Info-brief: EUTR enforcement in Finland

The document outlines Finland's legal framework for the EU Timber Regulation, identifying the Agency for Rural Affairs (Mavi) as the Competent Authority. It details the penalty regime, which distinguishes between intentional breaches (criminal sanctions) and unintentional breaches (administrative sanctions), and notes that between March 2015 and November 2016, the CA conducted 32 checks on imported timber and 19 on domestic timber. The briefing highlights a lack of formal procedures for NGOs to challenge the CA's inaction regarding substantiated concerns, though criminal complaints can be filed directly with police.

• The Agency for Rural Affairs (Mavi) serves as the Competent Authority (CA) for both imported and domestic timber, collaborating with the Finnish Forest Centre for domestic timber checks. The CA's EUTR-related staffing includes one full-time and two part-time posts, with annual financial resources for implementation and enforcement totaling approximately €100,000.
• Finland employs a dual penalty regime: intentional breaches of due diligence, traceability, or the placement of unlawfully harvested timber on the market are subject to criminal sanctions, including pecuniary penalties and potential imprisonment for up to 6 months. Unintentional or negligent breaches are handled via administrative sanctions, which can include written notices, correction orders, conditional fines, and prohibitions on placing timber on the market for up to 3 months (or 1 year for seasonal products).
• Between March 2015 and November 2016, the Competent Authority performed 32 checks on imported timber and 19 checks on domestic timber, the latter intended to verify the quality of inspections by the Finnish Forest Centre.
• There is no prescribed format or national rule for handling substantiated concerns (SCs), and NGOs lack the legal standing to challenge the CA's inaction. While NGOs can file criminal complaints directly with the police or state prosecutor, they cannot use a SC as a basis for an administrative procedure.
• A identified weakness in the enforcement framework is that pursuing criminal cases requires evidence of intent, which may act as a hurdle depending on judicial interpretation.

APA

ClientEarth (2017). Info-brief: EUTR enforcement in Finland. https://www.clientearth.org/media/ecqbhno2/2017-01-16-eutr-enforcement-in-finland-ce-en.pdf

Chicago

ClientEarth. Info-brief: EUTR enforcement in Finland. 2017. https://www.clientearth.org/media/ecqbhno2/2017-01-16-eutr-enforcement-in-finland-ce-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=ClientEarth |title=Info-brief: EUTR enforcement in Finland |date=January 2017 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/ecqbhno2/2017-01-16-eutr-enforcement-in-finland-ce-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clientearth2017infobrief, author = {{ClientEarth}}, title = {{Info-brief: EUTR enforcement in Finland}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2017}, month = jan, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/ecqbhno2/2017-01-16-eutr-enforcement-in-finland-ce-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }