REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 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) Biennial report for the period March 2015 - February 2017
Date: 2018-10-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU market, European forestry policy, action programme, application of EU law, illicit trade, market approval, market supervision, single market, wood product, wood production

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 5.10.2018  COM(2018) 668 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 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)  Biennial report for the period March 2015 - February 2017  
 
 
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

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) 

Biennial report for the period March 2015 - February 2017 

1.  Introduction 

The  European  Union  (EU)  adopted  Regulation  (EU)  No  995/2010  (the  EU  Timber 
Regulation, hereinafter the EUTR) in 2010. It sets out the obligations of operators who place 
timber and timber products on the market as part of the implementation of the EU Action Plan 
for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT). This action plan is the EU’s 
policy instrument to combat illegal logging in forests worldwide. Another key element of the 
FLEGT action plan are the Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs), legally binding trade 
agreements  between  the  EU  and  timber  producing  countries  outside  the  EU  that  aim  to 
improve forest governance and law enforcement, and to ensure that only verified timber and 
timber  products  are  exported  to  the  EU.  FLEGT-licensed  timber  is  considered  compliant 
under the EUTR. Thus, the EUTR is a key tool for addressing the problem from the demand 
side  as  well  as  to  complement  and  encourage  the  FLEGT  VPAs,  which  address  the  supply 
side.  

Timber  trade  plays  a  significant  role  in  the  EU.  According  to  Eurostat,  more  than  2  billion 
tonnes of timber and timber products1  (worth more than EUR 1 trillion)  were  placed on the 
EU market in 2006-2016. More than 25 % of this timber was imported from outside the EU, 
and  some  of  the  remaining  intra-EU  trade  may  be  in  timber  or  timber  products  originally 
imported  into  the  EU.  The  EU’s  wood-based  industries,  as  measured  by  gross  value  added, 
amounted  to  EUR 107 billion and  employed 3.3 million people in  2014 (6.2 %  and 11 %  of 
the manufacturing total respectively)2. 

The  EUTR  entered  into  force  in  the  EU  in  March  2013.  It  is  relevant  for  the  European 
Economic Area (EEA) and is therefore applicable in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The 
EUTR  became  law  in  the  EEA  as  of  1 May  2015.  The  European  Free  Trade  Association 
(EFTA)  Surveillance  Authority  (ESA)  monitors  the  application  of  the  EUTR  in  these 
countries. 

Article 20(2)  of  the  EUTR  requires  the  Commission  to  draw  up  a  report  based  on  the 
information submitted by the Member States in their biennial reports, and to submit it to the 
European Parliament and to the Council every two years. 

This report provides an analysis of the reports submitted by all 28 Member States and Norway 
–  following  an  agreement  with  ESA  –  on  the  EUTR  implementation  and  covers  the  period 

1   Timber and timber products as classified in the combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council 

Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 to which the EUTR applies. 

2   Eurostat 2018, Wood products and trade under activity (NACE Rev 2) manufacturing (wood-based industries 
(manufacture of wood and wood products (16)+manufacture of pulp, paper and paper products (17)+ printing 
and service activities related to printing (18.1) +manufacture of furniture (31)) (these include estimates), 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Wood_products_-_production_and_trade 

1 

 
 
                                                            
from March 2015 to  February  20173. It details  how the EUTR is  being implemented across 
the EU and in the EEA and outlines conclusions and next steps. In addition, this report pays 
regard to the progress made in respect to the FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements and 
their  contribution  to  minimising  the  presence  of  illegally  harvested  timber  and  timber 
products on the internal market. 

The UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP WCMC) has prepared 
a more detailed analysis of the national reports for the Commission. It provides further details 
and is available on the Commission website4. 

2.  Background 

The EUTR is part of a broad set of measures introduced by the FLEGT Action Plan, which is 
the  EU’s  comprehensive  response  to  the  pervasive  problem  of  illegal  logging  and  its 
devastating impact on forests. 

The  FLEGT  Action  Plan  was  adopted  in  2003  and  sets  out  processes  and  measures  to  (i) 
address  the  problem  of  illegal  logging  and  related  trade  and  (ii)  ensure  the  legality  of  legal 
timber  exported  to  the  EU.  A  key  element  of  the  FLEGT  Action  Plan  are  the  Voluntary 
Partnership  Agreements  (VPAs)  signed  between  the  EU  and  non-EU  timber  producing 
countries. As the FLEGT Action Plan recognised the possibility to develop new legislation in 
order  to  overcome  the  limitations  of  a  bilateral  supply-side  approach,  the  Commission 
submitted a legislative proposal in 2008. This resulted in the EUTR being adopted in 2010. 

The EUTR established three key obligations: 

1.  It prohibits the placing on the market of illegally harvested timber (i.e. timber harvested in 
contravention  of  the  applicable  legislation  in  the  county  of  harvest)  or  timber  products 
derived from such timber; 

2.  It  requires  operators  placing  timber  and  timber  products  on  the  EU  market  for  the  first 
time  to  exercise  ‘due  diligence’,  i.e.  to  undertake  a  risk  management  exercise  to  ensure 
that  only  legally  harvested  timber  (timber  harvested  in  accordance  with  the  applicable 
legislation  in  the  county  of  harvest)  or  timber  products  derived  from  such  timber  are 
placed on the EU market; 

3.  It requires traders of timber and timber products already placed on the EU market to keep 

records of their suppliers and customers (‘obligation of traceability’). 

The  EUTR  is  the  first  legal  instrument  at  European  Union  level  which  includes  mandatory 
due diligence, a key principle for corporate sustainable responsibility in line with the United 
Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). 

In  accordance  with  Article 20(3),  the  Commission  conducted  the  first  review  on  the 
functioning and effectiveness of the EUTR during its first two years of implementation. This 
review  took  the  form  of  an  evaluation,  conducted  in  accordance  with  the  EU  'Better 
Regulation5'  guidelines.  This  was  based  on  the  Member  States’  reports  for  the  period  from 

3   The EFTA surveillance authority did not receive reports from Iceland and Liechtenstein. 
4   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/flegt.htm 
5   Commission communication on Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) - COM(2014)368 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
March  2013  to  February  2015  and  their  experience  with  the  application  of  the  EUTR  up  to 
then. The Commission released its report on 18 February 20166.  

While the limited period was insufficient to fully assess the functioning and effectiveness of 
the  EUTR,  in  particular  as  the  compulsory  due  diligence  requirement  was  quite  new,  the 
report concluded that the implementation and enforcement of the EUTR was slow and uneven 
during  the  first  two  years  and  remained  incomplete.  At  the  time  of  the  evaluation,  not  all 
Member  States  had  fulfilled  all  their  obligations  under  the  EUTR.  Evidence  shows  that 
operators  were  gradually  taking  up  the  due  diligence  obligation  and  that  there  was  more 
awareness  of  the  problem  of  illegal  logging  among  EU  industry  and  consumers.  However, 
uneven implementation and patchy enforcement during the first two years of application did 
not  help  establish  a  level  playing  field.  More  efforts  were  needed  from  both  the  Member 
States and the private sector to ensure its effective and efficient application. 

These  results  have  been  used  to  further  improve  the  implementation  and  application  of  the 
EUTR by (i) promoting cooperation among Member States and the Commission and sharing 
information  in  the  FLEGT-EUTR  Expert  Group  meetings7;  (ii)  developing  new  guidance 
documents or updating existing ones; and (iii) publishing bi-monthly briefing notes on EUTR 
issues.  

3.  EUTR reports 

In  accordance  with  Article 20(1),  Member  States  and  EEA/EFTA  countries  (hereinafter 
referred  to  as  ‘countries’)  are  required  to  submit  to  the  Commission  by  30  April  of  every 
second year (following 3 March 2013) a report on the application of the EUTR, covering the 
previous two years. These reports are an important tool to monitor the EUTR implementation, 
identify  developments  or  challenges  and  possible  solutions  and  share  information  among 
countries and with other stakeholders. 

4.  Implementation – state of play 

4.1  Designation of competent authorities  

In  accordance  with  Article 7(1),  countries  are  required  to  designate  one  or  more  competent 
authorities  that  are  responsible  in  particular  for  carrying  out  checks  at  regular  intervals  on 
operators’ compliance with the EUTR as per Article 4 (prohibition to place illegally harvested 
timber or timber products derived from such timber on the EU market and obligation to have 
a  due  diligence  system  in  place)  and  Article  6  (the  elements  that  the  due  diligence  system 
must  contain).  All  reporting  countries  provided  details  on  the  designated  competent 
authorities8. The institutional structures, legal powers and status of the designated authorities 
vary between countries due to their different legal and institutional frameworks. 

According to the reports, for imported timber, the national competent authorities have the sole 
responsibility for checking operators in 21 countries; for domestic timber, this is the case in 
19 countries. In the remaining countries, this responsibility has been partly or fully delegated 
to regional competent authorities. In some cases, other authorities can support the checks. 

6   COM(2016) 74 final 
7   http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3282 
8   See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/list_competent_authorities_eutr.pdf 

3 

 
                                                            
4.2   Penalties 

In  accordance  with  Article 19,  countries  are  required  to  lay  down  the  rules  on  penalties 
applicable  to  infringements  of  the  provisions  of  the  EUTR;  the  penalties  must  be  effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive. They are also required to take all necessary measures to ensure 
that  these  rules  are  implemented.  All  reporting  countries  provided  details  of  their  legal 
framework. 

All  reporting  countries  provided  information  on  the  range  of  penalties  for  potential 
infringements  of  the  EUTR9.  Penalties  can  be  both  administrative  and  criminal  in 
13 countries,  only  administrative  in  10  countries,  and  only  criminal  in  two  countries.  Four 
countries did not specify the nature of the penalties (administrative and/or criminal). 

In  21  countries,  notices  of  remedial  action  can  be  issued  where  shortcomings  are  detected. 
These allow operators to adjust their due diligence system prior to being re-checked. They can 
be combined with interim measures such as seizure of timber or prohibition to place it on the 
market. 

Details on the fines applicable to infringements of the EUTR were provided by 25 countries; 
these  range  from  as  little  as  EUR 14  to  unlimited  fines  (see  Figure  1).  The  largest  fines 
reported are those relating to the prohibition of placing illegally harvested timber and timber 
products derived from such timber on the EU market: 

-  Up  to  EUR 100 000:  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Germany  (administrative 
penalties),  Greece,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia, 
Slovenia and Sweden; 

-  Up  to  EUR 1 000 000:  Czech  Republic,  France,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Luxembourg  and 

Spain; 

-  Above  EUR 1 000 000:  Belgium,  Estonia,  Germany  (criminal  penalties)  and  United 

Kingdom. 

Denmark reported that it does not have a set limit. In Finland and Sweden10, fines are based 
on the offenders’ revenues.  

The seizure of timber or timber product(s) was reported as a potential penalty by 19 countries, 
while 10 countries can suspend the authorisation to trade. 

Breaches  of  the  EUTR  are  punishable  by  imprisonment  in  15  countries,  with  10  years  the 
longest (Greece) and 30 days the shortest ((Luxembourg) potential maximum sentence. 

9   Where the information was not included in the national report, additional information was requested to 

national authorities. 

10   This information was not included in the national report, but was provided in response to a request for further 

details. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
Belgium: 
Max. 
penalty  
24 000 000 
EUR 

Estonia: 
Max. penalty  
16 000 000 
EUR for 
prohibition 

Germany: 
Max. 
criminal 
penalty  
unlimited 

United 
Kingdom: 
Max. 
penalty  
unlimited 

1000000

o
r
u
E

900000

800000

700000

600000

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

0

Due diligence

Prohibition

Traceability

Figure  1:  Maximum  monetary  penalties*  issued  to  operators  as  a  result  of  infringements  related  to  the 
obligations to exercise due diligence, the prohibition of placing illegally harvested timber and timber products 
derived  from  such  timber  on  the  market,  and  the  obligation  of  traceability  throughout  the  supply  chain  to  the 
EUTR,  where  specified.  Figures  for  Greece  and  Sweden  were  provided  in  response  to  requests  for  further 
information. *The maximum penalty in the United Kingdom is an unlimited fine, which is the same in Germany, 
for criminal penalties (the figures indicated only apply to administrative penalties).  

For  the  majority  of  countries  reporting  on  comparable  legislation  (e.g.  laws  for  the 
implementation  of  the  FLEGT  Regulation11  or  for  the  Wildlife  Trade  Regulation12),  fines 
foreseen for violations of the EUTR are of a similar level to those imposed for violations of 
the comparable legislation. 

4.3 Checks on operators, traders and monitoring organisations 

4.3.1 Estimation of number of operators 

22 countries provided estimates of the total number of operators (see Table 1). It is important 
to note that, while this it is not a EUTR requirement, some countries require operators to be 
registered.  In  others,  estimations  are  based  on  a  variety  of  sources  (customs  data  and  other 
national  databases  or  registers,  including  logging  permits).  Furthermore,  the  number  of 
operators  depends  on  the  size  of  each  country’s  timber  industry  and  the  structure  of  its 
forestry  sector.  Moreover,  figures  on  the  number  of  operators  are  not  always  directly 

11   Regulation (EC) No 2173/200511 of 20 December 2005 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme 

for imports of timber into the European Community 

12   Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora 

by regulating trade therein 

5 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
comparable  as  some  of  the  estimates  may  include  only  active  operators,  whereas  others 
include  operators  that  may  no  longer  be  active.  Operators  may  also  differ  in  terms  of  size, 
level of risk in the supply chains, frequency of timber imports and quantities and value of the 
timber imported. 

Table 1: Estimated number of operators placing timber onto the EU market, by country 

Imported 

Domestic 

Country  
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
*Represents the actual number of registered operators 

145 000 
unknown 
4 013 
50 
63 
300 000 
28 000 
10 000 
350 000 
5 000 
2 000 000 
1 930 
46 700 
unknown 
not specified 

6 000 
unknown 
unknown 
5 000 
781 
2 500 
3 800 
450 
2 000 
14 000 
25 000 
604 
2 674 
unknown 
not specified 

Country  
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

Domestic 

Imported 

140 000 
25 940 
200 
unknown 
100 
120 000 
45 
2 525* 
4 372 
9 700 
460 
1 000 
100 
unknown 

290 
800 
245 
750 
4 900 
5 000 
73 
853* 
162 
unknown 
1 423 
11 000 
4 500 
6 000 

4.3.2 Plans for checks on operators and traders 

According  to  Article 10,  countries  are  required  to  prepare  and  periodically  review  plans  for 
checks  following  a  risk-based  approach,  with  the  flexibility  to  conduct  additional  checks  in 
response to new information, such as substantiated concerns13. They are also required to keep 
records  of  these  checks  (Article 11).  All  countries  confirmed  that  such  plans  were  in  place, 
although Bulgaria only reported on the plan for checks on operators for domestic timber; the 
majority  of  countries  did  not  provide  sufficient  details  on  the  plans  to  allow  for  a  more 
detailed comparison. Belgium reported that, due to resource constraints, priority was given to 
following up on complaints rather than planning checks14. 

Countries  primarily  used  customs  data  and  their  own  registers  of  operators  to  identify 
operators  for  checks.  All  countries, when  developing  their  risk-based  plans  for  checks,  take 
into consideration a range of risk criteria including – among others – the country of harvest, 
product, species and concerns provided by third parties (see Figure 2). 

13   Any relevant information regarding non-compliance with the EUTR – and supported by proof or evidence – 

that is brought to the attention of a competent authority. 

14   The Commission issued a letter of formal notice to Belgium in October 2017, requesting it to conform to the 

EUTR rules: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-3494_en.htm 

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
30

25

20

15

10

5

0

s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

Figure 2: Risk criteria considered by countries when planning checks 

4.3.3 Checks on operators 

From  March  2015  to  February  2017,  more  than  17 700  checks  were  performed  in  total  by 
competent authorities on operators placing domestic timber on the market and almost 2 800 
checks on operators placing imported timber on the market. 

For domestic timber, 20 countries performed 80 % or more of the checks they had planned, 
and for imported timber, 22 countries did so (see Annex A). 

The  number  of  checks  on  operators  dealing  with  domestic  timber  varied  significantly  from 
one  country  to  another,  with  some  countries  reporting  thousands  of  checks  and  others 
reporting limited or no checks. In some countries, EUTR checks are integrated as part of the 
checks  carried  out  by  the  authorities  responsible  for  forest  management.  In  these  cases, 
countries  reported  differently  on  the  numbers  of  checks  (e.g.  Germany  did  not  report  any 
plans or number of checks, although reported a number of sanctions being applied). Belgium, 
Croatia, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom did not perform checks on 
operators  for  domestic  timber,  stating  a  number  of  reasons,  including  limited  domestic 
production. 

In addition to the above-mentioned risk criteria, countries also reported conducting checks on 
particular focal areas, e.g. round wood export from Ukraine (due to the export ban put in place 
by  the  Ukrainian  national  authorities),  domestic  firewood  (Hungary),  imports  from  EU 
candidate  countries/potential  candidates  and  high-risk  imports  from  Belarus,  Brazil, 
Cameroon,  Indonesia15,  Myanmar,  Vietnam,  China,  Malaysia,  Russian  Federation,  Ukraine 
and  Taiwan,  particular  products  (sawn  wood,  paper  pulp,  flooring,  veneer,  plywood, 
firewood, round wood, furniture), and particular species such as teak or oak. 

15 Prior to the start of FLEGT licensing. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
4.3.4 Checks on traders 

19  countries  checked  traders  and  their  compliance  with  the  traceability  obligation,  with  the 
number of checks ranging from one (Denmark, France, Luxembourg) to 747 (Cyprus). 

4.3.5 Substantiated concerns  

In accordance with Article 10(2), in addition to the checks conducted in accordance with risk-
based  plans,  checks  may  be  conducted  when  a  competent  authority  is  in  possession  of 
relevant  information,  including  on  the  basis  of  substantiated  concerns  provided  by  third 
parties, concerning compliance by an operator with the EUTR. 14 countries reported having 
received substantiated concerns about operators, mainly from non-governmental organisations 
(NGOs) and customs (see Figure 3). Of the 80 operators identified, 69 (86 %) were checked, 
and 33 (around 50 %) received penalties. In some cases, checks were still ongoing at the time 
of reporting.  

Substantiated  concerns  were  also  received  by  seven  countries  in  relation  to  traders,  mainly 
from NGOs and members of the public. Of the 64 traders identified, 63 (98 %) were checked 
and 16 (around 25 %) received penalties. 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Concerns Checks

Penalties

Figure 3: Countries that received substantiated concerns about operators, number of operators checked and 
penalties imposed 

8 

 
 
 
 
4.3.6 Enforcement action resulting from checks 

Shortcomings in due diligence related to the placing on the market of domestic timber led to 
583  notices  of  remedial  action  requiring  operators  to  make  improvements  to  their  due 
diligence system (3 % of checks), 269 penalties (1.5 % of checks), 154 other measures (1 % 
of  checks)  and  1  court  case.  For  imported  timber,  483  notices  of  remedial  action  (17 %  of 
checks), 103 penalties (4 % of checks) and 277 other measures (10 % of checks) were issued, 
and 5 court cases took place. 

Breaches  of  prohibitions  to  place  illegally  harvested  domestic  timber  on  the  market  led  to 
189  notices  of  remedial  action  (1 %  of  checks),  628  penalties  (3.5 %  of  checks),  197  other 
measures  (1 %  of  checks)  and  20  court  cases.  For  imported  timber,  22  notices  of  remedial 
action (1 % of checks) and 27 penalties were issued (1 % of checks). 

Issues with the traceability of domestic timber led to 144 notices of remedial action (1 % of 
checks),  95  penalties  (0.5 %  of  checks)  and  190  other  measures  applied  to  traders.  For 
imported  timber,  20  notices  of  remedial  action  (1 %  of  checks),  4  penalties  and  9  other 
measures were issued to traders. 

The majority of penalties relate to domestic timber (see Figure 4). 

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

domestic timber

imported timber

Figure 4: Total number of penalties issued, for those countries that reported issuing penalties 

4.3.7 Checks on monitoring organisations 

In accordance with Article 8(4) of the EUTR and Article 6(1) of Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 607/201216 on the detailed rules concerning the due diligence system and 
the  frequency  and  nature  of  the  checks  on  monitoring  organisations17,  the  competent 
authorities should check the monitoring organisations registered in their country at least once 
every  two  years.  Up  to  the  end  of  the  reporting  period  (March  2017),  13  monitoring 

16  OJ L 177, 7.7.2012, p. 16. 
17   Monitoring organisations are entities (public or private) recognised by the Commission — if the applicants 
fulfil  the  requirements  set  out in  Article  8(2) of  the  EUTR  —  and  responsible  for  providing  due  diligence 
systems to operators and verifying their proper use by operators. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
organisations18  have  been  recognised  in  the  EU.  All  monitoring  organisations,  except  for 
ICILA S.R.L.19 in Italy, that were due to be checked during the reporting period were checked 
by competent authorities, and none of the checks resulted in a notification to the Commission 
of issues that could lead to the withdrawal of a recognition as a monitoring organisation. 

4.4   FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) – contribution to the 

implementation and enforcement of the EUTR 

To  date,  six  VPAs  have  been  concluded  with  Cameroon,  Central  African  Republic,  Ghana, 
Indonesia,  Liberia  and  Congo.  Negotiations  are  ongoing  with  nine  additional  partner 
countries:  Côte  d’Ivoire,  Democratic  Republic  of  the  Congo,  Gabon,  Guyana,  Honduras, 
Laos, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. 

Only  Indonesia  is  currently  operating  a  FLEGT  licensing  scheme  with  the  EU,  which  was 
launched on 15 November 2016. 

According  to  the  evaluation  of  the  FLEGT  Action  Plan  published  in  201620,  VPAs  have, 
overall, produced good results in terms of improved governance and legal reform, especially 
through  the  establishment  of  effective  multi-stakeholder  participation  processes,  capacity 
building, increased transparency, awareness raising and policy dialogue. Furthermore, timber 
legality  assurance  systems  have  been  developed  as  part  of  the  VPAs,  to  verify  that  timber 
products conform to the national legislation of the VPA partner country. Even though these 
efforts have  not  yet resulted, with the exception of Indonesia, in  a flow of  FLEGT-licensed 
timber,  the  steps  already  taken  in  partner  countries  have  facilitated  –  to  some  extent  – 
compliance with the EUTR requirements. 

With regard to the responses by countries, only four out of the 22 countries that reported on 
how VPAs help minimise the presence of illegally harvested timber and timber products on 
the  EU  market  noted  that  the  FLEGT  licensing  scheme  in  Indonesia  already  facilitates 
compliance with  the EUTR and can  result in  a reduced  number of checks. However, others 
expect this to be the case in the future. At the time of reporting, six countries noted that there 
were  still  no  reliable  findings  on  whether  and  how  VPAs  were  contributing  to  the 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  EUTR.  The  knowledge  and  expertise  from  FLEGT 
processes were considered useful for EUTR inspections by two countries, while one country 
noted that the information available on VPAs was too general in the context of EUTR checks 
and  that  more  information  should  be  provided  on  infringement  cases.  Limited  or  no  impact 
was  reported  by  14  countries,  with  nine  of  them  explaining  that  their  trade  with  VPA 
countries was minimal or non-existent. 

In terms of contribution to the implementation and enforcement of the EUTR, the countries’ 
assessments of the potential relevance of the various VPA processes (both concluded or under 
negotiation)  differed  considerably,  depending  on  the  different  levels  of  trade  exposure. 
Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Malaysia, Congo and Vietnam are 
the VPA processes most commonly considered of high or medium relevance, followed by the 
Central  African  Republic,  Côte  d’Ivoire,  Gabon  and  Thailand.  The  potential  relevance  of 
other VPAs was mostly perceived as low. There are some exceptions – for example, one VPA 
with high potential relevance for only one or two countries. 

18   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/List_of_recognised_MOs.pdf 
19   As of 1 July 2015, ICILA S.R.L. is now CSI S.p.A. 
20   SWD(2016)275 

10 

 
                                                            
Competent  authorities  identified  several  other  countries  not  engaged  in  a  VPA  process  as 
priorities  for  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  EUTR,  including  Russia,  China, 
Ukraine and Brazil. 

4.5 Cooperation on implementation and enforcement of the EUTR 

Article 12 encourages cooperation to ensure compliance with the EUTR and the exchange of 
information  on  serious  shortcomings  detected  during  checks  and  on  the  penalties  that  have 
been  imposed  nationally.  26  countries  reported  working  together  with  national  agencies  to 
exchange  information  or  to  coordinate  joint  checks,  in  particular  customs  or  tax  agencies, 
CITES authorities, and police or other enforcement agencies. 

Furthermore,  19  countries  reported  working  together  with  other  competent  authorities  and 
other  EU  institutions.  This  related  mostly  to  participation  in  EUTR-FLEGT  Expert  Group 
meetings,  use  of  the  EUTR-FLEGT  competent  authorities  online  platform  managed  by  the 
Commission  on Capacity4dev21, collaboration with the Commission  and participation in  the 
Nordic-Baltic cooperation. 

16 countries reported exchanging information with institutions in countries from outside the 
EU, particularly in the United States, and with NGOs. 

4.6 Resources available for the implementation and enforcement of the EUTR 

The  human  and  financial  resources  available  to  competent  authorities  to  implement  and 
enforce the EUTR varied greatly across countries, although the reported resources are difficult 
to compare due to the varying levels of detail provided by countries. Human resources ranged 
from as little as one-eighth (0.125) of a full time equivalent (FTE) to eight FTEs for imported 
timber, and from one-eighth (0.125) of a FTE to 20 FTEs22 for domestic timber, although core 
staff are supported by additional human resources in a range of countries. Available financial 
resources vary greatly as budgets appear extremely limited in some countries (e.g. Belgium), 
whereas in others there is no defined budget limit (e.g. Germany) 

5.  Technical assistance to and capacity development of operators 

During  the  reporting  period,  23  countries  provided  assistance  and  training  to  operators, 
mainly through courses, lectures or seminars, followed by the provision of information online. 
Seven countries  also  reported  that  training  was  provided  to  operators  by  NGOs  and  that 
assistance  included  online  information,  workshops,  courses,  printed  materials  and  general 
advice on EUTR requirements. 

The  reported  number  of  operators  varied  across  countries,  from  23  (Norway)  to  2 500 
(Germany).  The  proportion  of  operators  receiving  training  that  were  micro  enterprises  and 
small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  ranged  from  42 %  (Spain)  to  100 %  (Cyprus, 
Czech Republic, Malta, Latvia and Portugal); on average, 88 % of the operators trained were 
SMEs. 

6.  Communication methods 

Competent 
countries), 
meetings/conferences/seminars (18 countries), emails (15 countries), phone (12 countries) and 

authorities  most 

commonly 

websites 

used 

(23 

21   https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/eutr-competent-authorities 
22   The relatively high number of staff reported by Italy, Greece, Denmark and possibly others may be based on 

the inclusion of customs personnel in general. 

11 

 
                                                            
other  methods  (15  countries)  to  disseminate  information  to  stakeholders.  Competent 
authorities  raised  the  awareness  of  operators  (13  countries),  traders  (9  countries),  industry 
organisations (7 countries) and the general public (6 countries). When responding to concerns, 
complaints and appeals, which were mainly received from NGOs (9 countries), operators (8 
countries)  and  traders  (6  countries),  email  was  the  most  frequently  used  method  of 
communication (16 countries). 

7.  Conclusions 

This second report on the EUTR implementation reveals steady progress after four years of its 
application. Almost  all  countries comply with  the formal requirements  of the EUTR23. Over 
the  reporting  period,  the  number  of  checks  made  and  sanctions  applied  for  violations  of  the 
EUTR has significantly increased. 

Despite  clear  progress,  continuous  efforts  are  needed  to  ensure  a  uniform  and  effective 
application  of  the  EUTR  across  countries.  Uneven  implementation  can  have  potential 
implications  in  terms  of  both  the  effectiveness  of  legislation  and  a  level  playing  field  for 
market  operators.  In  several  countries,  the  number  of  checks  remained  relatively  low 
compared to the number of operators, and was arguably well below the level required to have 
a  truly  dissuasive  effect  across  the  industry.  In  addition,  further  effort  should  be  made  to 
ensure that the scope and quality of the checks carried out reflect a more consistent approach 
across  the  EU.  In  2017,  the  Commission  issued  a  letter  of  formal  notice  to  Belgium  with 
regard  to  the  quantity  and  quality  of  checks  conducted  by  its  competent  authorities  and, 
respectively,  a  reasoned  opinion  to  Slovakia  regarding  the  rules  on  penalties  applicable  to 
infringements  of  the  provisions  of  the  EUTR  for  imported  timber.  The  Commission  is  also 
having bilateral dialogues with a number of Member States on the EUTR implementation. 

While progress has been made in some countries, the current level of technical capacity and 
resources  (both human  and financial) allocated to  the competent authorities does  not  always 
correspond to the needs and must  be strengthened in  most  of  the Member States in  order  to 
increase the number and quality of compliance checks. 

Based on the experience of Member States, evidence of how VPAs help implement the EUTR 
is  still  limited,  in  particular  given  that  only  one  VPA  partner  country,  Indonesia,  currently 
issues FLEGT licences. Nonetheless, according to the evaluation of the FLEGT Action Plan, 
VPAs have contributed - to some extent - to the implementation of the EUTR by improving 
governance. 

8. Next steps 

The  Commission  will  continue  its  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  on  supplementing 
EUTR  guidance,  where  necessary,  to  achieve  a  uniform  application  of  the  EUTR  and  to 
facilitate its implementation by the operators. 

The  Commission  will  also  continue  to  facilitate  communication  and  help  approximate 
enforcement approaches between competent authorities at expert group meetings and through 
the  competent  authorities’  communication  platform.  This  includes  the  compilation  and 
analysis of information on cases where specific attention of the competent authorities might be 
required, based on publicly available information and specific reports both in the EU and in 

23   With the exception of Slovakia, which is subject to an infringement procedure and is in the process of 

amending its national legislation to adequately cover timber imports. 

12 

 
 
                                                            
countries from outside the EU. The new tool TAIEX Environmental Implementation Review 
Peer 2 Peer24 launched by the Commission will provide an additional opportunity to support 
Member States in sharing expertise and lessons learned25. 

The  Commission  will  continue  to  explore  additional  tools  to  improve  the  EUTR 
implementation in cooperation with the Member States and relevant stakeholders. 

In addition, a trade analysis is underway to assess trends and patterns and identify the species, 
products and trade routes to which  competent authorities should be attentive. An analysis of 
the Member States’ legislation for the implementation of the EUTR and FLEGT Regulation is 
also  being  prepared  to  identify  best  practices  and  possible  areas  for  improvement.  The 
Commission will also launch a study on the application of the EUTR obligations by operators 
representing  different  industry  segments.  It  aims  to  identify  best  practices,  challenges  and 
shortcomings, taking into account the quality and cost-effective practices in the application of 
due  diligence  systems,  as  well  as  provide  an  analysis  of  the  administrative  costs,  and  other 
effects of EUTR compliance for industry, in particular for SMEs. 

On  VPAs,  there  is  scope  to  enhance  synergies  with  the  EUTR  by  ensuring  that  VPA 
implementation  in  countries  that  do  not  yet  have  an  operational  FLEGT  licensing  scheme 
results in information relevant for EUTR implementation that is more readily available. 

This  second  reporting  exercise  has  allowed  for  identification  of  additional  areas  for 
improvement in the reporting format. The reporting format for 2019 may therefore be revised 
to further improve the comparability of data, in particular in relation to Articles 10, 12 and 19. 
For the next reporting cycle, the Commission will consider establishing an electronic reporting 
platform to improve efficiency and facilitate the work of Member States. 

24   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/p2p/index_en.htm 
25   A  request  has  been  received  from  Portugal  for  organising  a  workshop  on  EUTR  implementation  by  the 

competent authorities of the Mediterranean countries. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                            
Number of different types of checks planned and performed by countries (these may represent individual checks, or 
numbers  of  operators  checked).  (Key:  Pln.:  planned  checks,  Perf:  performed  checks,  Desk:  desktop  review,  Doc: 
document review on-site, Prod: product inspection on-site, Comb: document review and product inspection on-site). 

ANNEX A 

Pln. 
Prod 

Pln. 
Comb 

Perf. 
Prod 
141 

Perf. 
Comb 
165 
5 

Total 
planned 
979 
50 

Total 
performed 
863 
28 

Ratio 

88 % 
56 % 

Country 
Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

50 

141 
7 

1 
40 
2 

1 
62 
4 

Pln. 
Desk 

3 
180 
4 

Perf. 
Desk 
133 
6 

Type of 
timber 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic  2 000  3 950 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic  1 593 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 
domestic 
imported 

26 
170 

599 
19 

13 
17 

318 

318 

356 

17 

24 

2 

9 

3 

9 

9 

5 

14 

40 

1 
10 
10 

1 
10 
25 

Pln. 
Doc 

100 
9 

1 
58 

20 

Perf. 
Doc 
424 
17 

14 
144 
11 

15 

9 

15 

190 
26 
3 
10 
10 

190 
52 
4 
15 
25 

20 

20 

20 
8 
155 

19 
8 
227 
12 

24 

25 
49 

26 

14 
66 

30 
5 
25 
49 

104 

1 133 
12 

230 
31 

38 
29 
1 

14 
62 

355 
32 

46 
62 
44 
113 
70 

2 
361 
26 

46 
64 
31 
119 
68 

1 135 

794 

20 
30 
30 
320 

118 
149 
78 
10 
10 

20 
53 
107 

4 
52 

20 
32 
30 
171 

118 
117 
66 
10 
25 

20 
53 
107 

3 
7 256 

100 

62 

10 
9 
13 

77**** 
866;118 
45 
1 200 

15 
9 
13 
152 
166 
402 
9 
1 328 

20 

38 
47 

610 
48 

5 
124 
92 
113 
70 

24-40 
1 135 
20 
20 
30 
30 
320 

309 
237 
86 
2 010 
60 

358* 
53 
107 

24 
60 
155 
13 
17 

9 

100 
24 
10 
45 
73 

77**** 
3 759 
126 
1 200 

400 
26 
75 
425 
14 
71 

184 
*Due to limited levels of detail provided, this was inferred;   **Includes re-checks; *** Checks confirmed to have taken place; 
****Combines checks on operators trading in domestic and/or imported timber 

184 

184 

184 

55 

19 
725 
41 

46 
130 
106 
119 
68 
1 
58 
794 
15 
20 
32 
30 
320 

309 
209 
73 
3 965 
25 

358* 
53 
107 

24 
7 264 
227 
12 
17 

[100 %] 
119 % 
85 % 

920 % 
105 % 
115 % 
105 % 
97 % 
[100 %] 
145 % 
70 % 
75 % 
100 % 
107 % 
100 % 
100 % 

100 % 
88 % 
85 % 
197 % 
42 % 
*** 
100 %* 
100 % 
100 % 

100 % 
12107 % 
147 % 
92 % 
100 % 

9 

100 % 

74** 
30 
23 
45 
73 
152 
166 
1 492 
79 
1 328 

424 
29 
65 
217 
14 
71 

74 % 
125 % 
230 % 
100 % 
100 % 
413 %***
* 
40 % 
63 % 
111 % 

106 % 
112 % 
87 % 
51 % 
100 % 
100 % 

100 % 

14