study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of ... · regulation 258/2012 aims at...

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


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


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.


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


iv


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


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


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


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.


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


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).


5

Figure 2 –Intervention logic of Regulation 258/2012


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


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.


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.


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


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


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)


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 (


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


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).


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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

study in view of a report evaluating the implementation of ... · regulation 258/2012 aims at...

Documents