1

Overview of Competent Authority EU Timber Regulation checks, January - June 2019 Statistics of checks performed by EU Member States and EEA countries to enforce the implementation of the EU Timber Regulation

2

Introduction

This document provides an overview of the checks Competent Authorities have performed over the period January - June 2019 to verify compliance of the EU Timber Regulation1 (EUTR), as well as any enforcement actions taken.

The EUTR works to ensure that illegal

timber does not enter the EU market, by

laying out the obligations of a)

operators that place timber on the EU

market (Article 4, 6), b) traders that buy

and sell timber that has already been

placed on the EU market (Article 5), and

c) monitoring organisations that

provide support to operators in

fulfilling their obligations under the

EUTR (Article 8). Competent

Authorities (CA) are tasked with

performing checks on operators, traders

and monitoring organisations to ensure

that they fulfil their obligations under

the EUTR.

The statistics presented here are based

on the information provided by

Member States through an online

survey and include the responses from

25 countries2. The EUTR is

implemented by all 28 EU Member

States, as well as Norway, Iceland and

Liechtenstein (European Economic

Area), which are referred to as

‘countries’ throughout this document.

All information, figures and overviews

provided refer to the current reporting

period, unless otherwise specified.

This overview allows countries to

compare their enforcement efforts and

to foster information exchange on

particular issues of relevance. It also

helps the European Commission to

monitor and assess the implementation

and enforcement of the EUTR across

countries.

1 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010R0995 2 No information was received from Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Romania and Spain.

Table 1: Estimated number of operators placing domestic, imported, or both types of timber on the EU internal market, by country (based on national EUTR

reports (grey italics) and updates or confirmation of estimates provided in response to the survey (black font); different methodologies were used by countries to estimate/establish these numbers.)

Country Domestic Imported Domestic and

imported

Austria 140 000 3 600 i not specified

Belgium 2 300 ii 5 000 i unknown

Bulgaria 4 013 unknown unknown

Croatia 2 830 ii 5 000 not specified

Cyprus 62 iii 780 iii 2 iii

Czech Republic 300 000 2 500 not specified

Denmark 28 000 ii 3 800 i not specified

Estonia 10 000 450 3

Finland 350 000 ii 2 000 i unknown

France 5 000 iv 12 000 iv not specified

Germany 2 000 000 25 000 i not specified

Greece 1 559 233 371

Hungary 46 700 ii 2 674 ii 246 ii

Iceland unknown unknown unknown

Ireland unknown 2 169 i unknown

Italy not available v 20 000 i not specified

Latvia 140 000 ii 400 i unknown

Lichtenstein unknown unknown unknown

Lithuania 25 940 800 unknown

Luxembourg 200 ii 245 i not specified

Malta 0vi 750 i 0

Netherlands 100 4 900 i unknown

Norway 120 000 2 500 not specified

Poland unknown ~6 500 i unknown

Portugal not specified iii not specified iii 5 582 iii

Romania 4 372 177 not specified

Slovakia 9 700 unknown unknown

Slovenia 461 000 ii 1 126 i not specified

Spain 1 000 11 000 not specified

Sweden 880 ii 4 500 i 10

United Kingdom unknown 6 000 vii unknown

i) Estimate based on customs data ii) Land/other registry data (Luxembourg: includes estimate of private operators) iii) CA maintains register of operators. Portugal noted registration is mandatory through their electronic portal (Sistema RIO) and their database is automatically updated (see https://ruem.icnf.pt/Indicadores_RUEM/ and http://www2.icnf.pt/portal/florestas/fileiras/resource/doc/reg/RUEM-DEZEMBRO2017.pdf ); they do not distinguish between operators of domestic and imported timber. iv) Government ministry sources v) Italy reported that the national list of EUTR operators is still being implemented vi) Malta noted it has no domestic operators vii) Figure based on report completed prior to Regulation being brought into force

3

Background

Number of operators and monitoring organisations

The number, size and type of operators, traders and monitoring organisations as well as patterns of trade

flows vary significantly across countries, which will influence the overall number of checks and the way

checks are performed.

Competent Authorities carry out checks to ensure operators comply with Article 4 and 6 of the EUTR,

which may include an assessment of the operator’s Due Diligence System, examination of documentation

or spot checks such as field audits. Table 1 provides an overview of the estimated numbers of operators,

by country. These estimates provide important information to be taken into consideration when

preparing plans for checks on operators.

Monitoring organisations can establish Due Diligence Systems and allow operators to use it. They have

to maintain their systems and assess proper implementation; they must also address any failure of

operators in properly using the system and report any significant or repeated shortcomings to the

Competent Authority. Monitoring organisations can be registered in one country but also offer services

in others; Competent Authorities have to check those monitoring organisations, which have main offices

within their country at least every two years3. Table 2 provides an overview of the number of monitoring

organisations registered in the EU, by country.

Table 2: Main seats of monitoring organisations registered in the EU, by country (based on information submitted in EUTR national reports 2017)

Monitoring organisation Denmark Estonia France Germany Italy Latvia Netherlands Spain United Kingdom

AENOR International ✓

BM Trada ✓

Bureau Veritas ✓

Conlegno ✓

Control Union Certification ✓

DIN CERTCO ✓

GD Holz Service ✓

CSI S.p.A.i ✓

Le Commerce du Bois ✓

NEPCon ✓ ✓

SGS ✓

Soil Association ✓

Timber Checker ✓

i) As of 1st of July 2015, previously ICILA S.R.L.

National plans for checks To ensure that the diversity of situations in different countries is taken into account, while ensuring the

number and thoroughness of checks needed for effective implementation of the EUTR, Competent

Authorities are to conduct checks in accordance with a periodically reviewed plan following a risk-based

approach. Countries therefore establish national plans for checks (Table 3), which take into consideration

various risk factors (Figure 1); checks are performed accordingly. The distribution and focus of checks

across the year may vary between countries and the number and type of checks performed may therefore

fluctuate across the year.

3 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/eutr_guidance.zip

4

Figure 1: Risk criteria considered by countries when planning checks, by number of Member States (based on information submitted in EUTR national reports 2017).

Customs data and trade patterns

For imported timber, customs data is a crucial resource for Competent Authorities when they are

planning checks on operators, since it contains information needed for a risk assessment (number of

operators importing timber, type of business, type of product, value of imports, volume of imports, issues

with customs declaration, country of harvest, species). However, countries have different levels of access

to these datasets (Table 4). While the majority (22) of the reporting countries have access to all relevant

customs data, three countries only receive information covering certain product types and two countries

reported not currently having access to customs data (Table 4).

In addition to national customs data, Competent Authorities may also take into consideration changes in

global trade patterns or may use information from traders’ records on suppliers to identify products,

producer countries or operator types for checks.

5

Table 3: National plans for checks on the implementation of the EUTR (based on information submitted in EUTR national reports 20174, for the period March 2015 – February 2017)

Time schedule for plan i

Country Main criteria considered when planning checks Domestic Imported Austria Imported: assessment of customs data and high risk imports prioritised;

Domestic: operators selected by ministry and checked during annual roundwood removal survey

annual annual check plan ii

Belgium Risk criteria no schedule no schedule

Bulgaria Not specified annual not specified Croatia Risk criteria annual

Cyprus Assessment of customs data and high risk imports prioritised; 10% of operators per CN code checked except Chapters 47, 48 and 94 where 1% of operators are checked. Substantiated concerns are followed up on immediately

continuously monthly

Czech Republic Risk criteria annual i annual i Denmark Risk criteria and some operators are randomly selected not specified not specified

Estonia Risk criteria, concerns received and aiming at cross-selection of different products, countries of origin, sizes of companies

annual annual

Finland Assessment of customs data and risk criteria. Also random checks. annual annual France Assessment of customs data and high risk imports prioritised. Regional CAs

follow this plan and conduct checks July-January the following year annual i annual

Germany 150-200 checks annually based on risk criteria from 3 groups: high risk origin of timber, furniture businesses (only this period as found not to be implementing the EUTR well) and risk research/follow-up checks

not specified quarterly

Greece Planning on the basis of the circular 144548/4805 / 14-09-2016 annual i annual i

Hungary Risk criteria, random checks. Substantiated concerns are followed up on. Check plan defined in national legislation, including: (A) the definition of objectives and risks, (B) the timetable for inspections, (C) sales chains related to timber products concerned by the priority checks, (D) the measurement and follow-up methods of achieving the objectives, (E) in carrying out checks with other authorities, the implementation plans and conditions of cooperation and mutual assistance, (F) relevant performance indicators used in the evaluation of the audit plan

annual annual

Ireland Risk criteria; planning flexible to react to advice from Commission, other CAs and substantiated concerns

not specified not specified

Italy Risk criteria, assessment of customs data annual annual Latvia Imported: Assessment of customs data and high risk imports prioritised,

planning flexible to react to new information. Domestic: 348 audited inspectors check ~70% of domestic felling areas through field visits; all felling areas are subject to desktop checks. Internal auditing procedure ensures additional crosschecking; additional field visits focus on the legality of harvesting.

annual i twice per year

Lithuania Risk criteria, also operators that have not yet been checked or not for a longer period, or that were previously in breach of the EUTR

annual or quarterly plan

monthly

Luxembourg Risk criteria, with 5% of operators from 4 groups selected: imported timber, selling domestic timber, buying timber and substantiated concerns i

annual annual

Malta Risk criteria, operator performance and enforcement record. Substantiated concerns are followed up on

not applicable iii twice per year

Netherlands Risk criteria not specified not specified

Norway Risk criteria 2 years 2 years Poland Risk criteria annual annual

Portugal Risk criteria annual annual Romania All operators and traders of domestic timber planned to be checked 2 years not specified

Slovakia Domestic: based on legislation, and as required. Checks are due every 5-10 years; bigger operators checked every 2 years

annual not specified

Slovenia Risk criteria annual annual

Spain Risk criteria; a national plan is the basis for the regional check plans not specified not specified Sweden Risk criteria annual annual

United Kingdom Risk criteria annual annual

i) Due to limited levels of detail provided, this information was inferred ii) Checks on specific imports selected from weekly customs data iii) There are no domestic operators in Malta

4 Countries submit national reports biennially on the implementation and enforcement of the EUTR (Article 20, EUTR).

6

i) No information from Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Spain ii) Also received frequently throughout the year iii) Portugal noted there was currently no data exchange between customs and their Competent Authority, however there are customs written procedures requesting operators register in the National Register System provided by Portuguese CA. Customs verifies if the operator is registered before timber or timber products are introduced in the Portuguese market iv) Sweden noted that they make a new request every six months and can make special requests v) The United Kingdom noted they do not currently have access to customs data

Country Frequency of data exchange Data on EUTR products shared Austria Weekly Only certain product types related to timber imports

Belgium Monthly All customs data related to timber imports

Bulgaria Free access All customs data related to timber imports

Croatia Annually i All customs data related to timber imports

Cyprus Monthly Only certain product types related to timber imports

Czech Republic Monthly All customs data related to timber imports

Denmark Quarterly All customs data related to timber imports

Estonia Annually All customs data related to timber imports

Finland Monthly All customs data related to timber imports

France Annually All customs data related to timber imports

Germany Monthly All customs data related to timber imports

Hungary Monthly ii All customs data related to timber imports

Ireland Requested when required ii All customs data related to timber imports

Italy Annually All customs data related to timber imports

Latvia Requested when required All customs data related to timber imports

Lithuania Free access Only certain product types related to timber imports

Luxembourg Annually Only certain product types related to timber imports

Malta Requested when required All customs data related to timber imports

Netherlands Requested when required All customs data related to timber imports

Norway Annually All customs data related to timber imports

Poland Quarterly All customs data related to timber imports

Portugal No access iii -

Romania Annually All customs data related to timber imports

Slovakia Requested when required All customs data related to timber imports

Slovenia Free access All customs data related to timber imports

Sweden Annually iv Only certain product types related to timber imports; Only certain time periods related to timber imports

United Kingdom No access v -

Table 4: Frequency of data exchange between customs and Competent Authorities and extent of data on timber products shared, by country i

7

Statistics of checks performed January - June 2019

Over the period January – June 2019, the

reporting Competent Authorities conducted

checks on 2948 domestic operators and

477 importing operators. In addition,

973 checks on traders dealing with domestic

timber and 82 checks on traders dealing with

imported timber took place. Four monitoring

organisations were checked and nine countries

received a total of 171 substantiated concerns.

Twenty-three countries confirmed having

performed checks over this period. Fourteen

countries reported checking domestic

operators, with eight of them identifying

operators with unsatisfactory Due Diligence

Systems (DDS) in place (Table 5). Twenty-two

countries checked importing operators and

nineteen identified operators with

unsatisfactory DDS in place (Tables 7 and 8).

Fifteen countries reported having checked

traders, and, other than Hungary, Italy and

Slovakia, all countries were satisfied that

appropriate traceability systems had been put

in place by these traders (Table 10 and 11).

Three countries reported that they checked monitoring organisations. Overall, four checks were

performed, with all monitoring organisations fulfilling the requirements of Article 8(1).

Nine countries reported having received substantiated concerns (Table 9), seven of which confirmed that

they subsequently informed those submitting the concerns about the steps that had been taken. Of the

two countries that did not inform those who submitted substantiated concerns, Italy noted that the

results of the checks have not yet been formally communicated to the organisation who submitted the

substantiated concern and Slovakia explained that most of the sources of the substantiated concern were

anonymous.

It is worth noting that some of the enforcement action taken in this reporting period may be in response

to checks carried out prior to this period. Similarly, some enforcement action in response to the checks

done during January - June 2019 may be reported on in the next reporting period.

Three Competent Authorities also reported performing joint checks through bilateral cooperation.

5 Summary record FLEGT/EUTR Expert group meeting, 14 February 2019 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeetingDoc&docid=32792 6 Summary record FLEGT/EUTR Expert group meeting, 30 April 2019 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeetingDoc&docid=34250 7 Summary record FLEGT/EUTR Expert group meeting, 21 June 2019 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeetingDoc&docid=34247 8 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/EUTR_Briefing_note_July-August_2019_final.pdf 9 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/Briefing%20note%20Jan-Feb%202019_public.pdf 10 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/Briefing%20note%20May-June%202019_Final.pdf 11 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/Briefing%20note%20March-April%202019_public.pdf

Substantiated Concerns

Substantiated concerns relating to timber from Brazil, Myanmar and Ukraine were discussed during meetings of the FLEGT/EUTR expert group5,6,7.

Public reports of checks or enforcement action

The Belgian CA reported an ongoing investigation into a shipment of padauk (Pterocarpus spp.) arriving into Belgium from Gabon8. The German CA reported inspecting the 200 largest German operators, which together import >70% of all EUTR-regulated products into Germany by value9. In addition, two shipments of teak from Myanmar imported in 2018 have been ordered to be returned to the country of origin8. The Swedish CA reported ongoing inspections, however planned inspections in 2019 have been reduced from 40 to 25, due to decreased resources in the December 2018 government budget9. Additionally, the Administrative Court ordered the operator Primpanel AB pay a fine for insufficient DDS and the Swedish National Prosecution Agency ruled that the operator Skogssällskapet Förvaltning AB pay a fine of SEK 75 000, because the company had released illegally logged timber on the EU market, by logging without prior notice being filed with the Forest Agency10. The UK CA reported that two enforcement projects focusing on pre-fabricated buildings and plywood were completed11. Further projects targeting high-end retailers and utilising German customs data on UK-based operators who import products from the UK via Germany were in progress10,8.

8

The following tables and figures (Tables 5-12, Figures 2-3) provide overviews of the checks performed by

Competent Authorities over the period January – June 2019, the basis of these checks, substantiated

concerns received and any enforcement steps taken following checks.

Figure 2: Number of importing operators checked, and number of those without appropriate DDS, between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2019

Figure 3: Number of substantiated concerns received by Competent Authorities and number of resulting checks between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2019

1

11

75

1

67

1 2

12

11 2

44

0

67

1 0

18

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Belgium CzechRepublic

Estonia Germany Hungary Italy Portugal Slovakia Slovenia

No. of concerns No. of resulting checks

816 17

43

12

32

510

5

134

3

23

55

3 5

26

8

33

5 51

9

19

8 59

0 1 4 27

1

75

3 3

24

2 0

138 5

0 1 0 0

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

No. of operators checked No. of operators without appropriate DDS

9

Operators checked: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia

Operators not checked: Belgium ii, Croatia iii, Denmarkiv, Finland v, Ireland iii, Latvia vi, Netherlands ii, Swedenvii, United Kingdom viii

No response to these questions: Austria i, Germany

No survey response:Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Romania, Spain

Table 5: Overview of domestic operator checks and results January-June 2019.

i) Austria noted that providing this data during the year would require a disproportionate effort (for asking the CAs) compared to the low risk of illegality of domestic timber. While there is only one CA for imported timber, there are 94 CAs for domestic timber, namely the district administrative authorities. ii) Belgium and the Netherlands reported that there was no or very little domestic production. iii) Croatia and Ireland stated that checks on domestic operators are planned for later in 2019. iv) Denmark stated that domestic operators are deemed to be of very low risk compared to importers. v) Finland noted the use of control systems embedded within national forestry legislation - the Finnish Forest Act (1093/1996) and Timber Measurement Act (414/2013) - to prove legality of Finnish timber. Checks are carried out by the Finnish Forest Centre (150 inspectors) for national operators and the system is based upon a forest use declaration to ensure due diligence, along with a certificate of measurement. The Finnish Forest Centre receives about 100 000 forest use declaration per year, all of which are checked administratively. Approximately 1% of declarations (i.e. 1000) are then checked annually in the field. The Finnish CA checks that the Finnish Forest Centre inspectors carry out enforcement in accordance with the national laws. vi) Latvia noted that a substantial number of checks take place on domestic operators based on national forestry legislation and the EUTR. vii) Sweden reported that domestic forest owners are inspected on a local and regional basis by the Swedish Forest Agency. EUTR inspections on Swedish domestic operators have been paused between 2019 and 2021, which will be evaluated. This is due to experience of high compliance with the EUTR. viii) The United Kingdom stated that the Forestry Commission refers any concerns to the United Kingdom CA, however they have not received any concerns for this period. ix) Hungary noted the difficulty of dividing checks into domestic and imported timber (as per the structure of the survey), given that in the first instance they do a comprehensive general inspection of premises, to verify if stakeholders are operating in line with the EUTR and national legislation, rather than investigating particular timber consignments. Checks on timber at the premises may be domestic, imported or both. Where timber origin is unclear, it is also difficult to categorise checks into domestic and imported. x) Bulgaria reported that the 38 ‘other penalties’ related to verbal recommendations. xi) The Czech Republic stated that, due to the bark beetle crisis, most domestic operators will be inspected after the summer period. xii) Hungary stated that the 30 ‘other penalties’ included: 22 warnings, 5 suspensions on authority to trade, 1 confiscation, 1 withdrawal of timber products, and 1 prohibition of marketing activity. Relating to ‘other action’, 7 reports were filed to government agencies and the police for breaches of transport rules of the Hungarian EUTR legislation; as these infringements are usually committed by truck drivers, not by the operator, only the overall number is provided. xiii) Italy noted that this total included repeat inspections on the same operator. xiv) Italy stated that 13 operators were subject to criminal penalties. xv) Portugal reported that some of these checks were not closed at the time of reporting. There were ongoing document verification and requests for clarification from operators. The Portuguese CA further noted that figures do not include checks carried out by the Portuguese Autonomous Regions (Azores and Madeira) as these are reported at the end of 2019.

Country No. of operators checked

No. of desk based reviews

No. of document reviews on site

No. of product inspections on site

No. of document & product inspections on site

No. of operators without appropriate DDS

No. of notices of remedial action

No. of notices of remedial action that led to penalties

No. of financial penalties

No. of court cases

No. of no action

No. of other penalties

Bulgaria 285 114 88 91 187 52 14 38 x

Cyprus 47 5 5 37 1 1

Czech Republic xi 5 5 5 1 1

Estonia 237 237 22 12 13 17

France 1

Hungary 26 18 0 6 4 16 17 10 6 4 1 30 xii

Italy 609 1610 xiii 17 17 13 xiv

Lithuania 1630 1630 84 55 55

Norway 4 4

Poland 15 14 1

Portugal 13 xv 13 13 6 6 0 0 0 0

Slovakia 15 15 6 3 3

Slovenia 61 55 3 0 3 10 4 3 3 0 0

10

Table 6: Basis of domestic operator checks January-June 2019.

Country Level of risk Production/trade volumes Value of products Market share/importance of these operators Substantiated concerns Other

Bulgaria ✓ ✓ ✓

Cyprus ✓ ✓

Czech Republic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Field survey

Estonia ✓ ✓ ✓ Type of cutting

France ✓ ✓

Hungary ✓ ✓ Ex-officio investigation

Italy ✓ ✓ ✓

Latvia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Lithuania Random checks

Norway ✓ ✓ ✓

Poland ✓ ✓ ✓

Portugal ✓ ✓ Phytosanitary purpose

Slovakia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Slovenia ✓ ✓

11

i) Estonia stated that checks on operators importing timber are planned for later in the year. ii) Austria noted that the Federal Forest Office submits complaints for breach of the EUTR to the district administration authorities who are competent to issue penalties. iii) Belgium noted that, at the time of reporting, seven checks were still in molecular and morphological analysis for wood identification, three document-based checks were ongoing and one operator had an appropriate DDS. iv) Bulgaria reported that in eight cases verbal recommendations were issued. v) Finland noted that the number of actions taken for operators without appropriate DDS is not the same as the reported number of conducted checks. In most cases administrative processes were still in progress beyond 30 June 2019. According to the Finnish national legislation, if the operator does not conduct due diligence they are required to carry out remedial action within a time limited period. vi) Hungary reported that one check resulted in a warning and two in the suspension of authority to trade. vii) Ireland noted that figures provided do not include some inspections that have been initiated but were not finalised at the time of reporting, including some for which remedial action instructions have already been issued. The next site inspections were planned for September. viii) Latvia noted that two checks were still ongoing. ix) The Netherlands reported three administrative measures to prevent further timber or timber products being placed on the market without appropriate DDS. x) Norway reported six warnings of coercive fines. xi) Portugal noted that figures do not include checks carried out by the Portuguese Autonomous Regions (Azores and Madeira) as these are reported at the end of 2019. xii) Sweden reported that five of nine cases in the reporting period have been closed, the rest were ongoing at the time of reporting, with no decisions made. xiii) The United Kingdom issued seven warning letters.

Operators checked: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom

Operators not checked: Estonia i

No survey response:Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Romania, Spain

Table 7: Overview of importing operator checks and results January-June 2019.

Country No. of operators checked

No. of desk based reviews

No. of document reviews on site

No. of product inspections on site

No. of document & product inspections on site

No. of operators without appropriate DDS

No. of notices of remedial action

No. of notices of remedial action that led to penalties

No. of financial penalties

No. of no action No. of other penalties

Austria ii 8 8 1 8

Belgium 16 1 8 6 1 5 iii 5

Bulgaria 17 4 4 3 14 9 1 8 iv

Croatia 43 43 0

Cyprus 12 2 6 4 1 1

Czech Republic 32 32 4 4

Denmark 5 5 2 2

Finland 10 10 7 v 4 2 France 5 5 5 1 1

Germany 134 31 32 71 75 57 60 59

Hungary 3 0 1 0 2 3 4 1 2 0 3 vi

Ireland 23 vii 23 3 3

Italy 55 121 17 24 34

Latvia 3 1 2 2 2 viii Lithuania 5 8 0

Netherlands 26 26 13 10 3 ix

Norway 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 6 x

Poland 33 28 5 5 5 5

Portugal xi 5 5 5 0

Slovakia 5 5 1 1

Slovenia 1 0 1 0 0 0

Sweden 9 4 0 0 5 0 xii

United Kingdom 19 10 9 10 2 7 xiii

12

Table 8: Basis of importing operator checks January-June 2019.

Country Level of risk Import volume

Market share/ importance of these operators to import market

Value of imported products

Country of origin

Product type Species in trade Substantiated concerns

Intelligence/ information on potential issues with DDS

Other

Austria ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Belgium ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Bulgaria ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Croatia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Cyprus ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Czech Republic ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Corruption Perception Index of exporting country

Denmark ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Finland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

France ✔ ✔ ✔

Germany ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Hungary ✔ ✔ Ex-officio investigation

Ireland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Italy ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Latvia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Lithuania ✔ ✔

Netherlands ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Norway ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Poland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Portugal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Information from traders collected during checks

Slovakia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Slovenia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Sweden ✔ ✔ ✔

United Kingdom ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

13

Substantiated concerns: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia

No substantiated concerns: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom

No survey response:Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Romania, Spain

Table 9: Overview of substantiated concerns received January-June 2019.

* A concern may involve more than one operator/company

i) Germany reported that the substantiated concern was handed over to the public prosecutor. ii) Italy noted that the results of the checks have not yet been formally communicated to the organisation who submitted the substantiated concern. iii) Portugal noted that the two substantiated concerns were reported by the same organisation. iv) Slovakia reported that most of the substantiated concerns were raised anonymously.

Country No. of concerns* No. of concerns raised by individuals

No. of concerns raised by organisations

No. of concerns raised by police

No. of concerns raised by customs

No. of concerns raised by Government agencies

No. of concerns raised by unspecified authority

No. of resulting checks

Those submitting concerns were informed about steps taken

Belgium 1 0 1 1 Yes Czech Republic 11 1 10 2 Yes

Estonia 75 75 44 Yes Germany 1 1 1i Yes

Hungary 67 7 0 20 33 7 67 Yes

Italy 1 1 1 No ii Portugal 2 2 iii 0 Yes

Slovakia 12 12 0 18 No iv Slovenia 1 1 1 Yes

14

Traders checked: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia

Traders not checked: Austria i, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom

No survey response:Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Romania, Spain

Table 10: Overview of domestic timber trader checks and results January-June 2019.

i) Austria noted that providing this data during the year would require a disproportionate effort (for asking the CAs) compared to the low risk of illegality of domestic timber. While there is only one CA for imported wood, there are 94 CAs for domestic timber, namely the district administrative authorities. ii) Country reported performing checks on traders but none conducted in this reporting period. iii) Hungary reported that only 4 of the traders checked complied with the requirements, while with the remaining 22 had other issues relating to traceability. iv) Hungary stated that the 118 ‘other penalties’ consisted of 55 warnings, 9 confiscations, 2 restrictions of vehicle use, 2 withdrawals of timber product, 17 prohibitions of marketing activity, 27 suspensions on trade and 6 obligations to correct minor defects and deficiencies. Relating to ‘other action’, 27 reports were filed to government agencies and the police for breaches of transport rules of the Hungarian EUTR legislation; as these infringements are usually committed by truck drivers, not by the trader, only the overall number is provided. v) Portugal noted that many operators are also traders.

Country No. of checks No. of traders without appropriate traceability

No. of notices of remedial action

No. of notices of remedial action that led to penalties

No. of financial penalties

No. of cases of imprisonment

No. of court cases

No action

No. of other penalties

Bulgaria 456

Croatia 312

Czech Republic 4 0

Estonia 15

Finland ii 0

Hungary 88 iii 61 70 32 28 0 5 0 118 iv

Italy 73 33 33

Poland 9

Portugal v 9

Slovakia 7 3 3

15

Traders checked: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden

Traders not checked: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom

No survey response:Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Romania, Spain

Table 11: Overview of imported timber trader checks and results January-June 2019.

i) Country reported performing checks on traders but none conducted in this reporting period. ii) Sweden noted that the case is ongoing and the Swedish CA is awaiting documentation from the trader.

Country No. of checks No. of traders without appropriate traceability

No. of notices of remedial action

No. of notices of remedial action that led to penalties

No. of financial penalties

No. of imprisonment No. of court cases

No. of no action No. of other penalties

Bulgaria 1

Czech Republic i 0 0

Finland 5 Germany 6

Hungary i 0 0

Italy 45 3 3

Lithuania 2

Norway 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Poland 3

Portugal 7

Slovakia 2 0

Slovenia 4

Sweden 4 1 ii

16

Table 12: Overview of court cases and outcomes January-June 2019.

Country Defendant Date at court Basis of case Outcome/verdict Hungary Operator Challenging CA decision Rejection of application for formal defects

Hungary Operator October 2019 Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Hungary Operator Challenging CA decision Rejection of application due to lack of content

Hungary Operator May 2019 Challenging CA decision Dismissal of application

Hungary Trader July 2019 Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Hungary Trader June 2019 Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Hungary Trader Challenging CA decision Termination of procedure due to lack of jurisdiction of the court

Hungary Trader Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Hungary Trader October 2019 Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Latvia 4 court cases Three criminal court cases ended in favour of CA, in one case legal process was ended

Netherlands NVWA May 2019 Substantiated concern in 2014

Preliminary ruling to suspend court ruling and await final ruling of highest court

Sweden Dollarstore AB January 2019 CA check Final verdict in Court of Appeal in favour of CA. Led to one financial penalty (SEK 640 000) related to an injunction with a fine. Swedish CA unaware of company’s payments to the Court of Appeal.

Sweden Dizaynia Möbler AB May 2019 CA check Verdict in administrative court in favour of CA. Operator should pay the fine of SEK 30 000.

Sweden Primpanel AB May 2019 CA check Verdict in administrative court in favour of CA. Operator should pay the fine of SEK 13 200. New case ongoing.

Comparison of the number of checks with the previous reporting periods There are several caveats that must be considered when comparing the data between reporting periods, including

the number and composition of Competent Authorities responding to the survey, the time of year (which may

influence the types of activities planned by Competent Authorities), and the duration of the reporting period (the

December – June 2018 report covered 7 months whereas the other reports covered a 6 month period). The size of

the timber sector and number of operators in these reporting countries may also differ considerably.

These caveats aside, the total number of checks reported over four reporting periods is given in Table 13, along

with a comparison of the number of importing operators checked, by each Competent Authority (Figure 5).

Table 13: Comparison of checks between reporting periods

Jun–Nov '17 Dec '17–Jun '18 Jul–Dec '18 Jan–Jun '19

Number of domestic operators checked 467 2065 3685 2948

Number of importing operators checked 388 617 805 477

Number of domestic traders checked 300 655 454 973

Number of imported timber traders checked 177 87 64 82

Number of monitoring organisations checked 3 6 8 4

Number of CAs that responded to the survey 20 27 27 25

17

Other Competent Authority actions

Collaboration Collaboration among Competent Authorities is essential to ensure a coherent implementation and enforcement

of the EUTR across the EU. Over the reporting period, Competent Authorities collaborated through the informal

EUTR Expert Group meetings (in February, April and June 2019), as well as through other activities (countries

reporting on activities provided in brackets):

Several Competent Authorities reported a general cooperation and exchange of customs data and other

information (Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands and Norway).

The Nordic-Baltic EUTR collaboration (Estonia, Finland and Latvia; other countries also participate),

and the Central European EUTR collaboration (Austria, Hungary and Poland; other countries also

participate).

Several Competent Authorities attended the Timber Regulation Enforcement Exchange (TREE) meeting

in London on 13–15 March (Ireland, Latvia; other countries also participated).

The Czech Republic reported collaboration with another Competent Authority on an ongoing case.

Germany reported the exchange of information on import activities with Austria, Italy, the Netherlands,

Spain and the United Kingdom, the exchange of information on certain operators active in several

countries with Denmark and Latvia, and the exchange of information on certain due diligence systems

(DDS) with the Czech Republic and Latvia.

Portugal noted that they have been contacted by the Spanish Competent Authority relating to a Spanish

company that traded with a Portuguese operator, which had previously been checked by the Portuguese

Figure 5: Comparison of the number of importing operators checked by Competent Authorities over the last four reporting periods (December 2017-June 2018 was a 7 month reporting period,

compared with 6 months for the June-November 2017, July-December 2018 and January-June 2019 reporting periods. Not all Competent Authorities responded for each reporting period.) Note that countries differ widely in terms of their institutional arrangements for the implementation of the EUTR, as well as the number, size and nature of operators placing imported timber on the EU market. Figure 5 illustrates how the number of checks within countries has varied over the reporting periods, but comparison between countries is less meaningful without broader context.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Jun-Nov '17 Dec '17-Jun '18 Jul-Dec '18 Jan-Jun '19

18

Competent Authority. Portugal requested further information and will conduct another check on the

operator in question.

The United Kingdom reported receiving customs data from the German Competent Authority that

allowed the UK Competent Authority to identify UK-based operators importing through Germany,

which formed the basis of eight business engagements.

Awareness raising Competent Authorities also engaged in awareness raising over this reporting period, through:

Workshops and meetings for operators or trade associations: Bulgaria (5), Ireland (2), Portugal (1), and

the United Kingdom (3).

Information campaigns: Finland (2), Hungary (46), Ireland (1) and Lithuania (24).

One-to-one awareness raising with operators and traders: Austria (10), Belgium (3), Bulgaria (46),

Croatia (400), Czech Republic (35), Finland (10), France (15), Germany (3), Ireland (2), Italy (11),

Latvia (17), Netherlands (26), Portugal (400) and Slovakia (65).

Provision of updates on Competent Authority websites (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, Hungary,

Ireland, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden).

The Czech Republic noted that they published a series of articles in the national forestry journal

Silvarium - Lesnická práce. The three articles were on: EUTR, imported timber, and domestic timber.

Denmark reported regular meetings with the Timber Trade Federation.

Germany presented at the Asia-Pacific TREE Meeting in Bangkok and attended a meeting with

Assurance Service International (ASI).

Hungary reported a high level of one-to-one awareness raising during the reporting period. They have

received 287 telephone calls and answered 679 emails relating to EUTR implementation from both

operators and traders. Hungary also reported making 46 media appearances including: 28 online,

9 printed, 3 television and 6 radio.

The Irish Competent Authority noted that they provided input into ‘Brexit’ awareness-raising by the

Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Ireland also reported participating in, and

presenting at, a United Kingdom EUTR event in Belfast, January 2019.

Italy have reported on a workshop organised by the Italian Paper Business Association and an

information note sent to Italian operators importing teak from Myanmar in 2018. Further to this, the

Italian Competent Authority coordinated with, and updated, the enforcement units (Carabinieri

forestali) in May on the provisions of the EUTR and national legislation for checks on domestic

operators. Also in May, a workshop on illegal logging was organised by Carabinieri forestali in Rome

with a focus on teak from Myanmar.

Latvia noted that, further to the one-to-one awareness raising with importing operators, there are

numerous domestic operators informed in various ways.

Portugal noted that anytime an operator registers in the ICNF EUTR electronic platform, an

information pack containing documentation on the EUTR and national legal frameworks and the DDS

requirements is automatically sent to them by email. The Portuguese Competent Authority has utilised

a number of EUTR related seminars organised by others to raise awareness and provide training to

operators.

Citation

UNEP-WCMC, 2019. Overview of Competent Authority EU Timber Regulation checks, January-June 2019. Statistics of checks performed by EU Member States and EEA countries to enforce the implementation of the EU Timber Regulation. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Legal notice This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission

cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.