Another Case of Inaction by Forest Protection and Law Enforcement in Investigating Illegal Logging

What happened?
During a field survey of forest areas in Brody Forestry Enterprise “Halsillis,” experts from NGO ForestCom discovered 7 stumps of Scots pine with diameters ranging from 60 to 86 cm. The stumps had been carefully hidden under soil and forest litter. The intent was clear: the stumps bore no official markings that indicate trees designated for selective logging. Someone clearly put effort into concealing the illegal felling.

One might think: after all, it is “just” 7 pines. However, according to Cabinet of Ministers Resolution №665, this amounts to damages worth 217,436 UAH. It also highlights the poor organization of forest protection against theft. Let us recall that the forests of Brody Forestry Enterprise “Halsillis” are state and municipal property—meaning part of that property was stolen.

What should be done when state and community property is stolen? Ideally, it should be reported by those responsible for forest protection—in this case, the staff of Brody Forestry Enterprise “Halsillis.” However, according to expert analysis, the felling took place in the winter–spring period but was only discovered at the end of July. Thus, for several months, the crime remained unnoticed. In such cases, the public has to take responsibility. That is why experts from NGO ForestCom submitted the information to the State Environmental Inspectorate of Lviv Oblast and to law enforcement bodies for investigation. Yet, things turned out to be far from simple.

What response did we get?
Police Department №1 of Zolochiv District Police reported that no illegal logging had been detected. More precisely, “Halsillis” assured them of that. The same enterprise that was directly responsible for preventing the illegal logging in the first place. Should we believe that?

Experts are convinced that the police concluded there were no signs of criminal or administrative offense without conducting an on-site inspection at the specified coordinates. Instead, they relied on explanations provided by the forestry user and did not request an expert assessment from the State Environmental Inspectorate (SEI). Naturally, “Halsillis” either failed to detect or deliberately concealed the illegal logging, and therefore provided no relevant information to the police.

And what about the State Environmental Inspectorate?
The SEI confirmed the presence of a main-use logging site, but in a different section of Brody Forestry Enterprise “Halsillis.” Our experts had no objections regarding that area. As for the section where we discovered the illegally cut stumps, the Inspectorate claimed that a legal selective sanitary felling with vague boundaries had been conducted there. Indeed, our experts confirm that a sanitary felling did take place, but significantly earlier than the illegal cutting. This is evident from the physiological condition of the stumps, and, importantly, these particular stumps were deliberately concealed. The Inspectorate, however, chose not to compare documented boundaries with reality, citing a lack of measuring equipment.

Conclusions
When the investigation of a crime turns into shifting responsibility between institutions and neglect of thorough site inspections, precious time to identify perpetrators is lost. The principle of the inevitability of punishment is undermined, and worst of all, no one compensates for the environmental damage. This only encourages further illegal logging of our forests.

Therefore, we call for stronger measures in combating illegal logging. One of the key areas of our NGO’s work is to enhance cooperation with law enforcement by providing professional expertise and monitoring to ensure effective investigations. Let’s protect the forest together!

---

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.