1

Overview of Competent Authority EU Timber Regulation checks, July - December 2018 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 July - December 2018 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

27 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 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 3 800 i not specified

Belgium 2 300 ii 3 700 unknown

Bulgaria 4 013 unknown unknown

Croatia 2 700 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 14 000 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 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 750i 0

Netherlands 100 4 900 i unknown

Norway 120 000 5 000 not specified

Poland unknown ~6 500 i unknown

Portugal not specified iii not specified iii 5 104 iii

Romania 4 372 177 not specified

Slovakia 9 700 unknown unknown

Slovenia 461 000 ii 1 122 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: estimate also 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. See Box 1. 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 an 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 (Figure 2, 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.

Box 1. Portuguese EUTR operator registration

In Portugal it is mandatory under Decree-Law No.76/2013 for all operators active within the country to register on the Sistema de Registo de Inicial de Operador Florestal (RIO). To import any EUTR products, operators must provide relevant information such as company name and contact details, type of activity and HS codes of the timber or timber products being imported. After registering, the system automatically issues a document to the operator identifying the operator and the products being placed on the market. Operators only register once and are required to contact the Portuguese CA (Instituto da Conservacao da Natureza e das Florestas) to report any changes to the details initially provided, including any adjustments to the products being imported. The Portuguese CA does not have access to customs data to verify this information, although since 25 May 2018 the Portuguese Data Protection Law is derived from the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation.

Customs will only release timber or timber product imports from outside the EU after the above proof of registration has been provided.

At present the registration process does not request information to distinguish between domestic and importing operators. Furthermore, it is currently not possible to ensure that all domestic operators are registered (however, domestic operators using FSC or PEFC certification are requested to register). There are plans to improve the registration process to include this information.

While conducting checks on traders, the Portuguese CA has been raising awareness that they should only purchase timber and timber products from domestic operators that are registered on the system. The CA believes that this has increased the number of domestic operators registered.

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) Upon request any time ii) Portugal noted there was currently no data exchange between customs and their Competent Authority iii) Sweden noted that they make a new request every six months iv) United Kingdom noted they do not currently have access to customs data

Country Frequency of data exchange Data on EUTR products shared Austria Weekly All customs data related to timber imports

Belgium Monthly All customs data related to timber imports

Bulgaria Free access All customs data related to timber imports

Croatia Monthly All customs data related to timber imports

Cyprus Monthly All customs data 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 Weekly Only certain product types related to timber imports

Germany Quarterly All customs data related to timber imports

Hungary Monthly i All customs data related to timber imports

Ireland Free access due to Data Sharing agreement i All customs data related to timber imports

Italy Annually All customs data related to timber imports

Latvia Free access i All customs data related to timber imports

Lithuania Free access i 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 Daily i 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 ii -

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 iii All customs data related to timber imports

United Kingdom No access iv -

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

Figure 2: Frequency of data exchange between customs and Competent Authorities, by number of countries (*in addition, some countries indicated that customs data are also

available upon request, see Table 4).

7

Statistics of checks performed July - December 2018

Over the period July – December 2018, the

reporting Competent Authorities conducted

checks on 3685 domestic operators and 805

importing operators. In addition, 454 checks on

traders dealing with domestic timber and 64 on

traders dealing with imported timber took

place. Eight monitoring organisations were

checked and 11 countries received a total of 168

substantiated concerns.

Twenty-seven countries confirmed having

performed checks over this period. Eighteen

countries reported checking domestic

operators, with eight of them identifying

operators with unsatisfactory Due Diligence

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

countries checked importing operators and

twenty-one identified operators with

unsatisfactory DDS in place (Tables 7 and 8).

Sixteen countries reported having checked

traders, and, other than Austria, Hungary and

Italy, all countries were satisfied that

appropriate traceability systems had been put

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

Seven countries reported that they checked

monitoring organisations. Overall, eight checks

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

Eleven countries reported having received substantiated concerns (Table 9), eight of which confirmed

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

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

that the cases were still in progress and Denmark explained that one of the sources of the substantiated

concern was 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 this period may only be reported on in the next overview document.

Competent Authorities also performed joint checks through bilateral or regional cooperation, focussing

on operators importing timber and timber products into more than one country.

5 Summary record FLEGT/EUTR Expert group meeting, 27 September 2018 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeetingDoc&docid=21685 6 Summary record FLEGT/EUTR Expert group meeting, 7 December 2018 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupMeetingDoc&docid=26505 7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/Briefing_note_June_-_August_2018_Public.pdf 8 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/Briefing_note_Sept_-_Oct_2018_Public.pdf

Box 2. Substantiated Concerns

Substantiated concerns relating to timber from Brazil and Ukraine were discussed during meetings of the FLEGT/EUTR expert group5,6. The Portuguese CA received substantiated concerns from Greenpeace and Global Witness on timber from Brazil going to operators in Portugal. An EIA substantiated concern on the illegal logging of teak in Myanmar and its sale at auction was circulated to all Member States.

Public reports of checks or enforcement action

The UK CA reported submitting the findings of audits, conducted on

two UK-based monitoring organisations, to the EU Commission7.

The Swedish CA reported ongoing inspections and a ruling by the administrative court that, unless illegality can be proven by the CA, an injunction, rather than a prohibitive decision, shall be taken as a first measure against the operator Kärnsund Wood Link AB for a finding of non-negligible risk8. Additionally, the Administrative Court of Appeal fined the operator Ahlberg-Dollarstore AB ~EUR 64 000 and stated the company must fulfil the requirements of the EUTR by no later than 29 April 2019. The Belgian CA reported that they improved EUTR implementation considerably since late 2017, resulting in four notices of remedial action and four cases being passed to the public prosecutor’s office8. A Dutch court has given the Dutch CA the go-ahead to take enforcement action against an operator who imports teak from Myanmar for the purpose of yacht building. The company was found not to have produced the required documentation for a consignment of teak and also failed to carry out adequate risk assessment and risk mitigation measures. If the company fails to exercise adequate due diligence within two months of the order, the Dutch CA is authorised to levy fines of EUR 20 000 per cubic metre of timber, up to a maximum of EUR 800 000, if imports continue8.

8

The following tables and figures (Tables 5-12, Figures 3-4) provide overviews of the checks performed by

Competent Authorities over the period July–December 2018, the basis of these checks, substantiated

concerns received and any enforcement steps taken following checks.

Figure 3: Number of importing operators checked, and number of those without appropriate DDS, between 1 July 2018 and 31 December 2018

Figure 4: Number of substantiated concerns received by Competent Authorities and number of resulting checks between 1 July 2018 and 31 December 2018

1 1

11

2

62

84

1 1 1 1 3

10

0

8

2

7774

1 1 1

73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Austria Belgium CzechRepublic

Denmark Estonia Hungary Italy Latvia Poland Portugal Slovenia

No. of concerns No. of resulting checks

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

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

9

Operators checked: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark viii, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden

Operators not checked: Belgium iii, Finland iv, Germany iii, Ireland v, Malta vi, Netherlands vi, United Kingdom vii

No response to these questions: Austria i, Latvia ii

No survey response:Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Spain

Table 5: Overview of domestic operator checks and results July-December 2018.

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) Latvia noted that a substantial number of checks take place on domestic operators based on national forestry legislation and the EUTR. Latvia also noted that five court cases were closed in the period relating to domestic timber. All five criminal cases ended in favour of the Latvian CA. iii) Belgium and Germany stated that domestic operators are checked by a different authority. Belgium reported that additional checks on domestic timber have low priority because of very low risk of illegality in domestic production and will only be executed if problems are reported. iv) 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 for national operators and the system is based upon a forest use declaration to ensure due diligence, along with a certificate of measurement. 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. v) Ireland stated that the risk-based approach for this period focused on other regions. vi) Malta and the Netherlands noted that there was little to no domestic production. vii) 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. viii) Denmark stated that they decided to concentrate on importing operators based on a risk evaluation (nevertheless, a small number of checks on domestic operators were reported). ix) Hungary stated that the 32 ‘other penalties’ included: 3 warnings, 3 confiscations, 1 restriction on using a vehicle, 2 withdrawals of timber products, 6 prohibitions of advertising and 6 prohibitions of marketing activity. Relating to ‘other action’, 42 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/trader, only the overall number is provided. x) Italy confirmed that nine operators were subject to a criminal penalty. xi) Portugal noted that figures include checks carried out by the Portuguese Autonomous Regions (Azores and Madeira) during 2018. No infractions were identified. xii) Slovakia noted that they performed 72 checks on transporters of timber, 29 of which had no proper documentation and 26 financial penalties were given. xiii) Sweden made five inspections on buyers of domestic timber during spring 2018. It was decided that Sweden would not inspect domestic operators for the coming three years due to negligible risks.

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 326 101 60 19 129 51 35 13

Croatia 83 83

Cyprus 45 2 5 0 38

Czech Republic 42 42 2 1 1

Denmark 13 13 4

Estonia 202 202 13 6 15 4

France 12 12 12 4 8

Hungary 19 10 0 5 4 7 14 7 3 1 2 32 ix

Italy 755 31 2112 11 11 9 x

Lithuania 1848 1848 87

Luxembourg 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

Norway 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Poland 10 7 3

Portugal xi 30 30 30

Romania 91 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 91 0

Slovakia xii 19 0 0 0 19 2 2 0 0 0 0

Slovenia 175 65 86 24 26 20 6 6 Sweden xiii 1 1

10

Table 6: Basis of domestic operator checks July-December 2018.

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

Bulgaria ✓ ✓ ✓

Croatia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Cyprus

✓ ✓

Czech Republic ✓ ✓

✓ ✓

Denmark ✓

✓

✓ Type of cutting (e.g. thinning, clear cutting)

Estonia ✓ ✓

✓

France ✓ ✓

✓ ✓

Hungary ✓

✓ Ex-officio investigation

Italy ✓ ✓

✓

Latvia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Lithuania Casual

Luxembourg ✓ ✓ Species

Norway ✓ ✓

Poland ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Portugal ✓

✓

Phytosanitary purpose

Romania ✓ ✓

✓

Slovakia ✓ ✓

Slovenia ✓

✓

Sweden ✓ ✓

11

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

Operators not checked: Hungary i

No survey response:Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Spain

i) Hungary and Norway 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 in six cases a decision on a sanction is yet to be taken. Eight of the cases of operators without appropriate DDS date from the 8 months prior to this reporting period but decisions were made within this period. iv) 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 31 December 2018. 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. v) Germany noted that notices of remedial actions that led to penalties included 7 administrative fines accounting for approx. EUR 7000 in total. The ‘other penalty’ involved the seizure of timber. vi) Ireland stated that one compliance notice was issued under national legislation prohibiting transport of products and importation. vii) Latvia noted that seven cases are still open. viii) The Netherlands noted that there were three administrative measures to forfeit money if a continued breach of the EUTR occurred. The court case related to a preliminary ruling on suspending an administrative measure by the NVWA on teak from Myanmar. The court ruled the NVWA was right in placing the administrative measure against the company and the company would not be granted more time. ix) Portugal noted that figures include checks carried out by the Portuguese Autonomous Regions (Azores and Madeira) during 2018. No infractions were identified. x) Sweden noted that two additional cases were submitted to the administrative court in December 2018. The Swedish CA has applied for imposition of a fine for two injunctions, SEK 20 000 and SEK 40 000. xi) The United Kingdom noted that seven warning letters were issued.

Table 7: Overview of importing operator checks and results July-December 2018.

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

Austria ii 12 11 1 2

Belgium iii 9 3 6 9 8 1

Bulgaria 17 5 12 3 3

Croatia 31 31

Cyprus 10 2 5 3 2 2 Czech Republic 31 31 10 5 5

Denmark 13 13 4 4 0 0 0 0

Estonia 2 2 1 1

Finland 11 5 6 10 iv 20 2 France 17 17 17 17 17 7 7 0 0 0 0 0

Germany 105 11 30 64 49 49 44 v 1 v

Ireland 20 16 4 2 1 1 vi

Italy 159 822 30 62 87 1

Latvia 8 1 5 2 7 7 vii

Lithuania 11 11 Luxembourg 12 12 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 0

Malta 13 0 13 0 0

Netherlands 29 0 29 0 0 8 5 1 viii 3 viii

Norway i 9 9 2 0 0 2 0 7 0

Poland 41 32 9 4 4 3

Portugal ix 24 24 24

Romania 177 0 0 0 177

Slovakia 2 0 0 0 2

Slovenia 7 7 3 3

Sweden 12 7 5 8 3 1 1 2 x

United Kingdom 23 3 20 12 4 7 xi

12

Table 8: Basis of importing operator checks July-December 2018.

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 index of exporting country

Denmark ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Estonia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Finland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

France ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Germany ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Ireland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Italy ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Latvia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Lithuania

✔

✔ ✔

New importers or operators not recently checked

Luxembourg ✔ ✔

Malta ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Netherlands ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Norway ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Poland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Portugal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Phytosanitary purpose

Romania ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Slovakia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Slovenia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Sweden ✔ ✔ ✔

United Kingdom ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

13

Substantiated concerns: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia

No substantiated concerns: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, United Kingdom

No survey response:Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Spain

Table 9: Overview of substantiated concerns received July-December 2018.

* A concern may involve more than one operator/company

i) Belgium noted that the case is still in progress in Italy. The Belgian CA turned out not to be the relevant CA. ii) Denmark noted that one substantiated concern was received from an anonymous informant, the other relating to an official report on illegal logging in Ukraine (Earthsight, 2018). iii) Italy noted that checks and investigations are still in progress, at the end of January 2019 the Public Prosecutor gave authorisation to share information. The results of the checks have not yet been formally communicated to the organisation who submitted the substantiated concern.

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 another operator

No. of concerns raised by unspecified authority

No. of resulting checks

Those submitting concerns were informed about steps taken

Austria 1 1 10 Yes Belgium 1 1 0 No i Czech Republic 11 2 9 8 Yes

Denmark 2 1 1 2 No ii

Estonia 62 62 77 Yes

Hungary 84 26 0 18 38 2 74 Yes Italy 1 1 1 No iii

Latvia 1 1 1 Yes Poland 1 1 1 Yes

Portugal 1 1 7 Yes Slovenia 3 3 3 Yes

14

Traders checked: Bulgaira, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, United Kingdom

Traders not checked: Austria i, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Sweden

No survey response: Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Spain

Table 10: Overview of domestic timber trader checks and results July-December 2018.

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 stated that the 135 ‘other penalties’ consisted of 74 warnings, 9 confiscations, 2 restrictions of vehicle use, 1 withdrawal of timber product, 24 prohibitions of advertising, 24 prohibitions of marketing activity, and 1 corrective action. Relating to ‘other action’, 42 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/trader, only the overall number is provided.

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 259

Croatia 11

Cyprus 0 ii

Estonia 11

Hungary 84 62 66 25 6 0 3 3 135 iii

Italy 42 33

33

Poland 7

Portugal 29

Slovakia 1

20 3 21

Slovenia 10

United Kingdom

0 ii

15

Traders checked: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom

Traders not checked: Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia

No survey response: Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Spain

Table 11: Overview of imported timber trader checks and results July-December 2018.

i) 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. ii) Country reported performing checks on traders but none conducted in this reporting period. iii) Sweden noted that three additional traders were inspected between January and June 2018.

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

Austria i 1 1

Belgium 2

Cyprus 2 France ii 0 0 Germany 4

Hungary ii 0 0

Ireland 2 Italy 9

Lithuania 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Norway 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Poland 4

Portugal 5

Sweden 2 iii

United Kingdom 3

16

Table 12: Overview of court cases and outcomes July-December 2018.

Country Defendant Date at court Basis of case Outcome/verdict Denmark Operator September 2018 CA check Appeal to High Court of verdict from City Court.

Fine was reduced from c. EUR 16 000 to c. EUR 9 300)

Germany Operator July 2018 Checked company claimed not to be an operator

In favour of CA – the court followed the argument of the CA that a company is still the operator even if they buy products via an agent situated in the EU

Hungary Felföldi Ernő (Operator) November 2018 Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Hungary Eurófa Kft (Trader) July 2018 Challenging CA decision Dismissal of the case

Hungary Lácz Norbert (Trader) July 2018 Challenging CA decision Dismissal of the case

Hungary Oregon (Trader) August 2018 Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Hungary Pál Zoltán (Trader) August 2018 Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Hungary Müller Márton (Trader) September 2018 Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Hungary Horváth Róbert (Trader) November 2018 Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Hungary Felemel Kft (Trader) November 2018 Challenging CA decision Legal proceedings pending

Italy Operator November 2018 Substantiated concern First outcome pronounced by the Review court (Tribunale del riesame). In favour of CA.

Latvia 5 court cases All five criminal court cases ended in favour of CA

Luxembourg Operator February and November 2018

Substantiated concern In favour of CA

Netherlands Operator July 2018 CA check In favour of CA

Sweden Ahlberg-Dollarstore AB December 2018 CA check In favour of CA

Comparison of the number of checks with the previous reporting period There are several caveats that must be considered when comparing the data between this reporting period (July

– December 2018) and the previous report (December 2017 – June 20189). The current period spans six months as

opposed to seven months in the previous report. There was the same number of reporting countries (27) as the

previous report, however Iceland did not report in this period, having done so previously and vice versa for Malta.

The countries reporting carrying out domestic and importing operator checks also differ; the size of the sector

and number of operators in these countries may differ considerably. The difference in time of year may also

influence the types of activities planned by Competent Authorities.

These caveats aside, the number of operators checked relating to domestic timber has risen substantially from

2065 in the previous period to 3685 in this period and in relation to checks on operators of imported timber, it

has risen from 617 checks to 805 (Figure 5). There was an increase in the number of countries who found

unsatisfactory due diligence systems, 22 countries (8 domestic, 20 imported) in this period, compared to

17 countries (6 domestic and 14 imported) in the previous period. The number of substantiated concerns has

decreased from 327 received by 15 countries in the previous period to 168 by 11 countries in this period. Trader

checks of domestic timber have decreased, from 665 checks on traders in the previous period to 454 in this period,

likewise checks on traders of imported timber have decreased from 87 to 64.

9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/Overview%20of%20CA%20checks_Dec17-Jun18_30.1.19.pdf

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 September and December), 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, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway).

The Nordic-Baltic EUTR collaboration (Denmark, Finland, Latvia and Sweden; other countries also

participate), and the Central European EUTR collaboration (Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary,

Slovakia, and Slovenia).

Austria reported ongoing consultation with Romania regarding a substantiated concern.

Belgium and Denmark noted their participation in a TAIEX-EIR PEER 2 PEER study visit, Copenhagen,

29-31 October.

Belgium reported the monthly exchange of information with the Competent Authorities of Germany,

Italy and the Netherlands.

Germany reported on collaboration with the Competent Authority of the Czech Republic to conduct a

joint inspection in Germany, and on the exchange of customs data with the Competent Authorities of

Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

Ireland noted its participation at the 28th Global Forum on Forest Governance on 8-9 November in

London and the Timber Regulation Enforcement Exchange (TREE) meeting on 10-11 October in

Hamburg (other countries also participated), and a timber identification laboratory visit with

Competent Authorities of Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

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

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

period, compared with 6 months for the June-November 2017 and July-December 2018 reporting periods)

18

Italy reported on its participation in an information-sharing discussion with the Commission and the

Competent Authorities of Belgium and the United Kingdom.

Latvia noted cooperation with several Competent Authorities regarding enforcement and exchange of

information relating to particular countries of origin, supply chains and document translation.

Malta noted its participation in a multi-country workshop on the Implementation of the EUTR for

Mediterranean Member States (organised by the Portuguese Competent Authority) on 5-6 June in

Lisbon (other countries also participated).

Slovakia reported on collaboration with the Hungarian Competent Authority in cases involving the

transport of potentially illegal timber.

Sweden reported holding a workshop with Serbian authorities.

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

Workshops and meetings for operators or trade associations: Belgium (1), Czech Republic (6), Denmark

(1), France (1), Lithuania (1), Malta (1), Slovenia (1), Sweden (1), and United Kingdom (6).

Information campaigns: Bulgaria (1), Czech Republic (1), Finland (2), Germany (1), Hungary (142),

Ireland (1), Lithuania (50), Slovenia (1), and Sweden (1).

One-to-one awareness raising with operators and traders: Austria (8), Belgium (5), Bulgaria (5), Croatia

(400), Czech Republic (28), Finland (11), France (2), Hungary (1680), Ireland (9), Italy (34), Latvia (22),

Malta (13), Norway (5), Slovenia (400), and United Kingdom (23).

Provision of updates on Competent Authority websites (Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic,

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,

Portugal, Republic of Cyprus, and Sweden).

Media appearances (including online or printed articles, press releases, television and radio): Hungary,

Ireland, Netherlands.

Lectures or presentations: Austria, Germany, Hungary.

Bulgaria noted its maintenance of an English-language website providing information on the origin of

transported timber.

Czech Republic noted plans for a chapter about EUTR and FLEGT implementation to be published in

the national forestry journal Silvarium - Lesnická práce every two months.

Denmark reported one-to-one awareness raising with 2 branch organisations (graphics and textiles) as

well as reporting on the outcome of an awareness campaign conducted in the first half of 2018, with

direct mail to 3800 registered operators.

Germany held an EUTR anniversary event at the Thünen Centre of Competence on the Origin of

Timber, 8-9 October 2018, Hamburg.

Poland noted that important information about EUTR had been published on the Chief Inspectorate for

Environmental Protection website.

Portugal noted that when new operators register on their mandatory electronic platform (Sistema RIO),

an awareness raising package is automatically sent out, including information on due diligence.

Citation

UNEP-WCMC, 2019. Overview of Competent Authority EU Timber Regulation checks, July-December 2018. 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.