”   

17 

 
 
                                                      
In  order  to  protect,  conserve  and  enhance  the  Union’s  natural  capital,  the  7th  EAP  shall 
ensure that by 2020 forest management is sustainable, and forests, their biodiversity and the 
services they provide are protected enhanced as far as feasible, and the resilience of forests to 
climate change, fires, storms, pests and diseases is improved. 

Has the EUTR contributed to address the problem with the illegal logging on a global scale? 
(Is the objective of the EUTR relevant to meet the need to address deforestation?) 

Feedbacks  from  the  national  CAs,  provided  at  Commission  EUTR  Expert  Group  meetings 
indicate that operators progressively require suppliers to provide evidence on the legality of 
the  products  prior  to  their  delivery  to  the  EU  market  and  favour  third-party  verified  or 
certified suppliers as a risk mitigation tool. This proves that the Regulation has encouraged 
more  responsible  sourcing  policies  and,  therefore,  demonstrated  its  potential  change 
operators' market behaviour and to establish supply chains free of illegally harvested timber.  

Illegalities in the forest sector are commonly associated with deforestation and degradation of 
forests  (Tacconi  2012;  Gan  2013)37.  Although  the  demand  for  timber  is  only  one  factor 
affecting deforestation rates in supplier countries – apart from urbanisation and conversion of 
forests  in  order  to  meet  demand  for  land  for  agriculture  –  the  EUTR  could  have  a  positive 
influence  on  the  problem  of  deforestation  and  degradation  of  forests  if  the  EU  market 
consistently requires evidence on the legality of timber supplies. 

The EUTR is part of the Union's global efforts to address illegal logging and trade in illegal 
timber  and  timber  products.  It  shares  similar  objectives  with  the  US  Lacey  Act,  the  Illegal 
Logging  Prohibition  Act  of  Australia,  and  the  Ordinance  on  Declaring  Wood  and  Wood 
Products  of  Switzerland.  Other  major  consumer  countries  such  as  Japan,  China  and  South 
Korea are also at different stages in the process of considering or developing tools to address 
this  issue.  If  effectively  implemented,  the  EUTR  due  diligence  requirement  can  influence 
suppliers  of  timber  and  timber  products  in  the  producer  countries  to  provide  evidence  of 
legality of their products to their EU customers.  

The requirements of the Regulation and of similar legislation in other key markets, such as 
the  USA  and  Australia,  are  deemed  relevant  to  address  the  illegal  logging  problem, 
particularly  by  imposing  responsible  sourcing  practices,  changing  the  market  behaviour  of 
operators and progressively creating supply chains free of illegally harvested timber. 

The EUTR was also designed to level the playing field and recognise and further encourage 
the  efforts  made  by  countries  which  have  concluded  FLEGT  VPAs  with  the  EU38. 
Provisional findings from the evaluation of the FLEGT Action Plan suggest that the EUTR 
has initially reinforced the implementation of national TLAS in the VPA countries.  

How does the EUTR facilitate achieving the international obligations of the European Union 
with respect to the environment and climate change? 

The EUTR contributes to global efforts to halt deforestation and forest degradation, promote 
sustainable forest management, enhance and maintain biodiversity and address global climate 

37  Tacconi,  Luca.  Illegal  logging:  law  enforcement,  livelihoods  and  the  timber  trade.  Earthscan,  2012;  Gan, 
Jianbang, Benjamin Cashore, and Michael W. Stone. "Impacts of the Lacey Act Amendment and the Voluntary Partnership 
Agreements on  illegal  logging:  implications for global  forest  governance."  Journal  of  Natural Resources  Policy  Research 
5.4 (2013): 209-226. 
38 Cameroon, Central African Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia, Republic of the Congo. 

18 

 
 
                                                      
change. It recognises in its Recital 1 that “forests provide a broad variety of environmental 
services essential  for  humankind,  such  as  maintaining  biodiversity  and  ecosystem functions 
and protecting the climate system”. In addition, Recital 3 states “Combating the problem of 
illegal  logging  in  the  context  of  this  Regulation  is  expected  to  contribute  to  the  Union’s 
climate  change  mitigation  efforts  in  a  cost-effective  manner  and  should  be  seen  as 
complementary  to  Union  action  and  commitments  in  the  context  of  the  United  Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change.” 

The evidence gathered has shown that by requiring compliance with national legislation, the 
EUTR, together with the other elements of the FLEGT Action Plan, encourages better forest 
management.  Efforts  made  by  the  countries  that  have  concluded  FLEGT  VPAs  with  the 
Union  and  the  principles  incorporated  in  their  TLAS,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the 
definition  of  legally  produced  timber,  are  recognised  and  encouraged  in  the  EUTR.  The 
Regulation  establishes  a  presumption  of  legality  for  timber  products  covered  by  a  FLEGT 
license39, which ensures that only timber harvested in  accordance with the relevant national 
legislation and timber products derived from such timber are exported into the Union. Thus, 
the combined effect of the EUTR and the other measures of the FLEGT Action Plan have the 
potential  to  contribute  to  biodiversity  protection,  conservation  and  sustainable  management 
of forests, and climate change mitigation and adaptation. The EUTR is therefore considered 
relevant  to  help  the  EU  meeting  its  commitments  to  address  the  global  climate  change  and 
biodiversity conservation as well as to combat illegal logging and related trade as defined by 
the FLEGT Action Plan. 

The  EU  and  its  Member  States  are  actively  implementing  a  number  of  forest-related 
multilateral agreements. The EU is a Party to the United Nations Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD) and has adopted a series of legislative and non-legislative measures in order 
to  implement  the  Convention,  such  as  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  202040.  The  EUTR 
contributes  directly  to  the  achievement  of  the  Strategic  Goal  B  of  the  CBD  to  "reduce  the 
direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use", particularly Target 5 (by 2020, 
the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible 
brought  close  to  zero,  and  degradation  and  fragmentation  is  significantly  reduced)  and 
Target  7  (by  2020  areas  under  agriculture,  aquaculture  and  forestry  are  managed 
sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity). 

The EU is also a Party to the International Tropical Timber Agreement, 2006 (ITTA)41. The 
EUTR contributes to the achievement of the ITTA objectives to promote the expansion and 
diversification of international trade in tropical timber from sustainably managed and legally 
harvested forests and sustainable management of tropical timber producing forests. 

Regarding deforestation and climate change issues, in 2008 a Commission Communication42 
on addressing deforestation and forest degradation set out a target aiming to halt global forest 
cover  loss  by  2030.  Ongoing  UNFCCC  negotiations  on  reducing  emissions  from 
deforestation  and  forest  degradation,  conservation  of  forest  carbon  stocks,  sustainable 

39 Article 3(1) of the EUTR. 
40 Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 European Parliament resolution of 
20 April 2012 on our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (2011/2307(INI)) 
OJ C 258E , 7.9.2013, p. 99–114. 
41 http://www.itto.int/itta/. 
42 [COM (2008) 645 final – Not published in the Official Journal]. The Communication informed the European 
Parliament resolution of 23 April 2009 on addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest degradation to 
tackle climate change and biodiversity loss (OJ C 184 E/41). 

19 

 
 
                                                      
management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD-plus) could provide 
an important tool for achieving this goal43. The purpose of the REDD-plus mechanism is to 
incentivise  the  reduction  of  emissions  from  deforestation  and  forest  degradation  and  to 
promote the conservation and sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest 
carbon  stocks  in  developing  countries,  while  enhancing  the  non-carbon  benefits  of  the 
multiple functions of forests, including alleviating poverty and building ecosystem resilience. 
The  EU  also  supported  the  New  York  Declaration  on  Forests44,  pledging  to  cut  the  loss  of 
forests  by  half  by  2020  and,  for  the  first  time,  to  end  forest  loss  by  2030.  The  EU  and  its 
Member  States  also  subscribed  to  the  UN  Non-legally  Binding  Agreement  on  all  types  of 
Forests  (Forest  Instrument)  adopted  by  the  UN  General  Assembly  in  2007  and  to  its  four 
global objectives on forests45. 

7.2 EU Added Value 

The  added  value  of  the  EUTR  was  originally  identified  in  Recital  31  of  the  Regulation: 
“Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the fight against illegal logging and related 
trade, cannot be achieved by the Member States individually and can therefore, by reason of 
its  scale,  be  better  achieved  at  Union  level, the  Union  may  adopt  measures,  in  accordance 
with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.”  In 
consultation  with  stakeholders,  the  current  evaluation  attempts  to  establish  whether  this 
reasoning is still valid.  

What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention, compared to what could be 
achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels without any EU action? 

In the absence of a common EU forest policy, there are variations between Member States in 
forest  legislation  standards  and  systems  to  control  the  legality  of  domestically  harvested 
timber.  The  EUTR  establishes  a  common  baseline  in  prohibiting  the  placing  on  the  EU 
market of illegal timber, in defining what constitutes illegal timber and requiring all operators 
to exercise DD to ensure that only legally harvested timber and derived products are placed 
on the market, thereby creating a level playing field within the EU.  

Before the EUTR was adopted, domestic harvesting was regulated by Member States' rules 
while there hasn't been an obligation for operators to ensure that imported and domestically 
produced  timber  and  timber  products  had  been  harvested  in  compliance  with  applicable 
legislation in the country of harvest. In other words, in the majority of the EU Member States 
it was not illegal to source timber and timber products made of illegally harvested timber in 
third countries. The only incentive for procurers to supply sustainable and legally harvested 
timber existed in public procurement timber policies, applied by some Member States based 
on  EU  public  procurement  rules,  which  required  that  public  buyers  source  legal  and/or 
sustainable timber. 

The  EUTR  introduced  an  additional  control  layer  that  sets  uniform  obligations  to  all 
operators  placing  timber  products  on  the  EU  market.  It  requires  that  Member  States 
systematically carry out checks on operators and lay down rules on penalties for infringement 

43 http://unfccc.int/land_use_and_climate_change/redd/items/7377.php. 
44 United Nations. (2014). 2014 Climate Change Summit - Chair’s Summary.   Retrieved 22 April, 2015, from 
http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/Climate-Summit-Chairs-
Summary_26September2014CLEAN.pdf.  
45  UNFF,  The  Non-Legally  Binding 
http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/ERes2007_40E.pdf. 

on  All  Types 

of  Forests, 

Instrument 

28.04.2007,  

20 

 
 
 
                                                      
of the Regulation that must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. There are no concrete 
indications that any of the Member States would have developed national legislation similar 
to the EUTR in the absence of an EU intervention. By establishing uniform rules at the EU 
level,  the  EUTR  allows  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  to  take  full  advantage  of  their 
combined market leverage to ensure demand for legally-harvested timber and avoids market 
distortions, which would have occurred if varying rules have been put in place by individual 
Member  States.  Specific  areas  that  benefit  from  actions  coordinated  at  EU  level  include  (i) 
systematic and effective use of DDS by operators, (ii) effective checks on operators and MOs 
by the national CAs, (iii) imposition of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for 
infringements  of  the  EUTR  across  the  EU,  (iv)  systematic  application  of  the  traceability 
obligation by traders and (v) communication and transparency. 

To what extent do the issues addressed by the intervention continue to require action at the 
EU  level?  What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequences  of  stopping  or  withdrawing  the 
existing EU intervention? 

Illegal logging and associated trade remain a pervasive problem at global level and in the EU. 
Continued action at the EU level and stronger international cooperation between the EU and 
both, producing and consuming third countries, remain necessary. 

Withdrawing  or  weakening  the  EUTR  would  be  a  step  backwards.  It  would  deprive  the 
Union of a modern legislative tool to reach its goal and tackle illegal logging and the ensuing 
negative consequences for the environment and climate change. The process of establishing a 
level  playing  field  for  economic  operators  would  be  reversed,  leaving  operators  that  have 
applied  the  DD  requirements  of  the  EUTR  in  a  disadvantaged  position,  especially  as 
potentially  cheaper  illegal  timber  would  freely  enter  the  EU  market.  This  would  entail 
significant reputational damage for the EU and would have negative consequences for the EU 
businesses,  which  have  invested  in  legality  assurance  systems.  Without  the  EUTR  the 
progress achieved on other elements of the FLEGT Action Plan such as 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.  The  strong  point  consisting  in  close 
collaboration between Member States CAs and the Commission, which creates an important 
leverage at the global level and in bilateral relations with third countries (both producing and 
consuming), would be lost. It would undermine the achievements from the application of the 
Regulation and would halt the momentum gained during its first two years of application in 
developing a new culture for responsible sourcing and consumption of timber products.  

7.3 Efficiency 

The  EUTR  requires  that  the  EU  Member  States  and  private  sector  operators  count  with 
appropriate  financial  and  other  resources  in  order  to  properly  apply  and  comply  with  the 
Regulation.  While  assessing  Efficiency,  particular  focus  is  on  monetary  and  non-monetary 
costs of compliance, and corresponding results and benefits achieved. 

What  are  the  costs  and  benefits  (monetary  and  non-monetary)  associated  with  compliance 
with  the  EUTR?  Can  any  costs  be  identified  that  are  out  of  proportion  with  the  benefits 
achieved? 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public sector costs:  

The EUTR entailed compliance costs for the Member States. The resources allocated by the 
Member States for monitoring the application and enforcement of  the Regulation depend on 
the size of the country and its institutional structure and governance, the characteristics of the 
forest sector, including land tenure and traditional management systems, as  well as  legality 
risks involved. The Biennial Reports demonstrate that small countries have lower allocations 
of resources than larger ones but the pattern of government expenditures includes variations 
that cannot be explained by the size of the forest sector alone. The allocated human resources 
of  Member  States46  range  approximately  from  1  to  200  persons-month  per  year.  Only  9 
Member States provided quantitative information on their financial expenditure, which vary 
approximately between EUR 10 000 to EUR 370 000 per year for monitoring the application 
of  the  EUTR,  including  information-sharing  activities  and  enforcement47.  It  should  be 
underlined that some  Member States  have allocated no additional financial resource for the 
implementation and enforcement of the EUTR48.  

Since  the  implementation  process  has  been  generally  slow  in  most  Member  States,  checks 
carried out by the CAs on operators were relatively limited during the evaluation period. In 
many cases, the allocation by Member States of trained staff to exercise control on operators 
looked  highly  disproportionate  compared  to  the  number  of  operators  in  those  countries, 
leaving the deterrent effect of the enforcement activities rather limited. Therefore, the impact 
of  enforcement  activities  was  not  yet  sufficient,  which  has  not  stimulated  companies  to 
actively develop and use a DDS, neither could it guarantee the robustness of existing systems. 

Private sector costs:  

The EUTR entails compliance cost to the private sector as well, which are mainly related to 
the resources for setting up and maintaining a DDS. There are many factors, which have an 
impact on the resources needed for meeting the EUTR obligations, such as the existence and 
the  quality  of  internal  control  systems  prior  to  the  entry  into  application  of  the  EUTR;  the 
number  and  geographic  location  of  timber  suppliers;  the  type  of  products  traded  and  the 
complexity  of  the  supply  chains;  the  size  of  the  business.  Costs  reported  by  operators  for 
developing  and  operating  a  DDS  vary  significantly.  Data  extracted  from  consultations  with 
operators and a survey  carried out  by the Global  Timber Forum (GTF) on the DDS, which 
were  based on  a  limited  sample,  show  that  development  costs  could range  between  EUR  5 
000 – 90 000 and annual operating costs between EUR 1 000 – 70 000. Costs of developing a 
DDS and exercising due diligence seem to have only marginally (if at all) been passed on to 
clients. 

The  above  assessment  largely  concurs  with  the  cost  prognosis  in  the  Impact  Assessment 
carried  out  in  2008  when  the  Commission  put  forward  its  proposal  for  a  Regulation. 
Compliance cost for the prohibition obligation was expected to be neutral while compliance 
cost for the DD obligation were deemed to depend on previous existence and the quality of 
control systems in the companies` supply policy.  

In  the  opinion  of  the  few  private  sector  representatives  that  responded  to  an  independent 
consultancy survey49, the economic consequences of the EUTR are manageable, particularly 
for companies already applying responsible sourcing policies. This may also be the case for 

46 23 Member States included this information in their biennial reports. 
47 Biennial Reports of the EU Member States.  
48 Biennial Reports of the EU Member States.  
49 16 companies identifying themselves as "operators" and 4 companies identifying themselves as "traders". 

22 

 
 
                                                      
those opting for cost-effective practices or trading in timber products with relatively simple 
supply chains. However, it should be noted that a limited number of firms replied out of those 
targeted.  For  this  reason, the results  cannot be considered as  fully representative of the all 
SMEs within the forestry sector. In addition, it is not possible to assess, with the information 
currently available, whether resources allocated by the private sector have been sufficient for 
ensuring the legality of the timber placed on the EU market. There are some indications that 
not all operators have an adequate DDS in place, meaning that the initial application of the 
Regulation has not yet sufficiently contributed to levelling the playing field for the economic 
operators.  

International  and  EU  benefits:  On  an  international  scale,  the  EUTR  is  perceived  as  an 
important  legislative  instrument  to  combat  and  reduce  illegal  logging  and  trade  in  illegal 
timber and timber products. According to the online public consultation, the Regulation has 
increased  consumer  confidence  in  timber  products,  awareness  of  the  problem  of  illegal 
logging  and  understanding  of  the  importance  of  sustainable  management  of  forests.  It  has 
created  an  incentive  for  producer  countries  to  develop  systems  to  verify  and  demonstrate 
compliance with the legality requirements, including by concluding VPAs with the EU. It has 
also, together with the US Lacey Act, contributed to the development of similar legislation by 
other consumer countries such as Australia and Switzerland or to the ongoing discussions on 
possible  legislative  or  non-legislative  measures  in  other  consumer  countries  such  as  Japan, 
Korea and China. With the adoption of the EUTR, the EU sent a signal to the world that it 
would no longer tolerate trade in illegally harvested timber and timber products.    

Benefits  for  the  private  sector:  Operators  participating  in  the  private  sector  survey  did  not 
provide  information  about  any  direct  monetary  benefits.  Not  all  operators  have  a  DDS  in 
place,  leaving  the  playing  field  on  the  market  so  far  unlevelled.  Non-monetary  benefits  are 
generally  associated  with  the  benefits  of  compliance  and  reducing  the  risk  of  reputational 
damage.  

What  are  the  administrative  consequences  for  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  in 
particular? 

The  DD  obligation  of  the  EUTR  applies  to  both  large  and  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises  (SMEs).  If  compared  to  large  enterprises,  SMEs  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 DDS. At the same time, it could be observed that SMEs have the 
advantage  of  more  organisational  flexibility,  higher  level  of  specialisation  and  more  direct 
contacts with a generally more limited number of suppliers. It must, however, be recalled that 
the evaluation is based on a very small sample of SMEs, which responded to the survey. 

There seems to be a rather wide variety of costs spent by SME operators on their DDS. High-
end  development  costs  include  investments  in  IT-based  information  systems  and  intensive 
training  of  staff,  whereas  low-end  costs  include  operators  with  no  need  for  major 
development of their systems and resources due to the simplicity of the supply chains, limited 
number  of  products  and/or  suppliers,  suppliers’  ability  to  demonstrate  legal  compliance  or 
other reasons making the sourcing of legal timber less challenging.  

There  are  indications  that  some  SMEs  are  finding  compliance  with  the  EUTR  a  challenge. 
They may face difficulties to understand the technical requirements of DDS, lack staff with 
adequate  knowledge  and  experience  necessary  for  exercising  DD  or  have  only  limited 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
financial  resources  to  update  their  existing  control  systems  to  the  required  level.  Evidence, 
however, has shown 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.  These  enterprises 
would,  nevertheless,  have  benefitted  from  more  technical  information  and  affordable 
technical assistance, as recommended in Article 13 of the EUTR.  

What good practices in terms of cost-effective application of the EUTR can be identified? 

Cost-effective practices to implement the EUTR have been identified in the following fields: 
(i) cooperation between Member States' authorities as well as between them and counterparts 
in third countries, where a problem has been identified (ii) CAs use of substantiated concerns 
received  from  third  parties  concerning  the  compliance  with  the  Regulation  of    operators  or 
MOs and (iii) operators developing DDS which meets not only the EUTR requirements but 
also  those  of  other  existing  legal  instruments  (i.e.  the  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 
due  diligence  purposes  of  the  results  from  the  EU  negotiations  with  the  VPA  countries 
concerning legality definitions and contacts with national authorities. 

Cooperation  between  CAs  and  other  agencies  in  other  EU  Member  States  or  non-EU 
countries brings up a clear potential to reduce their cost of the Regulation’s application and 
enforcement.  At  national  level,  cost  savings  can  be  achieved  by  involving  the  forest 
authorities,  if  they  do  not  coincide  with  the  EUTR  CAs,  in  the  control  of  the  legality  of 
domestically  harvested  timber,  and  by  CAs  cooperating  with  the  customs  authorities  in 
controlling  the  legality  of  imported  timber  products.  Sharing  of  intelligence  between  CAs 
from different institutions can lead to cost-effective development of knowledge about legality 
requirements in different countries of harvest and more efficient checks on and investigation 
of  operators.  Coordinated  approaches  with  authorities  in  supplier  countries  to  investigate 
cases involving more than one Member State, and maintaining frequent relationships with the 
authorities, can lead to cost-effective exchange of information between the two parties. 

Articles  8(4)  and  9(2)  of  the  EUTR  empower  the  CAs  to  carry  out  checks  on  the  basis  of 
information  from  third  parties  on  the  compliance/non-compliance  of  an  operator  or  a  MO 
with  the  Regulation.  In  the  Biennial  reports,  Member  States  reported  that  the  CAs  have 
conducted  a  number  of  checks  on  the  basis  of  substantiated  concerns  submitted  by  third 
parties  and  have  included  such  information  in  their  plans  for  checks.  Signals  from  third 
parties,  when  substantiated,  have  proven  to  be  an  efficient  tool  for  identifying  products  or 
operators  to  be  prioritised  in  carrying  out  risk-based  checks.  Substantiated  concerns  were 
widely used in the first two years of application of the EUTR. A clear benefit from this tool is 
its cost-efficiency: it can reduce the cost of intelligence gathering and increase the ability of 
CAs to identify possible infringements.  

A number of operators subject to the EUTR are also ISO, FSC and/or PEFC-certified. Since 
the entry into force of the EUTR, the main 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.  

Commercial  service  providers,  like  the  MOs  recognised  by  the  Commission,  exist  on  the 
market and can help operators set up a DDS compliant with the EUTR. 

24 

 
 
 
 
By March 201550, the Commission has assessed and recognised nine MOs that can provide 
operators with appropriate DDS and related services. Despite the availability of MOs, interest 
amongst  operators  for  the  services  of  MOs  has  been  low  across  the  EU.  According  to  the 
results of the conducted surveys, only a fraction of operators currently use the DDS of MOs 
and  their  verification  services.  At  the  same  time,  while  only  a  small  number  of  operators 
decided  to  sign  fully-fledged  contracts  with  MOs  to  use  their  DDS  and  being  verified  for 
their implementation, MOs have reported having provided technical assistance to thousands 
of operators to develop their own DDS. Two factors deterring operators from making use of a 
MO may be the fact that MOs have an obligation to report to the CA on major failures in the 
use  of  a  DDS  by  operators,  and  that  engaging  an  MO  involves  an  additional  cost  for  a 
company. 

7.4 Effectiveness 

The  Regulation  prohibits  the  placing  on  the  EU  market  of  illegally  harvested  timber  and 
timber  products  and  requires  that  the  DD  is  exercised  to  minimise  the  risk  of  illegally 
harvested timber being placed on the internal market. It additionally lays down a traceability 
obligation  for  traders  who  must  know  from  whom  they  bought  products  and  to  whom  they 
sold them.  

Has  the  due  diligence  obligation  been  effective  in  preventing  illegally  harvested  timber  or 
timber products derived from such timber from being placed on the market? 

Article  4  of  the  EUTR  states  that  “Operators  shall  exercise  due  diligence  when  placing 
timber  or  timber  products  on  the  market.  Each  operator  shall  maintain  and  regularly 
evaluate the due diligence system which it uses, except where the operator makes use of a due 
diligence  system  established  by  a  monitoring  organisation”.  In  addition,  Article  6  of  the 
Regulation  outlines  the  compulsory  elements  of  a  DDS  i.e.  (1)  measures  and  procedures 
providing  access  to  information  concerning  operator’s  timber  supplies,  (2)  risk  assessment 
procedures and (3) risk mitigation procedures. 

Checks  carried  out  by  the  CAs  on  operators`  DDS  were  sporadic  in  the  beginning  of  the 
evaluation  period;  they  became  more  systematic  and  rigorous  over  time,  also  as  a 
consequence  of  the  bilateral  dialogue  initiated  by  the  Commission  with  the  MS,  lagging 
behind  with their obligation  to  organise  compliance control. CAs have  increasingly aligned 
the  way  checks  are  carried  out  but  many  differences  still  exist  in  the  interpretation  and 
application of the EUTR, which makes the enforcement actions non-uniform across the EU. 
Some Member States have reported having imposed sanctions for irregularities, particularly 
in the DD system used by operators. A few investigations have been initiated on the basis of 
substantiated  concerns  from  third  parties  but  these  did  not  result  in  the  imposition  of 
sanctions.  

A  strong  perception  exists  among  stakeholders,  notably  the  civil  society  and  the  private 
sector,  that  CAs  have  not  yet  the  capacity  they  need  to  apply  the  Regulation.  The  online 
public consultation and direct consultation of MOs strongly suggest that technical expertise 
and resources (both human and financial) of CAs should are improved so that the CAs could 

50 By October 2015 the recognised number of MO increased to 12. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
increase number and quality of compliance checks, which in turn would prompt operators to 
ensure that they have a workable DDS in use.  

The Biennial Report and circumstantial evidence from the public on-line survey suggest that 
appropriate DDS have not yet been put in place by all operators and that the "innovative" due 
diligence  approach  still  needs  to  be  fully  internalised  by  the  forestry  sector  and  remains  a 
work  in  progress.  The CAs  have  detected  shortcomings  in  some  of  the  DDS  checked  upon 
and  issued  notices  of  remedial  actions  requiring  operators  to  make  improvements  to  their 
systems. All in all, DDS have proved to be challenging to set up since a number of operators 
consider  the  rules  not  sufficiently  clear.    Feedback  from  the  CAs  have  also  indicated  that 
operators increasingly require from suppliers evidence on the legality of products and favour 
third-party  verified  or  certified  suppliers  as  a  risk  mitigation  tool,  which  suggests  that  the 
Regulation encourages responsible sourcing practices.  

The results from the open public consultation point out as main challenges for setting up an 
effective  DDS  (i)  difficulties  in  gathering  information  on  applicable  legislation  in  producer 
countries,  (ii)  the  cooperation  with  suppliers  and  (iii)  the  risk  assessment  and  mitigation, 
which are generally considered a challenge for operators.  

While there are indications that operators are gradually implementing DDS, demanding more 
and more information and legality assurance from their suppliers' evidence collected for the 
purposes  of  this  evaluation  show  that  the  application  of  the  DD  obligation  remains  patchy 
across  the  EU.  For  this  reason  the  obligation  could  not  have  achieved  tangible  results  in 
preventing  illegally  harvested  timber  from  being  placed  on  the  market.  It  is  fair  to  say 
therefore,  that  while  the  due  diligence  obligation  has  the  potential  to  change  the  market 
behaviour of operators and thus create supply chains free of illegally harvested timber, more 
time and effort must be invested in its application before more tangible results are achieved in 
preventing illegally harvested timber or timber products derived from such timber from being 
placed  on  the  market.  More  time  is  therefore  needed  before  a  definitive  assessment  can  be 
made.  

Has  prohibition  been  effective  to  prevent  the  placing  on  the  market  of  illegally  harvested 
timber and timber products derived from such timber? 

24  Member  States51  reported  that  they  have  enacted  rules  on  penalties  for  infringements  of 
the  prohibition  obligation.  The  Reports  indicate  that  some  countries  have  enacted  only 
administrative  sanctions  while  others  have  also  opted  for  criminal  penalties.  All  of  them 
provide for fines and some provide for imprisonment for infringements of the EUTR. Seizure 
or confiscation of illegal timber is only provided for in 19 Member States. A reason for the 
differences  in  the  enforcement  regime  in  the  Member  States  is  the  fact  that  the  Regulation 
leaves it to each Member State to lay down sanctions and only mentions seizure of timber as 
a  possibility,  without  obliging  Member  States  to  provide  for  it  in  their  national  legislation. 
Overall, the Biennial Reports do not provide sufficient information for an analysis of the type 
of sanctions enacted for infringements of the prohibition by each Member States.   

As  regards  the  way  the  prohibition  has  been  enforced,  in  a  few  individual  cases, 
investigations  of  legality  of  imported  timber  products  have  been  carried  out  based  on 
substantiated concerns raised by third parties. However, the Member States have not reported 

51 Greece, Hungary and Romania did not provide this information in their biennial reports since they were still 
in the process of elaborating their EUTR-related legislation. In Spain the drafting phase was ongoing at the time 
of reporting. 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
any closed investigation cases for violation of the prohibition obligation52. Therefore, given 
the  insufficient  experience  with  the enforcement  of  the  prohibition,  no  conclusion could  be 
drawn regarding the effectiveness of this obligation in preventing illegally harvested timber 
or timber products derived from such timber from being placed on the market. 

A serious challenge for implementing the prohibition is the assessment of the risk of timber 
and timber products covered by official documents from relevant authorities in the country of 
harvest  with  high  levels  of  corruption.  Furthermore,  if  authorities  of  the  country  of  harvest 
refuse to cooperate, CAs may lack the knowledge and/or the resources to find evidence of the 
illegality of the shipment that would be brought before the court.  

The traceability obligation 

Article 5 of the EUTR lays down an obligation for traceability requiring "traders" (all market 
participants  other  than  operators)  to  keep  records  of  their  suppliers  of  timber  and  timber 
products and their customers. The rationale behind the traceability obligation is that, in case 
of an infringement of the prohibition, a product could be traced back to their first placing on 
the market. Traceability is considered as a non-burdensome requirement having an ancillary 
supporting  function  in  relation  to  the  prohibition  and  the  DD.  This  also  explains  why  the 
EUTR does not establish an obligation for CAs to conduct checks for compliance of traders 
with the traceability obligation.  

The  online  public  consultation  indicates  that  there  are  still  traders  who  are  inadequately 
aware of the EUTR and its obligations. 

Has  the  EUTR  as  a  whole  been  effective in  preventing  illegally  harvested  timber  or  timber 
products derived from such timber from being placed on the market? 

Given  the  slow  and  incomplete  application  of  the  Regulation  by  the  Member  States  and 
private  sector  during  the  first  two  years  of  its  application,  no  definitive  conclusion  can  be 
drawn  regarding  the  effectiveness  of  the  Regulation  as  a  whole  in  preventing  illegally 
harvested  timber  or  timber  products  derived  from  such  timber  from  being  placed  on  the 
market. 

One indicator for the effectiveness of the Regulation could have been a change in trade flows. 
However,  the  trade  data  analysed53  have  not  disclosed  any  clear  change  in  the  imports  of 
timber and timber products into the EU or in the intra-EU trade within the first two years of 
application of the EUTR. Some evidence has, nevertheless, demonstrated that operators have 
changed  their  suppliers  when  it  was  not  possible  to  mitigate  the  risk  of  buying  illegally 
harvested timber. Furthermore, it should be considered that many other factors affect the EU 
timber market and that the economic cycle, long-term trends and evolving international trade 
play a major role in this respect.  

Even  if  the  macro-level  trade  statistics  do  not  provide  sufficient  evidence  of  the  EUTR 
impact on trade, it cannot be concluded that the Regulation has had no impact. It should be 

52 In a few individual cases, investigations of legality of imported timber products have been carried out based 

on substantiated concerns.   

53 Baseline Report of the FLEGT Independent Market Monitoring (IMM), see n. 16 above. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
noted that a macro-level analysis does not, for example, disclose if there has been a switch 
within  an  exporting  country  to  suppliers  that  can  provide  evidence  on  the  legality  of  their 
products  or  if  the  legality  requirements  of  importers  have  actually  resulted  in  better 
compliance  with  legislation  of  their  suppliers.  It  should  also  be  underlined  that  individual 
changes in the supply sources do not appear in a macro-level analysis. For this reason, more 
experience of the Regulation and more data are needed to make any conclusive statement on 
trade statistics. 

A quantitative evaluation of the impact of the EUTR on trade in illegally harvested timber or 
products  derived  from  such  timber  is  even  more  challenging,  considering  the  clandestine 
nature of the illegal activities and the absence of reliable data on their volume and cost.  

How has the EUTR reinforced the other measures of the FLEGT Action Plan or why did it 
not? 

The  introduction  of  the  EUTR  responds  directly  to  the  provision  in  the  FLEGT  AP  for 
adopting  additional  legislation  to  reduce  the  volumes  of  illegal  timber/timber  products 
entering  the  EU  market  (Activity  area  number  2:  trade  in  timber).  The  Regulation  has  also 
increased the general awareness about the risk investors in the forest sector and importers of 
timber products may  face (Activity area  number 5). Positive influence is also found in the 
use of existing legislative instruments for forest-related crimes (Activity area number 6) and 
the fight against trade in conflict timber (Activity area number 7). The EUTR, together with 
the US Lacey Act and similar legislation in other consumer countries, has indirectly targeted 
timber  producing  countries  (Activity  area  number  1)  and  private  sector  initiatives  (Activity 
area  number  4).  The  EUTR  has  influenced  developments  in  public  procurement  timber 
policies in Member States (Activity area number 3).   

Did  the  EUTR  achieve  any  other  significant  changes  (positive  or  negative)?  Can  any 
unexpected or unintended changes resulting from the EUTR be identified? 

The  application  of  the  EUTR  is  still  in  its  early  days  and,  therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to 
determine significant impacts with a good degree of evidence. At the same time, it is possible 
to say that the Regulation and the communication campaigns carried out by the Commission 
and  the  Member  States  has  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  start  the  development  of 
systems to verify and demonstrate compliance with the legality requirements, and prompted 
third-countries to conclude FLEGT VPAs with  the EU54. 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  to  start  considering  measures  with 
similar objectives (China, Japan, Korea). The EUTR also has influenced amendments of the 
EU  Wildlife  Trade  legislation55  where  the  Commission  regulation  was  reinforced  with  a 

54  There  is  evidence  that  exports  from  Indonesia  into  the  EU  increased  over  the  past  2  year,  which  can  be 
attributed to the facilitated compliance with the EUTR of timber covered by a SVLK: the Indonesian Timber 
Legality Assurance license, which is a predecessor of the FLEGT license. 
55  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. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
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. 

Can loopholes in the regulatory regime established by the EUTR be identified and, if so, what 
are they and how can they be remedied? 

Scope of the obligations: The EUTR focuses on the placing of timber and timber products on 
the internal market for the first time. Thus, both the prohibition and the DD obligation apply 
to operators while the remaining actors are liable for the traceability obligation.   

The EUTR was built on the assumption that operators' compliance with the prohibition and 
the  due  diligence  obligations  will  ensure  the  legality  of  timber  and  timber  products 
throughout  the  entire  supply  chain.  Furthermore,  in  case  of  an  infringement  of  any  of  the 
obligations, traceability would help trace the product back to its first placing on the market or 
down to the supply chain; therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to extend the obligation of 
DD to traders as well.  

However,  the  possibility  exists  that,  even  if  a  rigorous  DD  has  been  applied,  some  illegal 
timber  and  timber  products  are  placed  on  the  EU  market.  The  problem  with  this  narrower 
scope  of  the  obligations  is  that  it  puts  most  of  the  burden  on  the  operators,  leaving  the 
remaining actors without much incentive to address the legality of their timber supply. If the 
illegal timber is not identified at the point of the first placing on the market, enforcement of 
the  Regulation  becomes  more  difficult.  Further,  the  obligation  to  demonstrate  the  DD 
discontinues  after  the  first  placing  of  timber  and  timber  products  on  the  EU  market  and 
information regarding their legality is not transmitted further and is lost at the time the timber 
products  leave  the  EU.  This  poses  difficulties,  in  particular,  when  timber  products  are 
exported to third countries with requirements similar to the EUTR. It creates difficulties also 
in  situations  where  raw  material  or  wood  parts  are  exported  only  for  the  purposes  of 
assembling or processing and are later imported again into the EU.  

The  CAs  are  not  obliged  to  conduct  checks  on  compliance  with  the  traceability  obligation 
but, if this was a regulatory requirement, confidence in the effectiveness of the EUTR would 
be  likely  to  increase.  Experience  with  the  application  of  the  EUTR  will  show  whether  the 
traceability obligation for traders is sufficient to achieve the goal of the Regulation. 

CITES  and  EUTR:  In  line  with  Recital  10  and  Article  3(2)  of  the  EUTR,  timber  products 
listed in Annexes A, B and C to Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of 
wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation) should be 
considered  as  legally  harvested  for  the  purposes  of  the  EUTR.  However,  since  the  legality 
verification  requirements  and  the  control  mechanisms  differ  for  timber  species  listed  in  the 
three annexes, concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of the automatic exemption. 
These concerns already prompted amendments in Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 
laying  down  detailed  rules  concerning  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein but, if 
necessary, further amendments could be explored.  

Exports  of  timber  to  third  countries:  The  EUTR  applies  to  the  "placing  on  the  market"  of 
timber  and  timber  products.  The  precise  moment  when  the  placing  on  the  market  is 
effectuated  in  each  particular  case  could  be  subject  to  interpretation.  Some  private  sector 
representatives argue that exports of domestically harvested timber directly to third countries 

29 

 
 
 
 
do not constitute "placing on the market" and therefore, the EUTR should not apply to such 
cases.  This  interpretation  poses  problems  as  it  would  allow  a  significant  portion  of  EU-
harvested  timber  to  escape  from  the  EUTR  requirements  and  from  checks  by  the  CAs.  It 
would further subject imported timber to much stricter requirements as part of domestically 
harvested  timber  would  de  facto  be  exempted  from  any  regulation  and  control.  Such  an 
application would weaken the EUTR and could jeopardise the achievement of its objectives. 

Levelling  playing  field:  As  enforcement  resources  and  sanctions  differ  from  one  Member 
State to another, operators feel unequally treated when they place timber and timber products 
on the internal market. More effective controls and a uniform interpretation and application 
of  the  Regulation  are  necessary  to  ensure  that  operators  complying  with  the  EUTR  have  a 
measurable economic advantage. 

Is the product coverage adequate to achieve the objectives of the EUTR? Given the current 
Union economic and trade situation with regard to the products listed under Chapter 49 of 
the Combined Nomenclature, should those products be included in the product scope of the 
EUTR? 

The Product coverage of the EUTR is defined in an Annex using a combination of references 
to  codes  from  the  EU  Combined  Nomenclature56  (CN)  and  description  of  products. 
Exemptions of products exist in the text of the Regulation57 and in its Annex and concern a) 
timber  products  or  components  of  such  products  manufactured  from  timber  or  timber 
products that have completed their lifecycle and would otherwise be disposed of as waste, as 
defined  in  Article  3(1)  of  Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  19 November  2008  on  waste  (the  Waste  Framework  Directive);  b)  products 
covered by a valid FLEGT licence or CITES permit. The EUTR covers a significant number 
of products but not all timber products are included in its product scope.  

Consultations with stakeholders, carried out in the framework of the EUTR evaluation, show 
that  many  do  not  consider  the  current  EUTR  product  scope  optimal  and  think  it  should 
include more timber products such as wooden seats, musical instruments, printed paper and 
wooden  coffins.  Non-inclusion  of  these  and  other  similar  products  is  inconsistent.  Some 
stakeholders have also suggested that the product scope should not be expanded to cover all 
wood-containing products before the EUTR is fully implemented and effectively applied.  

Article  20(4)  of  the  EUTR  requires  that  the  first  review  of  the  Regulation  “includes  an 
evaluation  of  the  current  economic  and  trade  situation  with  regard  to  the  products  listed 
under  Chapter  49  of  Combined  Nomenclature,  taking  particularly  into  account  the 
competitiveness  of  the  relevant  sectors”.  CN  Chapter  49  includes  "Printed  books, 
newspapers,  pictures  and  other  products  of  the  printing  industry,  manuscripts,  typescripts 
and plans".  

Under  the  current  situation,  the  European  printing  industry  is  obliged  to  exercise  due 
diligence when importing raw materials for its business. At the same time, publishing houses 
inside the EU and printing houses outside the EU can freely import printed media products 
for  the  EU  market  without  being  subject  to  the  EUTR  requirements.  This  means  that 
imported  printed  products  do  not  undergo  DD  and  are  not  checked  for  the  legality  of  the 

56 The latest version of the EU Combined nomenclature could be found here:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2015:076:FULL&from=EN.  
57 Art. 2(a) and (b); and Art. 3 of the EUTR. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
wood  imbedded  in  them.  Timber  products  used  for  the  production  of  imported  printed 
products escapes any legality control and could in theory, originate from illegally harvested 
forests.  In  such  cases,  the  difference  in  treatment  of  domestically-produced  and  imported 
printed products is perceived as inconsistent and giving an unfair advantage to non-EU based 
printing companies over EU-based ones. This issue would be overcome if printed paper were 
included in the product scope.  

If  printed  media  were  included  in  the  product  scope,  the  EUTR  would  cover  a  noticeably 
larger  share  of  products  containing  wood  fibre  and  be  more  powerful  in  fighting  illegal 
logging  and  associated  trade  and  in  levelling  the  playing  field  between  printing  industries 
inside and outside the EU. 

In  accordance  with  Article  290  TFEU  and  Article  14  of  the  EUTR,  the  list  of  timber  and 
timber products set out in the Annex can be amended or supplemented through the adoption 
of  a  delegated  act,  without  changing  the  Regulation  itself.  In  line  with  the  Commission's 
Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  any  changes  would  be  subject  to  a  prior  impact  assessment 
study. 

7.5 Coherence 

The  EUTR  contributes  to  the  implementation  of  the  FLEGT  Action  Plan  and  complement 
other EU policies and legal instruments to ensure legal production and trade of commodities 
made of natural resources.  

To what extent is the EUTR satisfactorily integrated and coherent with other EU legislation 
with similar objectives? 

In terms of objective and scope, the EUTR, being part of the FLEGT Action Plan, is coherent 
with other EU legislative and policy initiatives. Together with the FLEGT licensing scheme58 
and the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation59, the EUTR aims at preventing the trade in illegal or 
unauthorised timber and ensuring its legal production 

With regard to enforcement, provisions are laid down in national legislation for each of the 
legislative  acts  listed  above.  Member  States  are  required  to  appoint  CAs  responsible  for 
monitoring the application and for enforcing the legislation, and to report to the Commission 
on the application of the EUTR every two years.  

Regarding the rules on penalties for infringements, the legislative acts studied vary to some 
extent.  The  Regulation  establishing  a  Community  system  to  prevent,  deter  and  eliminate 
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU Regulation) is more prescriptive with regard 
to the range of sanctions to be laid down by the Member States and establishes a maximum 
threshold  in  cases  of  "serious  infringements",  which  are  defined  by  the  Regulation.  It  also 
requires that Member States impose immediate enforcement measures and specifies their type 
(cessation of fishing activities, seizure of fishing gear or fisheries products, etc.)60.  

58  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 2173/2005  of  20  December  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- 6. 
59 Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora 
by regulating trade therein. OJ L 061 , 03/03/1997 P. 0001 – 0069.  
60 Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, 
deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) 
No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999. OJ 
L 286, 29.10.2008, p.1. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
Under the EUTR, the FLEGT Regulation, and the Wildlife Trade Regulation, Member States 
have  the  freedom  to  lay  down  sanctions  for  infringements  which  have  to  be  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive.  

In  terms  of  transparency,  Member  States  reported  to  the  Commission  on  the  application  of 
the  Regulations  and  the  Commission  published  summaries  of  these  reports.  Further,  the 
Commission  periodically  reports  to  the  European  Parliament  and/or  the  Council  on  the 
application of the legislative measures. The EUTR has reporting and information procedures 
coherent with those applied by the other legislative acts studied. 

In addition, the EU Directives on accounting and transparency set requirements to report and 
provide  access  to  information  on  private  sector  payments  to  governments  of  producing 
countries  if  a  company  is  engaged  in  the  harvesting  of  a  primary  forest  in  a  country.  This 
requirement is applicable to operators whose payments exceed the thresholds specified by the 
Accounting Directive. 

What  gaps,  overlaps,  discrepancies,  contradictions  or  similar  issues  can  be  identified  in 
other  relevant  legal  acts  or  activities,  which  hampered  or improved  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives of the EUTR? 

The  adoption  of  the  EUTR  gave  an  additional  motivation  to  timber  producing  countries  to 
enter  into  FLEGT  VPA  negotiations  with  the  EU  or  to  speed  up  ongoing  negotiation 
processes,  with  a  view  to  establishing  operational  FLEGT  licensing  schemes  providing  an 
automatic  EUTR  recognition  to  FLEGT  licensed  timber  and  timber  products  on  the  EU 
market. After an initial boost, however, and due to its slow implementation and enforcement, 
the  EUTR  is  perceived  in  some  countries  or  by  some  operators  as  not  robust  enough  and 
easier  to  comply  with  than  the  more  complex  and  demanding  TLAS  negotiated  in  the 
framework  of  VPAs.  To  change  this  perception,  which  is  not  evidence-based,  an  effective 
and  rigorous  enforcement  of  the  EUTR  is  necessary.  The  VPAs  processes  and  the  EU 
Wildlife Trade Regulations complement and strengthen the EUTR objectives as they provide 
the assurance of legal and authorised supply of timber from specific geographic regions and 
of particular timber species. The EUTR makes an explicit reference to CITES and recognises 
the  achievements  of  the  CITES  Convention  by  introducing  a  presumption  of  legality  for 
timber and timber products covered by CITES permits. Experience with the application of the 
EUTR triggered debates on the legal acquisition of CITES listed timber species and prompted 
amendments in Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 by introducing, inter alia, a legal 
basis for the Member States to refuse issuing an import permit in case of serious doubts as to 
the  legality  of  a  shipment  of  CITES  products.  These  developments  provide  an  interesting 
example of how the two legal frameworks can reinforce each other.  

8. CONCLUSIONS 

Relevance 

Although  the  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  comes  after  only  two  years  of  application, 
evidence shows that the Regulation has encouraged more responsible sourcing policies where 
they already exist and for engaging in new ones. In addition, it has demonstrated its potential 
to change operators' market behaviour. Moreover, the Regulation has created an incentive for 
suppliers  in  third  countries  to  demonstrate  the  legality  of  their  timber  products  and  has  the 

32 

 
 
 
 
power  to  establish  supply  chains  free  of  illegally  harvested  timber,  thus  contributing  to  the 
achievement of the objectives of the FLEGT Action Plan.  

The relevance of the Regulation was confirmed by the 7th EAP, which refers explicitly to the 
Regulation  "as  a  legal  basis  for  the  Union  to  address  the  global  problem  of  illegal  logging 
through its demand for timber and timber products". 

The  evaluation  has  shown  that  the  Regulation  is  also  regarded  by  many  stakeholders  as 
adding  significant  value  to  the  international  efforts  to  halt  deforestation  and  forest 
degradation, to conserve biodiversity and address global climate change, thus contributing to 
compliance with the international obligations of the EU.  

EU Added Value 

Before the EUTR was adopted, domestic harvesting was regulated by Member States' rules 
while imported timber and timber products were not subject to any legality requirements or 
control.  

The EUTR aims at creating a level playing field by setting equal requirements for legality on 
both domestically harvested timber and imported timber and timber products, thus respecting 
World Trade Organization (WTO) requirements and introducing an additional control layer 
applicable  to  all  operators  across  the  EU.  It  also  requires  Member  States  to  lay  down 
effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  penalties  for  infringements  of  the  Regulation  and 
conduct  systematic  checks  on  operators  and  MOs.  There  are  no  indications  that  the  EU 
Member States would have developed national legislations similar to the EUTR in absence of 
the EU intervention. By reason of its scale, the objective to curb illegal logging and related 
trade can be better achieved at Union level.  

Without the EUTR, the process of establishing the level playing field for economic operators 
would be discontinued leaving operators that apply the DD requirements in a disadvantaged 
position, especially as cheaper illegal timber would freely enter the EU market. This would 
entail significant reputational damage for the EU and would have negative consequences for 
the EU private sector, which has invested in legality assurance systems. Without the EUTR, 
the progress achieved on other elements of the FLEGT Action Plan, such as VPAs, would be 
seriously undermined. 

Efficiency 

The EUTR is perceived as an important legislative instrument to combat and reduce illegal 
logging  and  trade  in  illegal  timber  and  timber  products.  According  to  the  online  public 
consultation,  the  Regulation  has  increased  consumer  confidence  in  timber  products, 
awareness  of  the  problem  of  illegal  logging  and  understanding  of  the  importance  of 
sustainable  management  of  forests.  It  has  created  an  incentive  for  producer  countries  to 
develop  systems  to  verify  and  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  legality  requirements, 
including by concluding VPAs with the EU. 

The EUTR entails compliance costs for the Member States. The implementation process has 
been generally slow in most Member States and, although a number of countries carried out 
checks on operators, those remained relatively limited during the evaluation period. In many 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
cases,  the  allocation  by  Member  States  of  trained  staff  to  carry  out  checks  on  operators 
appeared disproportionate compared to the number of operators in those countries. Therefore, 
the impact of enforcement activities was not yet sufficient: only a fraction of operators were 
subject to checks by CAs, which did not stimulate companies to actively develop and use a 
DDS, neither it could guarantee the robustness of existing systems.  

The EUTR also entails compliance costs to the private sector. The overall assessment is that 
large companies seem to have been able to adapt better and more quickly than SMEs to the 
new requirements and that the range of compliance costs for the private sector depend on the 
previous  existence  of  responsible  sourcing  policies,  on  the  type  and  complexity  of  trade 
products  and  on  the  number  and  geographic  location  of  suppliers.  While  the  economic 
consequences of the EUTR may be bearable for large and some medium-sized firms, many 
small and micro firms have not only not implemented the Regulation and are still unaware of 
its implications. The Regulation has not yet generated the expected benefits for the business 
in  terms  of  creating  a  level  playing  field  against  illegal  traders,  a  situation  which  has  been 
aggravated by the uneven enforcement efforts across the EU. With the information currently 
available, it is  not possible to  assess whether resources allocated by the private sector  have 
been  sufficient  for  ensuring  the  legality  of  the  timber  placed  on  the  EU  market.  There  are 
indications that not all operators have a DDS in place, meaning that the initial application of 
the Regulation has not contributed to levelling the playing field for the economic operators 
yet.   

The evaluation is based on a very small sample, which responded to the survey. Some SMEs 
replying  to  the  surveys  have  indicated  that  are  finding  compliance  with  the  EUTR 
challenging. This may be due to difficulties to interpret the technical requirements of DDS, 
lack  of  staff  with  adequate  knowledge  and  experience  necessary  for  exercising  the  DD  or 
limited  financial  resources  to  update  their  existing  control  systems  to  the  required  level. 
These  enterprises  would  have  benefitted  from  more  technical  information  and  affordable 
technical assistance, as recommended by Article 13 of the EUTR.  

Cost-effective  practices  to  implement  the  EUTR  have  been  identified  in  three  fields:  (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 by an operator with the Regulation and (iii) operators developing DDS which 
meet not only the EUTR requirements but also those of other legal instruments like the US 
Lacey  Act  Amendment  (2008)  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  due  diligence  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  certification  schemes  have  adapted  their 
standards  to  reflect  the  scope  of  the  legality  definition  embedded  in  the  Regulation  and 
emerged  as  a  practical  option  that  can  be  used  by  EU  operators  to  contribute  to  their  risk 
assessment  and  risk  mitigation  processes.  The  role  of  third-party  verified  schemes  in  the 
implementation of the legislation could be further clarified in the EUTR Guidance document. 

Effectiveness 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUTR implementation efforts by the Member States have been generally uneven and in most 
Member States they have been limited. However, this situation should be seen in the context 
of the stringent economic circumstances in which the Regulation has come into force. Checks 
carried  out  by  the  CAs  were  sporadic  at  the  beginning  but  became  more  systematic  (risk-
based),  frequent  and  rigorous  over  time.  Some  Member  States  imposed  sanctions  for 
irregularities, particularly in the DDS used by operators. A few investigations were initiated 
on the basis of substantiated concerns from third parties but no sanctions were imposed. 

Evidence  collected  for  this  evaluation  suggests  that  insufficient  human  and  financial 
resources  of  the  CAs  are  a  major  challenge  to  apply  the  EUTR  effectively.  Furthermore, 
types  and  range  of  sanctions  for  infringement  of  the  EUTR  are  highly  divergent  across 
Member  States.  Notwithstanding  the  efforts  by  the  Commission  to  ensure  harmonised 
interpretation and implementation of the Regulation, different understanding and application 
of parts of the Regulation exist among CAs. All the above resulted in uneven enforcement, 
which creates a non-level playing field for economic operators. While there is an indication 
that operators have increasingly applied the DD requirements and adopted the required risk 
mitigation  measures,  compliance  with  the  Regulation  by  the  private  sector  remains  uneven 
and insufficient. Many operators have some type of DDS in place but checks by CAs show 
that their DDS does not always meet the EUTR requirements. Some stakeholders stated that 
the  DD  obligation  poses  a  significant  implementation  challenge  due  to  its  novelty  and 
insufficient guidance.  

A  closer  look  at  the  effectiveness  of  the  DD  obligation  reveals  that  it  has  the  potential  to 
change  the  market  behaviour  of  operators,  thus  creating  supply  chains  free  of  illegally 
harvested timber. However, more time is needed before a definitive assessment can be made. 

Given  the  insufficient  experience  with  the  enforcement  of  the  prohibition,  no  definitive 
conclusion  could  be  drawn  regarding  the  effectiveness  of  this  obligation  in  preventing 
illegally harvested timber or timber products derived from such timber from being placed on 
the market. 

The EUTR covers a significant number of products but not all timber products are included in 
its product scope. Some stakeholders suggest inclusion of additional products, such as printed 
products,  wooden  seats,  musical  instruments  and  wooden  coffins,  with  a  view  to 
strengthening the instrument. However, others consider that the product coverage should not 
be  expanded  to  cover  all  timber  products  before  the  EUTR  is  fully  implemented  and 
effectively applied.  

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"  (Chapter  49  of  the  Combined  Nomenclature).  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 fibre 
imbedded  in  them.  Therefore,  they  may  carry  a  higher  risk  of  originating  from  illegally 
harvested timber. The difference in treatment of domestically and imported printed products 
would  be  overcome  if  printed  paper  were  included  in  the  product  scope.  The  variety  and 
complexity of printed goods will be taken into account in a specific Impact Assessment. In 
accordance with Article 290 TFEU and depending on the results of a prior impact assessment 
study,  the  list  of  timber  and  timber  products  set  out  in  the  Annex  can  be  amended  or 
supplemented  through  adoption  of  a  delegated  act,  without  changing  the  Regulation  itself 
(Art 14 of the EUTR). 

35 

 
 
 
The application of the EUTR is still in its early days, and therefore it is not yet possible to 
determine significant impacts caused by the Regulation with a good degree of evidence. At 
the  same  time,  the  evaluation  has  shown  that  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  has  created  an  incentive  for  producer 
countries to start the development of systems to verify and demonstrate compliance with the 
legality  requirements,  and  has  also  encouraged  third-countries  to  conclude  FLEGT  VPAs 
with  the  EU.  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  to  start  considering  measures  with  similar  objectives  (China, 
Japan,  Korea).  The  EUTR  also  has  influenced  amendments  of  the  EU  Wildlife  Trade 
legislation.  On  an  international  scale,  the  EUTR  is  perceived  as  an  important  legislative 
instrument  to  combat  and  reduce  illegal  logging  and  trade  in  illegal  timber  and  timber 
products. 

Coherence 

The EUTR is coherent with other relevant legislative acts in the forest and other sectors and, 
in  particular,  with  the  VPAs  and  FLEGT  licensing  scheme  and  the  EU  Wildlife  Trade 
Regulation.  

36