Public Discussion of Legislative Changes on Liability for Illegal Logging: Searching for Balance

On January 30, the public organization Forest Initiatives and Society (ForestCom) held a roundtable dedicated to a public discussion of a draft law aimed at improving the system of legal liability for illegal logging in Ukraine. At the center of the discussion was the need for a comprehensive review of approaches to criminal and administrative liability, in particular the provisions of Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, taking into account real forestry risks and the effectiveness of law enforcement.

The event was attended by representatives of civil society organizations, state control authorities, local self-government bodies, as well as experts and professionals in the field.

Reforming Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and Differentiating Liability

Lawyer and forestry legislation expert Oleh Storchous emphasized the need for a systematic update of criminal legislation in the area of forest protection. Key proposals included:

• Decriminalization of minor logging in protected areas;

• Raising the damage threshold for ordinary forests;

• Strengthening sanctions, primarily increasing fines for serious violations to make illegal logging economically unprofitable;

• Expanding the list of criminal actions to cover all methods of destruction;

• Clarifying terminology and harmonizing the Criminal Code provisions with the Forest Code of Ukraine.

The expert also highlighted the importance of economic incentives for forest users who voluntarily report unauthorized logging, as well as regulating the liability of local communities for violations in forests not transferred to permanent use:

“Our approach is based on moving away from a philosophy of punishment and liability that currently equates forest users with forest thieves, failing to distinguish intent from operational risk, which in practice encourages the concealment of illegal logging. To ensure forest users are not afraid to report unauthorized logging, it must be economically beneficial for them.”

Administrative vs. Criminal Liability

Participants noted that the current system of penalties often does not take operational risks into account, which may encourage concealment of illegal logging.

Dmytro Karabchuk, Executive Director of ForestCom and program coordinator, stated that criminalizing minor violations, such as cutting down a single tree, leads to inefficient use of law enforcement resources:

“Criminalizing the felling of one tree diverts law enforcement resources. Such cases should be treated as administrative offenses. Law enforcement should instead focus on investigating large-scale and systemic illegal logging carried out by organized criminal groups. Also, illegal logging identified by forest protection services and forwarded to law enforcement for further investigation should not automatically be treated as criminal intent on the part of forest officers and, accordingly, should not be punishable.”

As an alternative, the expert proposed:

• Wider use of administrative liability;

• Differentiation of liability for forestry personnel depending on the presence of intent;

• Focusing law enforcement on large-scale and systemic crimes, rather than minor cases.

Lawyer and ForestCom expert Natalia Kaplia emphasized:

“Effective counteraction to illegal logging will only be possible after the legislation clearly defines illegal logging. This will simplify the qualification of crime elements for law enforcement during investigations and for courts. Improving administrative liability for forest offenses will increase the efficiency of forest protection services and specify the level of responsibility for officials and property liability for environmental damage.”

Proposals and Directions for Further Work

During the roundtable, participants agreed on the need to systematize information on illegal logging and the resulting damage and increase transparency of forest users’ activities, including through the publication of forestry data. They also noted the need to improve provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (CUAO), particularly Article 64, regarding liability of forestry officials and to avoid situations where the absence of property or administrative liability creates a “control vacuum.”

Effective prevention of illegal logging is possible only by balancing control, accountability, and economic feasibility, as well as having clear rules of the game for all participants in forest relations.

---

The publication is produced by NGO «ForestCom» with the support of the Askold and Dir Fund as a part of the Strong Civil Society of Ukraine –  a Driver towards Reforms and Democracy project, implemented by ISAR Ednannia, funded by Norway and Sweden. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of NGO «ForestCom» and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the Government of Norway, the Government of Sweden and ISAR Ednannia.