Liability for Illegal Logging in Protected Areas: Proposals for Decriminalization

Under Part 3 of Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, a person can be held criminally liable for felling even a single tree of minimal diameter without authorization.

During an analysis of court practice, the author of this study reviewed 43 judgments of first-instance courts in which individuals were prosecuted under Part 3 of Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine for causing environmental damage of up to 15,140 UAH. This damage threshold was selected deliberately, as it equals ten non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens — the legal benchmark used to determine the criminal nature of offenses, calculated according to rates approved by Resolution No. 575 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.

The findings revealed that:

• in 32 judgments, the offenders were prosecuted for the illegal felling of a single tree;

• in 12 cases, the felled trees had a diameter of up to 10 cm;

• in 22 cases, the felled trees belonged to secondary or low-value species, not the main forest-forming types;

• in 33 cases, the crimes occurred in protected areas — such as nature reserves, forest or botanical sanctuaries, or national parks (mostly within their economic zones);

• the average damage caused ranged from 5,000 to 8,000 UAH;

• in 37 cases, offenders were released on probation under Articles 75–76 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine;

• many of those convicted were elderly people, persons with disabilities, or women.

In most cases, the courts did not establish whether offenders were aware that they were cutting trees within protected territories. Since the boundaries of many protected areas remain undefined, the offenders typically did not realize they were committing an offense in a specially protected zone. In most cases, these were not intentional acts within conservation areas.

Some residents engage in such felling because of the difficulty of legally purchasing firewood from local national parks or forestry enterprises, which are restricted by environmental regulations and cannot harvest sufficient volumes.

Particular attention should be paid to isolated cases where courts convicted individuals who were registered with narcological dispensaries, had previous charges for drug possession, ammunition storage, or mental disorders. These instances raise concerns about possible evidence falsification by police officers and the prosecution of innocent individuals. Such abuses, often motivated by the need to artificially boost crime detection rates, are typically associated with “serious crimes” — a category that includes offenses under Part 3 of Article 246 of the Criminal Code.

Another key issue concerns the disproportionate increase in damage assessment rates, also known as “taxa.” Compared with the repealed Resolution No. 541 (July 24, 2013), which previously determined similar rates for illegal logging within protected areas, the new rates under Resolution No. 575 (May 10, 2022) increased on average by 28–30 times. As shown in the table below, the current rates are twice as high as those for felling rare species listed in the Red Data Book of Ukraine.

This policy is illogical, as the ecological and conservation value of Red List trees is objectively higher than that of common species growing in protected areas. Such disproportion distorts the principle of proportionality between responsibility and environmental harm. Furthermore, the new rates exceed those for “ordinary” forests without protected status by 8–9 times.

Damage Assessment Rates (UAH), 2025