Overview of Competent Authority EU Timber Regulation checks, December June 2018

Transcription

1 Overview of Competent Authority EU Timber Regulation checks, December June 2018 Statistics of checks performed by EU Member States and EEA countries to enforce the implementation of the EU Timber Regulation 1

2 Introduction This document provides an overview of the checks Competent Authorities have performed over the period December June 2018 to verify compliance of the EU Timber Regulation 1 (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 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 countries 2. 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. 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 i not specified Belgium ii i unknown Bulgaria unknown unknown Croatia not specified Cyprus 62 iii 780 iii 2 iii Czech Republic not specified Denmark ii i not specified Estonia Finland ii i unknown France not specified Germany ii i not specified Greece Hungary ii ii 246 ii Iceland unknown unknown unknown Ireland unknown unknown Italy not available iv not specified Latvia i unknown Lichtenstein unknown unknown unknown Lithuania unknown Luxembourg 200 ii 245 i not specified Malta unknown 750 not specified Netherlands unknown Norway not specified Poland unknown ~6 500 unknown Portugal not specified iii not specified iii iii Romania not specified Slovakia unknown unknown Slovenia ii i not specified Spain not specified Sweden 100 ii i 10 United Kingdom unknown 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 and DEZEMBRO2017.pdf ); they do not distinguish between operators of domestic and imported timber. iv) Italy reported that the national list of EUTR operators is still being implemented 1 Regulation (EU) No 995/ No information was received from Greece, Liechtenstein, Malta and Spain. 2

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 years 3. 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 1 st 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

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 (21) of the reporting countries have access to all relevant customs data, two countries only receive information covering certain product types, one country only received information covering certain time periods 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 4 or may use information from traders records on suppliers to identify products, producer countries or operator types for checks. 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) Free access Any time, upon request Weekly Monthly* Quarterly Twice per year* Annually* No access No response No survey 4 wcmc.io/timbertrade_eutr 4

5 Table 3: National plans for checks on the implementation of the EUTR (based on information submitted in EUTR national reports , 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 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 /4805 / 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 i 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 5 Countries submit national reports biennially on the implementation and enforcement of the EUTR (Article 20, EUTR). 5

6 Table 4: Frequency of data exchange between customs and Competent Authorities and extent of data on timber products shared, by country i 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 ii 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 Monthly ii Only certain product types related to timber imports Estonia Annually ii All customs data related to timber imports Finland Monthly All customs data related to timber imports France Annually ii All customs data related to timber imports Germany Biannually ii All customs data related to timber imports Hungary Monthly ii All customs data related to timber imports Ireland Free access due to Data Sharing agreement ii All customs data related to timber imports Italy Annually ii All customs data related to timber imports Latvia Free access ii All customs data related to timber imports Lithuania Annually ii All customs data related to timber imports Luxembourg Annually Only certain product types related to timber imports Netherlands Free access ii All customs data related to timber imports Norway Annually ii All customs data related to timber imports Poland Quarterly All customs data related to timber imports Portugal iii No access - Romania Free access 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 Requested when required All customs data related to timber imports United Kingdom iv No access - i) Iceland did not provide a response to this question ii) Upon request any time iii) Portugal noted there was currently no data exchange between customs and their Competent Authority iv) United Kingdom noted they do not currently have access to customs data but are negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding to rectify this Statistics of checks performed December June 2018 Over the period December June 2018, the reporting Competent Authorities conducted checks on 2065 domestic operators and 617 importing operators, amounting to 2710 and 1074 individual checks, respectively. In addition, 665 checks on traders dealing with domestic timber and 87 on traders dealing with imported timber took place. Six monitoring organisations were checked and 15 countries received a total of 327 substantiated concerns. 6

7 Twenty-seven countries confirmed having performed checks over this period. Nineteen countries reported checking domestic operators, with six of them identifying operators with unsatisfactory Due Diligence Systems (DDS) in place (Table 5). Twenty-four countries checked importing operators and 14 identified operators with unsatisfactory DDS in place (Tables 7 and 8). Seventeen countries reported having checked traders, and, other than Hungary, Italy and Poland, all countries were satisfied that appropriate traceability systems had been put in place by these traders (Table 10 and 11). Four countries reported that they checked monitoring organisations. Overall, six checks were performed, with all monitoring organisations fulfilling the requirements of Article 8(1). Fifteen countries reported having received substantiated concerns (Table 9), 12 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 Substantiated Concerns EIA reported on two suppliers of Burmese teak trading in breach of EUTR. The teak was being used for yacht decking by UK yacht builders. The teak suppliers have been found to be in breach of EUTR by their respective CAs (NHG Timber in the UK and Vandercasteele Hout Import in Belgium) 6. Public reports of checks or enforcement action In the UK, Hardwood Dimensions (Holdings) Ltd was ordered to pay a fine of GBP 4000 plus costs for failing to check the legality of an import of timber from Cameroon 7. The Swedish CA issued a fine of SEK to Dollarstore due to the operator demonstrating deficiencies in documentation and not conducting risk assessments on imports 7. 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 office 8. A Dutch court has given the Dutch CA the go-ahead to take enforcement action against an operator who imports Burmese teak 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 per cubic metre of timber, up to a maximum of EUR , if imports continue 9. Joint checks The Swedish and Norwegian CAs conducted joint inspections in June The Latvian CA was accompanied by the Dutch CA for two checks on operators importing timber from Russia 8. concerns, Denmark explained that one of the sources of the substantiated concern was anonymous, Italy noted that the substantiated concern had not yet been formally submitted and Lithuania stated that there were no infringements. 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. The following tables (Tables 5-12) provide overviews of the checks performed by Competent Authorities over the period December 2017 June 2018, the basis of these checks, substantiated concerns received and any enforcement steps taken following checks. 6 wcmc.io/eutr_briefing_note_november17-january18 7 wcmc.io/eutr_briefing_note_february-march wcmc.io/eutr_briefing_note_april-may18 9 wcmc.io/eutr_briefing_note_june-august18 7

8 Table 5: Overview of domestic operator checks and results December 2017-June No survey response: Greece, Liechtenstein, Malta, Spain No response to these questions: Austria i, Germany Operators not checked: Belgium ii, Finland iii, Iceland iv, Lithuania v, Luxembourg, the Netherlands iv, United Kingdom iii Operators checked: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark vi, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia vii, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden Country No. of operators checked No. of desk No. of based reviews 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 other actions Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark 10 Estonia France Hungary Ireland Italy viiii Norway 7 7 Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Sweden 5 5 No. of instances of no action i) Austria noted that providing this data during the year would be disproportionate compared to the low risk of illegality for domestic timber ii) Belgium noted regional authorities are competent to elaborate and check the forest legislation and have enforcement plans to carry out forest checks and no problems have yet been reported hence there is no priority for additional checks by the federal Competent Authority iii) Finland noted the use of control systems embedded within various forestry legislation and checks are carried out 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. iv) Iceland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom stated there is little to no domestic production of timber v) Lithuania noted domestic operators are checked by a different authority vi) Denmark stated checks to domestic operators were only carried out on the basis of substantiated concerns vii) Latvia noted that a substantial number of checks take place on domestic operators, based on national forestry legislation and the EUTR. They reported that 17 court cases (8 administrative, 9 criminal) were closed in the period relating to domestic timber. All 8 administrative cases and 6 criminal cases ended in favour of the CA and 2 criminal cases in favour of the defendant, in one case the legal process was ended. Information from 3 of the 10 regions were not available viii) Italy confirmed that one operator was subject to a criminal penalty 8

9 Table 6: Basis of domestic operator checks December 2017-June Country Level of risk Production/trade volumes Value of products Market share/importance of these operators Substantiated concerns Other Bulgaria Croatia Annual plan Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Type of cutting (e.g. thinning, clear cutting) France Hungary Ex-officio investigation Ireland Italy Latvia Norway Poland Portugal Phytosanitary purpose Romania Slovakia Slovenia Sweden i i) Sweden noted inspections were always done on site or via Skype, then followed up with office based document reviews 9

10 Table 7: Overview of importing operator checks and results December 2017-June No survey response: Greece, Liechtenstein, Malta, Spain Operators not checked: Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg Operators checked: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom Country No. of operators checked No. of desk No. of based reviews document reviews on site No. of product inspections on site No. of document No. of operators & product without inspections on site appropriate DDS No. of notices of remedial action No. of notices of remedial action that led to penalties i) Austria noted that the Federal Forest Office is not competent to issue penalties; cases pending at competent District Administration Authorities ii) Belgium noted that in three cases a decision on a sanction is yet to be taken, with a decision to prosecute taken on one of these cases. For a further four checks the decision on whether DDS is appropriate is yet to be taken. iii) Estonia and Romania noted checks to operators importing timber are planned for later in the year, with Romania stating screening was primarily done by volume and all importers would be checked this year iv) Italy noted that one criminal penalty was charged to an operator v) Lithuania noted most imported timber goes to another Member State, hence no checks were performed vi) Sweden noted that seven cases are still open, therefore results are currently inconclusive. Nine cases have been closed after correcting minor issues vii) Latvia noted that two cases are still open. No. of financial penalties No. of court cases No. of No. of no imprisonment action Austria i Belgium ii 10 Bulgaria 3 Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia iii 0 Finland France Germany Hungary Iceland 4 4 Ireland Italy iv Latvia vii 1 Lithuania v 0 Luxembourg 0 Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania iii Slovakia Slovenia Sweden vi United Kingdom No. of other penalties 10

11 Table 8: Basis of importing operator checks December 2017-June 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 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Annual plan Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Ex-officio investigation Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Phytosanitary purpose Romania Slovakia Slovenia Sweden United Kingdom Other 11

12 Table 9: Overview of substantiated concerns received December 2017-June No survey response: Greece, Malta, Liechtenstein, Spain No substantiated concerns: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, United Kingdom Substantiated concerns received: Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia 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 No. of concerns raised by raised by the Government agencies media No. of concerns raised No. of resulting by unspecified checks authority Those submitting concerns were informed about steps taken Belgium Yes Czech Republic Yes Denmark No i Estonia Yes France 1 1 ii 1 Yes Germany Yes Hungary Yes iii Ireland Yes Italy No iv Lithuania No v Luxembourg Yes Netherlands Yes Portugal vi 4 Yes Romania Yes Slovenia Yes * a concern may involve more than one operator/company i) Denmark noted that one substantiated concern was received anonymously ii) France noted that the substantiated concerns were from Greenpeace on ipê importers in Brazil. These will be checked during the second period of 2018 iii) Hungary noted that many cases were still ongoing (in addition to the 35 checks) and that all those who submitted substantiated concerns will be informed at the end of the administrative proceedings iv) Italy noted that the results of the check has not yet been formally submitted to the organization who submitted the substantiated concern v) Lithuania noted that there were no infringements vi) The CA prepared a briefing note for the news agency in order to clarify the checks related to the substantiated concerns 12

13 Table 10: Overview of domestic timber trader checks and results December 2017-June No response No. of to checks these questions: No. of traders Iceland without appropriate traceability No survey response: Greece, Malta, Liechtenstein, Spain No. of notices of No. of notices of remedial remedial action action that led to penalties Traders not checked: Austria i, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland ii, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia No. of financial penalties No. of cases of imprisonment No. of court cases No action No. of other penalties Traders checked: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom Country Belgium 0 iii Bulgaria 61 Croatia 13 Cyprus Estonia 20 Hungary Italy Lithuania 0 iii Poland 5 Portugal 11 Romania Slovenia 2 Sweden 0 iii United 0 iii Kingdom i) Austria noted that providing this data at this stage would be disproportionate considering to the low risk of illegality. There is no plan for trader checks, traders are only asked for information if required, for example in case of suspicion ii) Ireland stated that checks on traders were not performed during this period, due to the risk based approach taken iii) Country reported performing checks on traders but none conducted in this reporting period 13

14 Table 11: Overview of imported timber trader checks and results December 2017-June No response to these questions: Iceland No survey response: Greece, Malta, Liechtenstein, Spain Traders not checked: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland i, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia Traders checked: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom Country No. of checks No. of traders without appropriate traceability No. of notices of remedial action No. of notices of No. of financial remedial action that led penalties to penalties No. of imprisonment No. of court cases No. of no action Austria ii Belgium 1 Cyprus Estonia 0 iii Germany 12 Hungary 0 iii 0 Lithuania Poland Portugal 2 Romania 17 4 Slovenia 2 Sweden 4 United Kingdom 2 i) Ireland stated that checks on traders were not performed during this period, due to the risk based approach taken ii) Austria noted that the Federal Forest Office is not competent to issue penalties; cases pending at competent District Administration Authorities iii) Country reported performing checks on traders but none conducted in this reporting period No. of other penalties 14

15 Table 12: Overview of court cases and outcomes December 2017-June Country Defendant Date at Basis of case Outcome/verdict court France Operator of domestic timber - CA check Closed the case Germany Operator Hungary i Trader June 2018 CA check Dismissal of the case Hungary Operator May 2018 CA check Dismissal of the case Hungary Trader April 2018 Substantiated concern Repealed the decision and referred the case back to the CA Hungary Trader May 2018 Substantiated concern Repealed the decision and referred the case back to the CA Latvia ii 17 cases involving operators of domestic timber - - All 8 administrative cases in favour of CA; 6 criminal cases in favour of CA; 2 criminal cases in favour of defendant; 1 criminal case ended Luxembourg Operator June 2018 Substantiated concern In progress Sweden Dollarstore (Operator) 6 March 2018 CA check In favour of CA. Administrative Court. Appealed to the Chamber of appeal Sweden Kärnsund Wood Link (Operator) 18 May 2018 CA check In favour of operator Sweden Dollarstore (Operator) 11 June 2018 CA sending new Appealed by the operator. Ongoing injunction with a fine United Kingdom Operator February 2018 CA check In favour of CA i Hungary noted that all court cases to date had been due to operators/traders challenging the CAs decisions. They also highlighted that information on infringements and steps taken is available online: ii Latvia noted that information was not available from 3 of the 10 region 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 (December 2017 June 2018) and the previous report (June November ). The current period spans seven months as opposed to six months in the previous report. In addition, there has been an increase in the number of reporting countries (from 20 to 27), with 26 countries having performed checks over this period (compared with 19 previously). 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 467 in the previous period to 2065 in this period (2710 individual checks, up from 499) and in relation to checks on operators of imported timber, it has risen from 388 checks to 617 (1074 individual checks, up from 406). The same number of countries found unsatisfactory due diligence systems in this period as in the previous period (17 countries, 6 domestic and 14 imported). The number of substantiated concerns has increased from 105 received by seven countries in the previous period to 327 by 15 countries in this period. Trader checks of domestic timber have also risen, from 300 checks on traders in the previous period to 665 in this period, however checks on traders of imported timber have decreased from 177 to 87. Other Competent Authority actions Collaboration Collaboration among Competent Authorities is essential to ensure a coherent implementation and enforcement of the EUTR across the EU. Over the reporting period, Competent Authorities collaborated through the informal EUTR Expert Group meetings (in February, April and June), as well as through other activities (countries reporting on activities provided in brackets): 10 wcmc.io/overview_ca_checks_june-november_

16 Regular exchange with other Competent Authorities to perform checks (Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden) The Nordic-Baltic EUTR collaboration (Denmark, Finland, Latvia and Sweden; other countries also participate), and the newly established Central European EUTR collaboration (Austria and Slovenia reported on this; Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia also participate) Belgium noted the sharing of information about other countries and operators with the Competent Authorities of Germany, the Netherlands and the UK Bulgaria noted the provision of information to the Competent Authority of Greece Czech Republic and Hungary reported upon collaboration with Austria, Poland and Slovakia through the mini TREE workshop Denmark, France, Italy, Portugal and Slovenia noted their participation at the 5-6 June workshop for Mediterranean cooperation (funded by the EC TAIEX-EIR PEER 2 PEER programme) Latvia noted their involvement in two EU TAIEX expert missions to Ukraine and assistance to other Competent Authorities with information on illegal logging and forest governance in Ukraine Germany and Belgium shared information on an import of low priced Wenge wood from the Democratic Republic of Congo which is currently under investigation Hungary noted a bilateral meeting with Romania to discuss issues of traceability and tracking of timber, and with Slovakia, to collect information on practical experience on the implementation of the EUTR in both countries, with the possibility for join inspections in future Ireland noted bilateral collaboration and the attendance of two webinars (TREE webinar hosted by Forest Trends and Brazilian Timber webinar hosted by the European Commission and Greenpeace other countries also participated) Latvia reported the on collaboration between Competent Authorities including the UK about imports from China and Ukraine; Czech Republic about imports from Ukraine; and the Netherlands and Denmark about various issues Norway reported on the exchange of information with Denmark and Sweden and consultation with Latvia The United Kingdom reported on continued collaboration with other authorities regarding teak imports from Myanmar Awareness raising Competent Authorities also engaged in awareness raising over this reporting period, through: Workshops and meetings for operators or trade associations; Czech Republic (5), Denmark (4), Lithuania (2), Finland (1) and Slovakia (1) Information campaigns; Czech Republic (6), Finland (4), Cyprus (3), Lithuania (3), Denmark (1), Germany (1), Lithuania (3) One-to-one awareness raising with operators and traders (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia) Provision of updates on Competent Authority websites (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia) Citation UNEP-WCMC, Overview of Competent Authority EU Timber Regulation checks, December 2017-June 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. 16