Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Study in view of a report
evaluating the implementation of Regulation 258/2012
Final Report
22 November 2017
This report has been prepared by EY and SIPRI for the European Commission DG Migration and Home Affairs.
For information about this document please contact: Claudia Gallo
European Commission
Directorate-General Migration and Home Affairs
Study in view of a report
evaluating the implementation
of Regulation 258/2012
Final Report
Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs
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.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018
ISBN 978-92-79-80482-3
doi:10.2837/74936
Catalogue number DR-01-18-214-EN-N
© European Union, 2018
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone
boxes or hotels may charge you).
http://www.europa.eu/http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/about/index_en.htm#note1#note1
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
i
ABSTRACT (EN)
Regulation 258/2012 aims at reducing the risk of illicit trafficking in firearms for civilian use by
establishing common rules for extra-EU export, import and transit of firearms, their parts and
components and ammunition.
This study assesses to what extent Regulation 258/2012 has been effective, efficient, relevant
to EU needs, coherent with and complementary to international and EU instruments in the field
of arms control, and have brought EU added value.
The study confirms Regulation 258/2012 to be overall a relevant initiative in addressing the
risks of illicit trafficking, and specifically diversion, of civilian firearms. National implementation
practices introduced following enactment of the Regulation resulted in the creation of
preventive systems and in the adoption of minimum common rules on export, import and
transit that limited the security risks of international exchanges. However, the study finds that
there is scope to further harmonise national practices and improve the exchange of
information, to increase the overall relevance of the EU initiative by addressing risks posed by
convertible items, and to improve coherence by clarifying the “grey areas” arising from
comparison with the Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, and inconsistencies with the revised
Firearms Directive.
Based on the evaluation, the study identifies recommendations, with different levels of priority,
and specific actions for implementation.
ABSTRACT (FR)
Le Règlement 258/2012 vise à réduire le risque de trafic illicite d’armes à feu à usage civil en
établissant des règles communes pour l’exportation, l’importation et le transit extra-UE
d’armes à feu, de leurs pièces, éléments et munitions.
L’étude analyse dans quelle mesure le Règlement 258/2012 a été efficace, efficient, pertinent
vis-à-vis des besoins de l’UE, cohérent et complémentaire avec les instruments de l’UE et
internationaux dans le domaine du contrôle d’armes, et a apporté une valeur ajoutée de l’UE.
L’étude confirme que le Règlement 258/2012 est globalement une initiative pertinente pour
répondre aux risques de trafic illicite, et notamment de détournement, d’armes à feu civiles.
Les pratiques nationales de mise en œuvre du Règlement ont abouti à la création d’un système
préventif et à l’adoption de règles minimales communes sur l’exportation, l’importation et le
transit qui limitent les risques liés à la sécurité des échanges internationaux. Cependant,
l’étude met en évidence qu’il serait possible d’harmoniser davantage les pratiques nationales
et d’améliorer l’échange d’information, d’augmenter la pertinence globale de l’initiative de l’UE
en répondant aux risques que représentent les objets convertibles, et d’améliorer la cohérence
en clarifiant les « zones grises » avec la Position commune 2008/944/PESC et les incohérences
avec la Directive révisée sur les armes à feu.
En s’appuyant sur l’évaluation, l’étude identifie des recommandations, avec différents niveaux
de priorité, et des actions spécifiques de mise en œuvre.
ABSTRACT (DE)
Mit der Verordnung 258/2012 soll durch die Festlegung gemeinsamer Regeln für die Einfuhr,
Durchfuhr und Ausfuhr aus dem Zollgebiet der Union von Feuerwaffen, deren Teile,
Komponenten und Munition das Risiko von unerlaubtem Handel mit für den zivilen Gebrauch
bestimmten Feuerwaffen reduziert werden.
Diese Studie analysiert, inwiefern die Verordnung 258/2012 effektiv, effizient, relevant für die
Bedürfnisse der EU, kohärent und ergänzend zu anderweitigen EU - und internationalen
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
ii
Bestimmungen im Bereich der Feuerwaffenkontrolle war und einen Mehrwert für die EU
dargestellt hat.
Die Studie bestätigt, dass die Verordnung 258/2012 eine insgesamt relevante Initiative
darstellt gegen die Risiken des illegalen Handels mit zivilen Feuerwaffen, und insbesondere
deren Umlenkung. Die innerstaatlichen Durchsetzungsmethoden der Verordnung haben ein
präventives System geschaffen und zur Anwendung von gemeinsamen Mindestregeln im
Bereich der Ausfuhr, Einfuhr und Durchfuhr geleitet, wodurch die Sicherheitsrisiken des
internationalen Handels gemindert wurden. Die Studie hat allerdings festgestellt, dass noch
Raum besteht für eine tiefgreifendere Harmonisierung der nationalen Praktiken, für den
Ausbau des Informationsaustausches, für eine Relevanzerweiterung der Verordnung durch die
Minderung der mit umbaubaren Gegenständen verbundenen Risiken, und für die Verbesserung
der Kohärenz durch die Klärung der Grauzonen des Gemeinsamen Standpunktes
2008/944/GASP sowie der Widersprüche mit der revidierten Feuerwaffenrichtlinie.
Aufgrund ihrer Auswertung identifiziert die Studie einige Empfehlungen mit verschiedenen
Prioritätsstufen, sowie konkrete Durchführungsmaβnahmen.
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
iii
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Brief reminder of the objectives and scope of the study .................................... 1
1.2 Content of the report ................................................................................... 1
2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF REGULATION 258 ...................................... 3
2.1 Regulation 258 and its objectives .................................................................. 3
2.2 The relevant policy context ........................................................................... 6
2.3 Baseline ..................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Overview of the civilian firearms market ......................................................... 9
3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................................................................ 14
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 15
4.1 Desk research .......................................................................................... 15
4.2 Field research ........................................................................................... 15
4.3 Limitations of the methodology used and robustness of findings ....................... 18
5 IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY ............................................................ 21
5.1 Definitions and scope ................................................................................. 21
5.2 Export authorisation procedures .................................................................. 29
5.3 Transit procedures .................................................................................... 40
5.4 Import procedures .................................................................................... 42
5.5 Customs formalities ................................................................................... 46
5.6 Simplified procedures ................................................................................ 48
5.7 Penalties .................................................................................................. 51
5.8 Record-keeping ......................................................................................... 53
5.9 Sharing of information and administrative cooperation .................................... 55
6 ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .............................................. 61
6.1 Relevance ................................................................................................ 61
6.2 Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 76
6.3 Efficiency ................................................................................................. 91
6.4 Coherence/complementarity ..................................................................... 101
6.5 EU Added Value ...................................................................................... 108
7 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 116
7.1 Relevance .............................................................................................. 116
7.2 Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 117
7.3 Efficiency ............................................................................................... 120
7.4 Coherence/complementarity ..................................................................... 121
7.5 EU Added Value ...................................................................................... 122
8 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 124
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
iv
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
v
List of Abbreviations
AECAC European Association of the Civil Commerce of Weapons
ANPAM Associazione Nazionale Produttori Armi e Munizioni
ASECATI Asociaciòn Empresarial para la Caza y el Tiro Deportivo
ATT Arms Trade Treaty
BCR The Brussels-Capital Region
BFR The Flemish Region
BWR The Walloon Region
CIP Permanent International Commission for firearms testing
CN
COARM
Combined Nomenclature
Conventional Arms Export
CONARMI Consorzio Armaioli Italiani
COREU Correspondance Européenne
CPA Statistical Classification of Products by Activity
DG Directorate General
DG TAXUD Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union
EC European Commission
ECJU Export Control Joint Unit
EFP European Firearms Pass
EU European Union
FACE The European Federation of Associations for Hunting & Conservation
ISSF International Sport Shooting Federation
IIC International Import Certificate
ITI International Tracing Instrument
LFS Labour Force Survey
MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MS Member State
NACE Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté
européenne
OPC Open Public Consultation
RCA Revealed Comparative Advantage
SBS Structural Business Statistics
SIGMA Sistema Integrato di Gestione e Movimentazione Armi (Integrated system for
Managing and Handling of Weapons)
SITC Standard International Trade Classification
SKAT Danish Customs and Tax Administration
UN United Nations
UNFP United Nations Firearms Protocol
UN POA United Nations Program of Action
UNTOC United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
WFSA World Forum on Shooting Activities
WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction
AT Austria
BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
CY Cyprus
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
vi
CZ Czech Republic
DE Germany
DK Denmark
EE Estonia
EL Greece
ES Spain
FI Finland
FR France
HR Croatia
HU Hungary
IE Ireland
INT International
IT Italy
LT Lithuania
LU Luxembourg
LV Latvia
MT Malta
NL Netherlands
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RO Romania
SE Sweden
SI Slovenia
SK Slovakia
UK United Kingdom
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Brief reminder of the objectives and scope of the study
This study should assist the Commission in the definition of proposals for amendment and
future improvement of Regulation 258/2012 (hereafter Regulation 258 or the Regulation), by
focusing on three main objectives:
Providing an assessment of the EU civilian firearms sector and the external EU trade
through a market analysis;
Analysing implementation aspects on how Regulation 258 has been applied in all 28
Member States, and assessing existing barriers and new challenges, as well as the
good practices;
Providing an overall evaluation of Regulation 258 in terms of relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value, coherence, complementarity, and
sustainability.
Our understanding of the objectives of the study is synthesised in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Understanding of the study objectives
Source: Authors’ elaboration
1.2 Content of the report
Chapter 1 presents a summary of the objectives and scope (section 1.1) of the evaluation.
Chapter 2 presents the background and context of Regulation 258, including key concepts of
the Regulation, such as its objectives, scope, main provisions and concerned stakeholders. It
also includes the intervention logic framework used as a basis for the evaluation process.
Chapter 3 presents the evaluation questions, framed within the five evaluation criteria, which
had been answered to assess the Regulation, and how the criteria are to be understood.
OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE REGULATION 258/2012
- Relevance- Effectiveness
- Efficiency- EU Added value- Coherence and complementarity- Sustainability
- Level of implementation of the provisions in MS;
- Scope and content of the the Regulation(sectors covered and not currently covered) and definitions;
- Division of responsibilities, and workflow of activities;
- Structure of the Firearms sector in the EU including major trends and internationalcomparisons;
- Competitiveness;- Economic importance of the sector;- Main trends in external trade.
- Differences and similarities between MS;- Obstacles and practical issues preventing a
full implementation of the Regulation.
- Key players in the EU firearmssector and in the external trade;
- Trends and developments beforeand after the Regulation
STUDY OBJECTIVES DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
Interviews
Survey
Desk research
MARKET ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION
Case studies
Open public consultation
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
2
Chapter 4 presents the research methodology and the data limitations encountered, so as to
allow the reader to have a correct interpretation of all data presented in this report.
Chapter 5 presents an overview of the implementation of the Regulation at the national level.
Chapter 6 provides detailed answers to the evaluation questions on the basis of the evidence
gathered.
Chapter 7 drafts the conclusions on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and
complementarity, and EU added value of the Regulation.
Chapter 8 presents the recommendations for amendment and future improvement of
Regulation 258.
This report includes two Annexes.
Annex I contains the overall methodology for the study and the market analysis, a detailed
description of the provisions of the Regulation, the comprehensive analysis of the market, the
analysis of the coherence between the Regulation and Article10 UNFP, the case studies, the
analysis of the web-based survey and of stakeholder open public consultation, the list of
stakeholders involved and the main bibliographic references.
Annex II contains the implementation tables of EU28 Member States with the detailed
analysis of rules for export control, and related implementing measures, and an indication of
the sources of information.
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
3
2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF REGULATION 258
Regulation 258 implements Article 10 of the United Nations Firearms Protocol (UNFP), which
aims to promote, facilitate and strengthen cooperation as part of the overall process of
eradicating illicit trafficking through the implementation and improvement of administrative
procedures or systems to exercise effective control.
2.1 Regulation 258 and its objectives
The introduction of Regulation 258 aimed to address some key problems related to the
tracing and illicit trafficking of civilian firearms, by setting common definitions, rules and
principles for export, import and transit procedures with the overall strategic objective of
reducing the risk of illicit trafficking in firearms for civilian use by ensuring coherence across
Member States in rules on external trade, and in line with Article 10 UNFP.
Specifically, Regulation 258 has been adopted to meet international requirements of Article 10
of the UNFP and is intended to reduce the risk of firearms illicit trafficking by setting up a
preventive system , and providing the legal basis and minimum set of measures for the extra-
EU legal trade in firearms, parts, essential components and ammunition for civilian use.
Regulation 258 defines the requirements for legal export procedures and for the tracing of
firearms during international transports to be horizontally implemented across EU Member
States. Therefore, being addressed to individuals and businesses operating in the legal market,
Regulation 258 is intended to have an indirect impact on illicit trafficking. By defining common
rules for the legal market and ensuring traceability of firearms coming from and going to third
countries, Regulation 258 aims at preventing the diversion of firearms by criminals, but does
not define measures or actions to be taken by Member States to directly address illicit
trafficking. Criminals and criminal organisations are not directly addressed by Regulation 258
because, by definition, they act with no regard to the law.
The strategic objective of Regulation 258 is articulated in three specific objectives:
Ensuring a harmonised implementation of the provisions of the Regulation across all
Member States, in line with Article 10 UNFP. This is both to fulfil international
obligations (including to enhance security and to improve the tracing of firearms) and
to move towards a harmonised system across EU Member States;
Ensuring a more effective tracing of firearms. Through an improved traceability of
firearms, national authorities would have an improved informative basis at their
disposal, which may allow them to better combat illicit trafficking through the design
of more effective preventive and repressive measures;
Ensuring a more effective information exchange between national authorities, to
facilitate collaboration in tracing and controlling firearms, and to prevent and
investigate their possible diversion from the legal market.
In addition to these three objectives, a fourth, less explicit objective can be identified, even
though with a less direct causal linkage to the strategic one. It relates to the potential impacts
that Regulation 258 could have on the functioning of the market by introducing harmonised
rules and procedures.
Inputs provided by Regulation 258 to pursue its objectives are represented by its nine
provisions (for a detailed description of Regulation 258 provisions see Annex 2):
Scope, content, and definitions (Articles 1-3): defining the purpose and main
subject of Regulation 258. It includes the current list of firearms, their parts and
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
4
essential components, and ammunition reported in Annex I to Regulation 258, which
is based on the Combined Nomenclature (CN).
Export authorisation (Articles 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15): concerning the
requirements for an export authorisation of a civilian firearm to a Third Country.
Among its requirements are proof that the importing country has authorised the
transaction, the maximum time period for processing the application, the period of
validity of the authorisation and the criteria for denials.
Transit (Article 7): regulating the transit of firearms, their parts, essential
components, and ammunition through third countries.
Import (recital 11 of the Regulation): regulating the procedures for the import of
firearms, their parts, essential components and ammunition from third countries.
Customs formalities (Articles 17, 18): concerning the accomplishment of formalities
and enables customs offices to, for instance, require a translation into the official
language of the relevant Member State or to suspend the process of export under
determined circumstances.
Simplified procedures (Article 9): specifying the procedures that Member States
are required to apply for the temporary export or re-export of firearms, their parts,
essential components and ammunition.
Penalties (Article 16): requiring Member States to establish penalties for violations
of Regulation 258 that should be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”.
Record-keeping (Article 12): regulating the obligation on Member States to store
specific information, which may be used to trace and identify firearms, thereby
enhancing the prevention and detection of the illicit trafficking of firearms.
Sharing of information and administrative cooperation (Articles 11, 19, 20):
requiring Member States to cooperate and exchange information between themselves
and with the Commission to improve the efficiency of the measures of Regulation
258.
The relation between the drivers, problems, objectives, and inputs of Regulation 258 is
outlined in the reconstructed Intervention Logic together with the expected outputs, results
and impacts (Figure 2).
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
5
Figure 2 –Intervention logic of Regulation 258/2012
Source: Authors’ elaboration
Incoherent implementationat national level of the Article 10 UNFPleading to heterogeneous regulations governing trade of civilian firearms across EU MS
Insufficient and difficultcooperation between MS on tracing international transfers of civilian firearms
Reducing the risk of illicit trafficking in firearms by ensuring coherence across MS in rules on external trade of civilian firearms in line with Article 10 UNFP
Ensure harmonisedimplementation of the Regulation across MS in line with Art. 10 UNFP
Ensure effective tracing of firearms
Clarification of definitions, scope and content of the Regulation
Diverging rules and procedures in Member States for external trade in firearms
Incoherent implementationby Member States of UN standards for the prevention of firearms trafficking
Rules on penalties for infringements
Ensure effective exchange of information between national authorities in the EU
Definition of concrete mechanisms for informationsharing and administrative cooperation
Civilian firearmsdiverted from the legal to the illegal market
Procedures and controls to issue an export authorization
Simplified procedures for temporaryexports and re-exports for lawful purposes
No levelplaying field for exporters/ importers of civilian firearms
Rules for record keeping
Definition of record-keeping systems
Check on imports
Check on transit
Rules and procedures for information sharing and administrative cooperation
Simplify and allow a smooth functioning of international trade of civilian firearms
National rules on transit meeting requirements of the Regulation
Reduced illicittrafficking of civilian firearms by ensuringcoherence across MS in rules on external trade and in line with Art-10 UNFP
Harmonisednational procedures to implement the Regulation and regulate external trade of civilian firearms
No inequalities for EU businesses regarding international trade
Improved tracing of civilian firearms
Improved cooperation and information exchange between national authorities
Drivers Problems Strategic objective Specific objectives OutputInput Results/outcomes Impact
List of definitions and exemptions
National rules of export procedures to third countries meeting requirements of the Regulation
National rules of import from third countries meeting requirements of the Regulation
Definition of simplifiedprocedures for cases foreseen in the Regulation
National penalties and sanctions for infringing Regulation provisions
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
6
2.2 The relevant policy context
Some initiatives at the EU and international level frame the general context for Regulation
258.
At the EU level, since the early 1990s, there have been ongoing efforts to increase the degree
of coordination and convergence in the field of arms export controls. This process has
generated a range of different policy instruments, including:
EU Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, defining common rules governing control
of exports of military technology and equipment. It provides Member States with a
set of high common standards and principles concerning the export of military
technology and equipment aimed at preventing their use for internal repression in
third countries, international aggression or regional instability.
EU Firearms Directive,1 setting minimum standards regarding civilian firearms
acquisition and possession, and intra-EU transfers. It aims at ensuring the safety of
EU citizens while facilitating commercial exchanges of civilian weapons in the EU
internal market. The Firearms Directive has undergone several amendments over the
years, the latest being introduced with the recent adoption of Directive (EU)
2017/853.
Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May
2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within
the Community (Directive 2009/43/EC). It aims at improving the development of a
genuine European market for defence equipment without prejudice to the national
control over essential defence and security interests.
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2403 establishing common guidelines on
deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are
rendered irreversibly inoperable.
At the international level, the key initiatives to consider are:
The Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms,
Their Parts and Components and Ammunition (UNFP), adopted by Resolution
55/255 of 31 May 2001 at the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly of the United
Nations and entered into force on 3 July 2005. The UNFP is the first global legally
binding instrument to introduce general criteria for controls of all firearms, including
domestic gun control and trade in so-called civilian weapons, i.e. not designed for
military conflict. This instrument provides a framework for States to control and
regulate licit arms and arms flows, prevent their diversion into the illegal circuit,
facilitate the investigation and prosecution of related offences without prejudice to
legal transfers. It aims at promoting and strengthening international cooperation to
prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms,
their parts and components and ammunition. To date, 114 States are Party to the
Protocol.
The 2001 UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit
Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (UN POA – United Nations
Program of Action).
1 Directive No. 91/477/EC amended by Directive No. 2008/51/EC.
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
7
The 2005 International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a
Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (International
Tracing Instrument, ITI).
The 2013 Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a multilateral treaty regulating the
international trade in conventional arms, entered into force on 24 December 2014.
2.3 Baseline
Before the application of Regulation 258 (30 September 2013), 20 Member States were
contracting parties of the UN Firearms Protocol and were therefore bound to implement all its
articles and provisions. As indicated in Annex I.6, 20 Member States had fully acceded to the
Firearms Protocol before Regulation 258/2012 was enacted. Three Member States (Germany,
Luxembourg and the United Kingdom) signed the UNFP before Regulation 258/2012 was
enacted, but have never completed national accession. Two Member States (Austria and
Denmark) that signed the Protocol, completed national accession after Regulation 258/2012
was enacted. Only France, Ireland and Malta have neither signed nor acceded to the Firearms
Protocol nationally, but all three are bound to it since 21 March 2014, following the EU
accession.
The baseline is set on the basis of the key issues and problems identified by the 2010 Impact
Assessment:2
An incoherent implementation of Article 10 UNFP at the national level, creating
issues in fulfilling EU international obligations, and leading to heterogeneous
regulations governing the trade in civilian firearms across EU Member States;
Lack of a level-playing field for exporters/importers, due to the heterogeneous
situation across Member States and linked to different requirements, structures and
related burdens (e.g. length of procedures, time needed to comply, custom tariffs,
costs and fees);
Insufficient and difficult cooperation between EU Member States on tracing
international transfers of firearms, given differences in national procedures,
definitions and requirements that hamper an effective communication and
collaboration in the field;
Risks of diversion of civilian firearms from the legal to the illegal market.
In 2010, the national legislation in place did not fully comply with the provisions of
Article 10 of the UNFP. In particular, in 2010, only 13 Member States were contracting
Parties of the UNFP (ratification or accession accomplished),3 with heterogeneous
implementation of the provisions of Article 10, as summarised in the Table 1 – National
implementation of provisions of article 10 UNFP in 2010Table 1.
2 European Commission (2010), Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying document to the proposal for a
European Parliament and Council Regulation implementing Article 10 of the United Nations’ Firearms Protocol and
establishing export authorisation, import and transit measures for firearms, their parts and components and
ammunition – Impact Assessment. SEC(2010) 662 final. 3 Five MS (FR, HU, IE, MT, CZ) had neither signed nor acceded to the UNFP while 9 others (AT, DE, DK, EL, FI, LU, PT,
SE, UK) only signed it without any ratification.
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
8
Table 1 – National implementation of provisions of article 10 UNFP in 2010
Source: Authors’ elaboration based on 2010 Impact Assessment
Member States did not have harmonised procedures in regard to either the requirement for an
import authorisation before issuing the export authorisation, or the prior authorisation of
transit of firearms. In particular, the notice of “no objection” of the transit countries was not
compulsory, there was no uniform approach to the notification of receipt of dispatched
firearms, and in four Member States4 the information on the transit countries was not included
in the export and import licence. Moreover, national legislation often does not distinguish
between military and civilian firearms for import, export and transit procedures. In addition,
there was no EU common standardised template for licensing or authorisation documents and
Member States used heterogeneous templates.
Overall, in 2010 the implementation was not in line with the provisions of UNFP Article 10, and
with the level of harmonisation required by the EU Common Commercial policy,5 which implies
uniform conduct of trade relations with third countries.
Moreover, in terms of tracing and administrative cooperation, the UNFP included no operational
requirements, leaving Member States room to decide whether and how to cooperate.
The different procedures and requirements among Member States created costs for
trade, with Member States having different ways to carry out export and import procedures.
Non-harmonised procedures resulted in different rules for EU firms in different Member States,
contributing to a lack of of transparency, confusion in the interpretation of rules, uncertainty
and delays.6 In particular the lack of standardised documents was considered as one of the
most relevant sources of costs.7 Economic operators in the sector reported additional costs for
4 The Impact Assessment (SEC(2010) 662 final) does not provide information as to who these Member States are. 5 The Common commercial policy is one of the main elements of the European Union's relations with the rest of the
world. It is an area of exclusive Union's responsibility, and included in Article 207 of the TFEU. 6 In this regard, without the definition of common rules at EU level, companies based in Member States with legislation
not in line with Art 10 could gain a competitive advantage over Member States that apply rules coherent with the
UNFP. No specific information or figures are provided on these aspects (Source: SEC(2010) 662 final). However, it
should be noted that the legislation of the largest producers and exporters (e.g. CZ, DE, FI, IT, UK) was
heterogeneously coherent with the Art 10 UNFP, this potentially creating large displacement of power among them. 7 Legislative guide for the implementation of the UNFP, chapter 4, p.441, paragraph 103 D.
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
Existence of a
licensing/authorisation system
(Art. 10.1))
Receiving import
licence/authorisation before
issuing export licence (Art.
10(2)(a))
Receiving written notice of no
objection of transit country
before issuance of export
licence (Art. 10(2)(b))
Required information in
documentation (Art. 10(3))
Provide information in the
import licence to transit
countries (Art. 10(4))
Notification of receipt upon
request (Art. 10(5))
Verification of authorisation
Simplified procedures for
temporary import/export (Art.
10(6))
Full implementation Partial implementation No Implementation No information
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
9
bureaucratic controls, information keeping and reporting, which could be at least 15/20 times
higher than comparable companies in the metalworking manufacturing sector.8
Practices such as the request of the notice of no objection in a written form – and not
electronically – also contributed to increasing the burden for companies, affected also by the
different average time needed to process applications by authorities.9 Moreover, the provisions
of Art 10 that could help reduce costs and the administrative burden for stakeholders (e.g.
simplified procedures) were not fully implemented, limiting their potentially positive effect.
Despite the efforts made at the national and European level, according to the 2010 Impact
Assessment, civilian firearms were reported to leave the legal market10 and entered into
the illegal one: one of the main methods was diversion, through theft, loss, or illegal selling.
The driver of this problem was the unclear (or diverging) provisions for export licensing in
place: for this reason the implementation of Art 10 of the UNFP was one of the responses to
the need for improving tracing procedures.
2.4 Overview of the civilian firearms market
This section provides a summary of the analysis of the market size and structure, as well as
extra-EU trade, relating to firearms, parts, essential components, and ammunition for civilian
use (see Annex I.4 for details).
2.4.1 Market size
The EU sold production11 of civilian firearms, their parts and components, and
ammunition increased over the period 2007-201512 at an average annual growth of
around 2.3%, rising from a total value of €2,412 million in 2007 to almost €2,888 million in
2015,13 with a peak of €3,556 million14 in 201315 (year of the entry into force of Regulation
258) and a drop in 2014. In 2015, it accounted for a small share of EU28 total sold
production value (0.04%)16 corresponding to more than 2.9 million units of firearms.17
8 According to the Impact Assessment, the administrative costs for businesses ranged from €2.5 mil to €3 mil per
year. 9 Average duration varied from 5 days to 3 months for most Member States, but in some cases could go up to a whole
year. In addition, only some Member States set maximum periods for processing application forms, which could reach
– in one case – 90 days. 10 The 2010 Impact Assessment does not provide any figures. No precise statistics or estimates are available either on
the number of illegal firearms circulating in the EU or the value of illegal trade in firearms for 2010. 11 According to Eurostat PRODCOM reference Metadata, sold production means the value (or the volume) of the sold
production of enterprises on the national territory of the reporting countries. It means that the values (or the volumes)
refer to all products manufactured and placed on the EU market or exported, without including imported goods. Details
on the destination of the production are not provided. Moreover, the document adds that data on sold production can
be used to answer questions such as: “Which countries are specialised in the production of a given product?” or “How
productive is a particular industry”. (link). 12 The evaluation team considered such a period sufficiently large to provide a complete overview of the sold
production of firearms, parts and components and ammunition over time before and after the introduction of
Regulation 258 in 2012. 13 The value of the sold production of civilian firearms, parts and components and ammunition can reach €3,283
million if no approximation is performed. Data used for calculations were extracted on 18 May 2017. 14 Using figures not adjusted by the Evaluation team approximation techniques (see Annex I.4 Market Analysis), the
value can reach € 2,734 million in 2007, €4,013 million in 2013, and €3,283 million 2015. 15 A possible explanation of the peak in 2013 could be the increase in extra-EU demand for arms from the US in the
same year. People in the US, concerned about a tightening of the rules on gun control linked to the re-election of
President Obama (the so-called “Obama effect”), bought a significantly higher number of arms compared to 2012. The
Washington Post (2016), ‘What’s behind America’s sudden drop in gun production?’, 29 February. 16 The Eurostat PRODCOM database covers the industrial production carried out by enterprises, with the exception of
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Industrial_production_statistics_introduced_-_PRODCOM
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
10
Most of the EU sold production value is made by ammunition, which represents on
average 58% of the EU sold production since 2007, followed by firearms which accounted for
27% on average. As shown in Figure 3, the steady increase in the overall EU production is
driven by the increase in the production of cartridges and other ammunition which, after a
gentle decline until 2012, experienced a noticeable growth over the period 2012-2015.
Figure 3 - Annual sold production per type of product
Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Eurostat Prodcom
Data available for a small number of countries on EU sold production,18 reveal that in 2015
six countries together account for more than 54% of the total EU28 value.. Italy and
France are by far the main producers, with a total sold production accounting,
respectively, for 16.65% and 15.3% of the EU28 production. They are followed by Germany
(8.6%), Spain (5.6%), the Czech Republic (4.2%), and the United Kingdom (3.48%). Figure 4
shows the trend in sold production over the period 2006-2015 for these six countries. It is
noted that Italy maintained its position of relative advantage in relation to the other major
producers over the same period (2006-2015), following a non-linear tendency in the sold
production output; also that the overall ranking changed only slightly throughout that period.
military products and some energy products. 17 The number of firearms reaches 3.02 million units if no approximation is performed. 18 Data at MS level were extremely fragmented or missing. However, besides data for the six major producers
described in the core text, data for the year 2015 were available also for the following countries: Finland (€83 million
euro, around 2.9% of the EU28 production), Croatia (€ 66 million euro, 2.3%), Bulgaria (€ 49 million euro, 1.7%),
Portugal (€ 48 million, 1.7%) and Hungary (€ 23 million euro, 0.8%).
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
€ M
illio
ns Revolvers and pistols (NACE
Rev.2 - 25401230)
Shotguns, rifles, carbines and
muzzle-loaders (NACE Rev.2 -
25401250)Firearms which operate by firing
an explosive charge (NACE
Rev.2 - 25401270)Cartridges and other
ammunition (NACE Rev.2 -
25401300)Parts and accessories for
revolvers (NACE Rev.2 -
25401400)Propellant powders (NACE Rev.2
- 20511130)
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
11
Figure 4 - Sold production per selected MS (2006-2015)
Source: Eurostat PRODCOM
2.4.2 Market Structure
The majority of firms operating in the manufacturing sector of weapons and
ammunition19 in Europe are micro firms.20 These companies accounted in 2014 for 76.2%
of the total number of enterprises operating in the sector at the EU level, while small, medium,
and large firms accounted, respectively, for 12.4%, 6.6% and 4.8% of the total number of
enterprises in the sector21 (see Figure 5).
Figure 5 - Shares of number of enterprises, employees and turnover (2014)
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Eurostat SBS for the number of firms and turnover and on
Amadeus for the number of employees
The EU firearms sector is rather concentrated, with large enterprises accounting only for
5% of the total number of enterprises, but for 78.8% of the total turnover. Micro firms account
only for 3% of the total turnover produced. Around 70% of firms are located in six
Member States, with Germany and Italy hosting the highest number of firearms related
companies (around 20% each). In terms of employment, in 2014 the weapons and
19 The analysis of the market structure relates to weapons and ammunition in general without distinguishing between
civilian and military firearms. Eurostat SBS data do not distinguish between the two types of firearms and figures on
military firearms are confidential. It is not, therefore, possible to make assumptions about the relative sizes of the
civilian and military markets. 20 The Evaluation team refers to micro firms for 250 employees. 21 According to Structural Business Statistics database (SBS), the total number of firms operating in the Manufacture
of weapons and ammunition sector in the EU is 1,100, with 53 large enterprises (>250 employees), 73 medium (>50
employees), 138 small (>10 employees) and 846 micro (
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
12
ammunition sector included around 70,941 FTEs with an estimated figure of 32,448 people
working in the civilian firearms and ammunition sector.22
2.4.3 Extra-EU Trade
The EU28 is a net exporter of firearms, their parts and components, and ammunition
to third countries, with a total value of €1,729 million of exported and around €538 million of
imported goods in 2015 (see Figure 6). Central and North America23 are the main
destination markets (46.2% of the total export value in 2016). Smaller shares are
represented by exports to Middle-East countries (11.6%) and Eastern Asia (7.9%).24
Figure 6 - Overall trend of Extra-EU trade
Source: Eurostat International Trade Database
There has been a steady growth in extra-EU export values from 2003 to 2013. A drop
between 2013 and 2014 can be noted, experienced by all regions of destination considered, ,
together with a drop in imports that reflect a general decrease in international trade in 2014.
Even though this drop occurred soon after the entry into force of the Regulation 258, there are
no clear evidence to establish a correlation. It is true that some firearms producers
experienced a slowdown in exports during the initial phase of implementation of the
Regulation.25 However, this is not enough to regard the entry into force of the Regulation as
the cause of the general decrease in EU imports/exports. Available data and information
suggest that the increase in the demand from US,26 and the appreciation of the Euro against
22 Estimate based on LFS and PRODCOM data: LFS reported data aggregated at NACE Rev.2 two digits level for
‘Manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment’ (NACE Rev.2 – 25) whereas Prodcom
reports data on production at eight digits level allowing for the calculation of the share of manufacture pertaining to
firearms and ammunition for civilian use (including Revolvers and Pistols – 25401230, Shotgun, rifles, carabines and
muzzle loaders – 25401250, Cartridges and other ammunition – 25401300, Firearms (explosive charge) –– 25401400,
Parts and accessories for revolvers, pistols, non-military firearms and similar devices), Propellant Powder – 20511130,
Percussion or Detonating caps – 20511270. Based on the share of firearms and ammunition production on the overall
manufacture production, the Evaluation Team apportioned the LFS data to estimate the number of employees in
civilian firearms sector. 23 Regions have been shaped according to the official Geo-Nomenclature published by the European Commission –
European Commission (2005), Geonomenclature. 24 EY’s elaboration based on data of Eurostat International trade in goods database. 25 For more details see Annex I.4 Market Analysis. 26 See Footnote 15.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
€ M
illions
Total Export Total Import
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
13
the Dollar between 2013 and 2014 are among the drivers of this trend (see also Annex I.4 for
more details on the market analysis).
In 2015 and 2016, the overall picture displays a situation of growth, common to all the
destination regions considered, including the rest of the world.
The positive trend of extra-EU exports is linked to a boost in international demand
(considering the whole period), rather than to an increased share of European exports in its
major markets of destination. This is reflected by the decreasing share of EU28 exports in
some third countries where imports increased over the years.27
Europe’s world share of exports is deteriorating. Between 2006 and 2015, the EU28
overall share of exports of firearms, parts and components, and ammunition reduced by
around 6.8 percentage points (pp) moving from 43.1% in 2006 to 36.3% in 2015. Brazil, the
Republic of Korea, and Turkey increased their share respectively 2.7pp, 3.3pp and 1.5pp.28
Even though there is no clear evidence linking the reduced share of exports to specific causes,
the competitive advantage of other exporting countries such as Brazil and Turkey can be
considered as one explanation for the difficulties the EU is facing in attempting to maintain its
share of world exports.
Based on the values of the Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) index29, in 2015 Brazil
and Turkey were showing the highest comparative advantages in the export of
civilian firearms, ammunition and parts and components. Such advantages can be
explained, at least partially, by the commitment of Brazil’s Congress to create a legislative
framework enabling and promoting innovation30 and competition in the defence sector.31
Moreover, many of Brazil’s arms manufacturers have been heavily subsidised by the Brazilian
Development Bank in recent years, accessing additional resources to expand their production
and trade.32 In Turkey, the entire defence sector received the support of the Government in
order to boost the exports to existing and new markets.33
The decrease in the share of EU28 export indicates a gradual loss of competitiveness of
the EU in the civilian firearms sector which however seems more related to the overall trend
of EU industrial competitiveness,34 rather than to specific sectorial features.
27 For more details see Annex I.4 Market Analysis. 28 The Wall Street Journal, ‘The Hyundaization of the Global Arms Industry’, 5 April 2015. 29 The RCA Index, known also as the Balassa Index, is a measure of competitiveness. It is defined as (𝐸𝑖𝑗/𝐸𝑖𝑡)/(𝐸𝑛𝑗/𝐸𝑛𝑡),
where “E” is the export flow; “i” is the country; “n” is a set of countries; “j” is the commodity and “t” is a set of
commodities. RCA values greater than 1 indicate that a given country has a comparative advantage in the export of a
given product compared to a set of reference countries. For more information the reader can refer to: Balassa, B.,
“Trade Liberalisation and Revealed Comparative Advantage’, Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies
(1965), Vol.33, pp. 99-123. 30 An example of the effects of these incentives can be seen looking at the technologies developed in Brazil to create
new laser marking machines for the ammunition, that can mark 240 cartridges per minute, Small Arms Survey
(2011), ‘Ammunition Marking’. 31 The New York Times (2016), ‘Brazil’s Merchants of Death’, 23 October. 32 Taurus, a big Brazilian firearms producer, received $16.7 million in low-interest loans between 2008 and 2015. 33 Defence News (2017), ‘Turkey launches Aggressive Defence Export Campaign’, 19 January. 34 EU industrial competitiveness which is still hindered by several factors (including lack of investment, limited access
to finance and high energy prices) though experiencing a recovery of exports and an increase in productivity in most
countries after the crises (Source: European Commission (2014), Reindustrialising Europe – Member States’
Competitiveness Report 2014, Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 278).
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
14
3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The overall objective of this assignment is to assess the relevance, EU added value, coherence,
complementarity, sustainability, effectiveness and efficiency of Regulation 258 as applied in
EU28 Member States. In the context of this evaluation, and following the Better Regulation
Guidelines, the Evaluation team assumes these criteria as described below:
Relevance, whether and to what extent Regulation 258 addresses needs and
problems identified by the 2010 Impact Assessment35 and the current market and
security needs;
Effectiveness, whether and to what extent Regulation 258 has achieved its
objectives of ensuring the efficient functioning of international firearms trade while
ensuring a high level of security in the EU, contributing to reducing the risk of illicit
trafficking of firearms;
Efficiency, whether and to what extent the costs of Regulation 258 were
proportionate given the delivered benefits;
Coherence/Complementarity, whether and to what extent Regulation 258 is
coherent with other interventions at the EU and international level;
EU Added value, to what extent the effects from the EU action are additional to the
value that would have resulted from action at the national level only.
Table 2 list the evaluation questions related to the above-mentioned criteria, as per ToR.
Table 2 – Evaluation criteria and corresponding evaluation questions
Eval. criteria Evaluation questions
Relevance 1. To what extent the definitions contained in Regulation 258 and not previously evaluated in the context of work on the new Weapons Directive are still deemed accurate and fit for purpose?
2. To what extent do the objectives and scope of Regulation 258 correspond to the needs and risks defined in past and current security context?
Effectiveness 3. To what extent has Regulation 258 achieved its objectives and in particular what has been its contribution to the security of persons and business and to an efficiently operating market for firearms?
Efficiency 4. Are the results achieved at a reasonable cost? In particular is the administrative burden created by the implementation of Regulation 258’s concepts and procedures
for national authorities, industry and citizens justified/proportionate by its benefits (and, if not, recommend the measures to reduce it)?
Coherence and
complementarity
5. To what extent has Regulation 258 proved complementary to other EU
interventions/initiatives in the field?
6. To what extent is this intervention coherent with other EU/international
interventions which have similar objectives? In particular, the relationship/interaction of Regulation 258 with other existing policy approaches and legislative frameworks in the field of arms control, notably with the
implementation of the Common Position 2008/944/CFSP and Implementing Regulation 2015/2403 on deactivation standards. This evaluation should avoid any
duplication with previous evaluations by focusing on the issues specifically relevant for Regulation 258.
EU added 7. To what extent has Regulation 258 achieved EU added value as opposed to what
35 European Commission. 'Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying document to the Proposal for a
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT and COUNCIL REGULATION implementing Article 10 of the UNFP and establishing export
authorisation, import and transit measures for firearms, their parts and components and ammunition. Impact
Assessment’. SEC(2010) 662 Final.
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
15
Eval. criteria Evaluation questions
value could have been achieved under national/international legislation?
8. To what extent could the EU added value be improved?
9. Are the effects likely to last after the intervention ends?
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
16
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study relied on both desk and field research.
4.1 Desk research
Desk research focused on (i) documents at the national level, including national legislative
acts, implementing rules and administrative procedures implementing provisions of Regulation
258, including official webpages; (ii) documents at the EU level establishing the legal
framework, relevant studies and reports; (iii) statistics and other sources of quantitative
information on the firearms market and related issues. Annex I.11 provides a full list of
consulted documents, Annex I.4 the list of databases.
Relevant information at the national level has been systematised in implementation tables
(see Annex II – Implementation tables) according to a list of the key dimensions defined on
the basis of the Evaluation team understanding of Regulation 258 and the main
implementation issues that emerged from the study. Sources consulted are duly referenced to
correspond to the relevant information recorded in the tables. The implementation tables have
also been completed with information gathered through field research,36 and have been
subject to a round of validation and integration by national stakeholders.
4.2 Field research
4.2.1 Tools
The field research relied on a web-based survey, in-depth, and semi-structured interviews
(i.e. scoping, case studies, and general).
Results of the Open Public Consultation (OPC) carried out by the EC have also been
considered.
In order to mitigate some of the limitations encountered in the study (see section 4.3), in
addition to what was originally planned, additional field research has been undertaken
through:
A second round of validation and integration of the implementation tables
was carried out in June. National Competent Authorities sitting in the Firearms
Exports Coordination Group were asked to validate the content of the tables, fill any
gaps, and solve any conflicts between information gathered through the desk and
field research.
The participation to the third Firearms Exports Coordination Group meeting
(June 23rd). This was an opportunity to gather additional information on the
implementation of the Regulation in Member States for some of the most
controversial provisions of the Regulation.
Feedback and input gathered through the field research are included in the report
anonymously.
36 When coming from stakeholders, information is reported in the implementation table with a different colour code
(light blue), while the category and number of stakeholders providing such information is indicated among the
sources.
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
17
4.2.2 Stakeholders involved
Overall the study involved 95 stakeholders belonging to different categories, each one
targeted through specific data collection tools as shown in Table 3 (please refer to Annex I.10
for a detailed list of involved stakeholders, and to Annex I.1 for a detailed presentation of the
data collection tools).
Table 3 - Stakeholders involved, related data collection tool and type of information retrieved
Stakeholder Category
# of stake
holders37 Su
rvey
Sco
pin
g
In
tervie
w
Case s
tud
y
inte
rvie
w
Gen
eral
inte
rvie
w
OP
C
Type of information retrieved
EU Officials 3 x x x
State of the debate on firearms; EU security strategy and the issues related
to the export/import of the civilian firearms
market; Follow up on recommendations put forward
by the previous studies;
Expectations on the current evaluation.
MS Competent Authorities38
41 x x x x
Procedures and rules applied at the national
level to ensure compliance with the requirements set in Regulation 258 and to exchange information with other MS;
Division of responsibilities between the responsible bodies (both public and private) and their responsibilities in the context of the workflow of Regulation 258;
Possible obstacles and practical issues preventing a full implementation of Regulation 258;
Good practices and suggestions for further improvements.
Firearms producers/
exporters39
21 x x x x x
Implementation of requirements placed on exporters by Regulation 258 and related administrative burden;
Bottlenecks in the procedures implemented
and solutions taken at the national level to optimise import/export procedures;
Firearms
users40 19 x x x x x
Implementation of requirements placed on users by Regulation 258 and related administrative burden;
Bottlenecks in the procedures implemented (especially simplified procedures) and solutions taken at the national level to optimise import/export procedures;
Other experts 11 x
Evolution of the main trends and features of illicit trafficking of civilian firearms between
EU and third countries;
Good practice implemented outside Europe
37 As of August 1st. The total number of stakeholders engaged does not take into account the respondents to the Public
Consultation. 38 Including members of the Firearm Export Coordination Group. MS Competent Authorities involved covered all MS
except for MT. 39 Including also representatives from EU and transnational associations. 40 Including also representatives from EU and transnational associations.
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
18
Stakeholder
Category
# of
stake
holders37 Su
rvey
Sco
pin
g
In
tervie
w
Case s
tud
y
inte
rvie
w
Gen
eral
inte
rvie
w
OP
C
Type of information retrieved
to ensure controls over exported/imported
firearms.
Source: Authors’ elaboration
Producers/exporters were among the most important stakeholders. Based on data gathered
from Amadeus database, industry representatives answering the survey account for at least
8% of the total turnover41 of the sector. However, they were selected from countries that
represent approximately 60-70% of extra-EU exports (UK, IT, DE, ES).42 The
representativeness is increased by the involvement of national associations which represent
producers and exporters interests.43 The information gathered enabled an overview of most of
the civilian firearms sector.
As for users, mainly national and international associations and federations representing
different categories (hunters, sport shooters, and collectors)44 were targeted. Input has been
gathered from stakeholders representing the Member States with the highest number of
hunters and sport shooters (FR, IT, and FI),45 and stakeholders with international interests and
views. Overall, users involved throughout the study represent around 60% of hunters and
sport shooters in the EU.46
In terms of geographical distribution, all Member States have been covered through the
different collection tools (at least by one representative from one of the three targeted national
categories of stakeholders). Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Sweden and Belgium are the most
represented (see Table 4).
41 Turnover corresponds to the total value of market sales of goods and services to third parties (Source: Eurostat –
Glossary: Turnover – SBS). 42 These countries, combined, account for over 60% of extra-EU exports value of firearms in 2015. 43 Organisations involved include ANPAM – Associazione Nazionale Produttori Armi e Munizioni (representing 18
producers in Italy) and CONARMI – Consorzio Armaioli Italiani (which represents over 50 producers), AECAC –
European Association of the Civil Commerce of Weapons (which represents 15 gun and hunting trading businesses in
14 MS including the top four producers DE, ES, FR and IT), ASECATI – Asociaciòn Empresarial para la Caza y el Tiro
Deportivo (representing over 80% of the firearms sector in Spain), the Gun Trade Association (which represents over
700 companies in the firearms sector in UK), JSM Verband der Hersteller von Jagd-, Sportwaffen und Munition
(representing 42 German producers) and Verband Deutscher Büchsenmacher und Waffenfachhändler e.V representing
over 1,100 traders in the same country. Individual Producers/exporters answering the survey engaged represent a
combined turnover of around €460 million, employing around 1,800 people (Source: Data referring to 2014, retrieved
from Amadeus database). 44 Surveyed stakeholders include both international and national associations/federations. The former include the
International Sport Shooting Federation (ISSF), which represents 158 national federations and the European
Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation (FACE), representing the interests of 7 million hunters from
34 countries (including all EU28 MS). The latter cover various MS, including DE, DK, EL, FI, FR, IT, SE and UK. 45 EY, Technopolis, and VVA Consulting (2014), Evaluation of the Firearms Directive. Final Report. (link). 46 The total number of hunters and sport shooters is calculated on 17MS and relate to 2012/2013 (Source: EY,
Technopolis, and VVA Consulting (2014), Evaluation of the Firearms Directive. Final Report. (link).
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/8385/attachments/4/translations/en/renditions/nativehttps://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/8385/attachments/4/translations/en/renditions/native
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
19
Table 4 - Overall geographical coverage – number of stakeholders covered through surveys
and interviews47
Country AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU
National competent authorities 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
Firearms producers/exporters
1
2
5
2
Firearms users 4 1 1 2 2
Tot. 1 4 1 2 1 9 2 1 2 6 3 6 1 1
Country IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
National competent authorities 1 1 1 1 2
2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
Firearms producers/exporters
8
1
1
Firearms users 1 1 4 1
Tot. 1 10 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 6 2 2 4
Source: Authors’ elaboration
4.3 Limitations of the methodology used and robustness of findings
4.3.1 Problems encountered and solutions found
The study encountered some difficulties in both the desk research (namely in the analysis of
the implementation, and the market analysis) and the field research. As for the analysis of the
implementation, difficulties relate to:
Fragmentation of information and unclear identification of national measures
implementing Regulation 258. Member States followed different approaches to
implementing the Regulation. In some cases (such as AT, FR, ES, HR, SE) national
legislators adopted legislative amendments and changes to adapt existing normative
framework to the Regulation, while in others (such as BE, IT, PT, PL, UK) existing
legislation remained unchanged, with Regulation 258 being implemented via
administrative measures. While in some cases Member States introduced new
legislation covering most of the provisions of the Regulation, other Member States
adopted only measures and integrations covering specific aspects, therefore creating
a confusion between pre-existing national laws and Regulation 258. This made it
difficult to identify all relevant information within the time and budget constraints of
the project.
Solution found: Sources identified were triangulated and integrated with sources
suggested by stakeholders responding to the survey. The implementation tables and
the related sources of information documents were shared by the Commission with all
Member States for feedback and validation. In addition, the Evaluation Team
gathered additional information and clarified some specific information about the
implementation of the Regulation during the Firearms Export Coordination Group
meeting in June 2017.
Limited comparability of information at the national level. Information
retrieved was heterogeneous (e.g. legal provisions, internal procedures, explanatory
notes for exporters), reflecting the heterogeneity of the sources (e.g. national laws,
institutional websites). Depending on the Member States and on how they
implemented Regulation 258, not all provisions were covered in the same way.
47 The figures in the table refer to all interviews with the three categories of stakeholders (excluding the experts and
EU officials) and to all survey answers considered for the purpose of the analysis. When the same stakeholder has
provided both an answer to the survey and has been interviewed, he/she has been counted only once.
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
20
Solution found: the common template for the implementation tables was slightly
adjusted while progressing with the desk research in order to ensure its relevance to
available information. The validation rounds with National Competent Authorities also
helped to better structure the information.
Some information concerning the implementation of Regulation 258 was not
available through desk research. For instance, information on record-keeping and
information sharing practices was most of the time not available in consulted national
documentation. This created the need to substantially rely on stakeholders’ feedback
for the analysis of these provisions.
Solution found: the implementation tables integrated information from the desk
research with input from stakeholders (mainly National Competent Authorities
answering the survey, involved in case study interviews or providing ad-hoc input
following the Evaluation team’s queries, as well as following the Firearms Export
Coordination Group meeting in June 2017). This allowed the team to fill the gaps in
the implementation analysis with regard to those aspects not usually addressed in
available documentation and, in some cases, to double-check some of the information
retrieved through desk research.
As for the analysis of the market:
EU statistics related to the civilian firearms sector include products that are
out of the scope of the Regulation (e.g. firearms accessories, firearms destined to
the police and propellant powder and detonating caps for military firearms) and the
analysis is often based on estimations. This resulted in an overestimation of the
market size. However, since overall trends in production, export and import –which
are the most relevant aspect of the market analysis for this study- did not change
substantially, this was not considered as a major limitation.
Solution found: where possible the Evaluation team made some assumptions to
approximate available figures and provide a more relevant overview. When
approximations were not feasible due to the lack of supporting information (e.g.
share of civilian firearms over the whole firearms sector) the scope of the analysis
has been clearly indicated. Interviews with representatives from producers/exporters
have also been used to better understand trends and overall figures.
As for the field research:
National competent authorities proved to be difficult to engage. Despite
several rounds of reminders, the widening of the target sample, the support of the
Commission to perform some follow-ups, and the extension of the time available to
complete the survey, the rate of response of National Competent Authorities
remained low for several weeks, and one Member State provided no information
(Malta).48 This limitation created to some gaps in the implementation tables, and led
to a limited triangulation of evidence regarding some provisions.
Solution found: the Evaluation team used some of the case study interviews to gather
information from National Competent Authorities and fill the gaps in the
implementation tables and the survey. The third Firearms Export Coordination Group
48 This difficulty was often related to the fact that there are usually very few knowledgeable stakeholders within
national authorities, and this made the Evaluation team request for interview or survey not a priority for them. In a
number of cases (including important countries like Austria) it seemed that only one person is managing the export
licensing process therefore limiting the possibility to find alternatives and extending the timing for data collection in
case of non-availability.
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
21
meeting in Brussels (23 June ) was exploited as an additional opportunity to gather
input and clarify some information with Member States representatives. In addition, a
round of validation of the implementation tables, encouraged by the Commission
following the submission of the Interim Report, was undertaken to increase the
robustness of the evidence base.
Conflicting input. There have been cases where input provided by stakeholders
through the survey conflicted with evidence collected through the analysis of national
documentation creating some uncertainties (e.g. section 5.2.2 and 5.6).
Solution found: the Evaluation team preferred to build the analysis on the evidence
coming from desk research.
Lack of quantitative data. When stakeholders were asked to provide data and
national statistics on the number of authorisations granted or denied, as well as on
costs brought by the entry into force of the Regulation, the information provided was
very limited. Even though several data collection tools have been used to collect
information (e.g. survey, short additional survey, case study interviews), the
feedback was often difficult to compare and hindered the performance of a hard
evidence analysis of the overall efficiency of the Regulation.
Solution found: the Evaluation team developed a qualitative cost-benefit analysis
based on the feedback from different stakeholders, and the identification of
particularly burdensome aspects.
4.3.2 Overall quality of data collected and changes to the work plan
Despite the difficulties encountered, thanks to the additional actions performed and the role
played by stakeholders in validating information, the quality of the information gathered is
overall satisfactory, in terms of both quality and breath of representation from different
categories of stakeholders and Member States.
No changes to the work plan were necessary.
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
22
5 IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY
This section illustrates how each provision of Regulation 258 was implemented by Member
States, and what problems have been identified. It highlights, where relevant, the division of
responsibilities between the responsible bodies, the difficulties encountered by concerned
stakeholders, and possible good practices.
Findings are mainly based on the implementation tables (see Annex II), are numbered for
cross-referencing, and are highlighted with the symbol ‘’. When other evidence is used, this
is clearly referenced in footnotes.
5.1 Definitions and scope
The Regulation 258 has been directly effective in Member States since its date of
publication,49 with no need for transposition measures. As a result, Member States have
followed different approaches in implementing it. While some Member States have modified
their national laws by including direct reference to the Regulation, some others have not
amended existing relevant legislation,50 and only adapted existing procedures and practices
through administrative acts. 51
5.1.1 Definitions
The analysis highlighted grey zones and helped in assessing the accuracy and relevance of
definitions included in Regulation 258 to the current needs of different stakeholders’ categories
involved throughout the study.
Figure 7 provides a general overview of the degree of correspondence between selected
definitions listed in Article 2 and comparable definitions at national level.
Figure 7 – Correspondence between national definitions
49 Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 50 No reference to Regulation 258 is found in the laws and decrees analysed in the following Member States: AT, BE
(BCR, BFR, BWR), FI, IE, IT, LU, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, UK. It shall be noticed that, in the case of Austria, national
laws containing provisions similar to Regulation 258 have been abolished to avoid redundancies.
51 Such as laws, decrees, implementing acts, ministerial circulars, official websites, and the like. Identified legislation
regulates either the export, import, transfer, transit of firearms, parts, essential components and ammunition, or,
more in general, the acquisition, possession, and trade of weapons and ammunition in the Member States.
AT BCR BFR BWR BG CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK
Firearms
Parts
Essential components
Ammunition
Deactivated firearm
Export
Exporter
Temporary export
Export authorisation
Transit
Tracing
Full correspondence Partial correspondence No correspondece No information
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
23
Source: Authors’ elaboration based on field and desk research
Overall, the definitions used by Member States for firearms, parts, essential components,
ammunition, and deactivated firearms are the most compatible, whether, fully or in part., This
is because these definitions were already contained in the Firearms Directive, which had been
already transposed by Member States when the Regulation entered into force. As for other
definitions, information was missing for many Member States, specifically regarding the
temporary export of firearms.
The following sections provide details in respect of each specific definition.
Firearm
Regulation 258 defines a firearm as a weapon characterised by the following features: (i) it is
portable; (ii) it is barrelled; (iii) it is designed to expel a shot, bullet or projectile, or capable of being
converted to do so; (iv) it uses combustible propellant to cause the expulsion of the shot, bullet or
projectile.
Moreover, the definition specifies that an object shall be regarded as capable of being converted into a
firearm when: (i) it has the appearance of a firearm; and (ii) as a result of its construction or the
material from which it is made, it can be so converted.
This definition refers to weapons listed into Annex I to Regulation 258, which lists the types of firearms
for civilian use to which Regulation 258 applies. Firearms listed in Annex I to Regulation 258
correspond to firearms in the following categories: Category B (firearms subject to authorisation),
Category C (firearms subject to declaration) and Category D (other firearms) as described into Annex I
to the Firearms Directive.52
In most Member States the definition of firearm corresponds either fully (in 15
Member States)53 or partly (in 12 Member States)54 to the definition provided in
Regulation 258 (finding 1). In cases of partial correspondence, the reason is either the
lack of any reference to convertibility, or the lack of specification of how “capable of being
converted” should be interpreted.55 Only in one case,56 no correspondence at all is found.
Finally, in Belgium, the level of detail of the definitions – not only on “firearms” – changes
across regions.57
In terms of classification of firearms for civilian use, in 14 Member States58 and the
Brussels-Capital (BCR) and Walloon Regions (BWR) in Belgium firearms are
classified according to Annex I of Regulation 258, which includes also the CN59 Code of
each listed item. On the other hand, five Member States60 make use of a national
52 Council Directive of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (91/477/EEC), as
amended by Directive 2008/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008. 53 AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, HR, IE, IT, LU, PL, RO, SE, SK. 54 BE, DK, EE, FI, FR, HU, LT, LV, MT, NL, PT, UK. 55 This applies to BE, DK, EE, FI, FR, HU, LT, LV, MT, NL, PT, UK. 56 In SI, Weapons Act provides a distinction between handguns and long firearms. 57 Whilst for the BWR there is no definition provided, the BCR only specifies ‘firearms’ (Article 2 of the Regional
Decree) and the BFR specifies firearms and its parts (Article 2 of the Arms Trade Act). Definitions are broad for both
the BWR and BFR, and there is no specific list of firearms provided as the one in Annex I to the Regulation. Source:
Input from case study “Categories”. 58 Survey feedback: 20 representatives from National Competent Authorities. MS are: AT, CY, EE, FI, HU, IE, LV, LT,
LU, PL, PT, RO, SK, SE. 59 Annex I to the basic CN Regulation is updated yearly and published as a stand-alone Regulation in the Official
Journal of the European Union. For the latest version, please consult Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff. (link). 60 Survey feedback: five representatives from National Competent Authorities. MS are: CZ, DK, EL, IT, HR.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L:2016:294:FULL&from=EN
Study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation 258/2012
24
nomenclature. In two cases,61 the Common Military List62 represents the main reference for
classifying firearms for export purposes, with Annex I to Regulation 258 used to assist the
classification process. The classifications of firearms (military or civilian) may be
conducted by different authorities, such as, for instance, the Ministry of Interior and the
Ministry of Defence in France, the former in charge of civilian weapons, the latter for war
materials.63
When assessing the classification of firearms, the main issue results from the lack of
consistency between the Common Military List (ML) and Annex I to Regulation 258
(finding 2), which creates room for legal uncertainty as to what export regime shall be
applied in particular cases. Indeed, while some items clearly fit into only one framework,
others can fit into both. Determining and classifying civilian firearms as opposed to military
firearms (especially with regard to ML1 category64) on the basis of technical characteristics
may be a difficult task in practice, and the final decision about the export regime to be applied