Criminal law regulation of forest-related offences in foreign countries is diverse and largely depends on the form of government, state structure, political regime, legal system, and historical factors. At the same time, legislative differences between states also stem from the area of forested land, the level of legal culture and crime, climatic conditions, population, the degree of industrial forest exploitation, and other factors.

The study of criminal law norms of various states complements and clarifies the issue of improving criminal liability for forest offences. The author of this article analyzed criminal liability for illegal logging in the legal systems of EU member states, several post-Soviet countries, and China. Most EU states were selected as examples of jurisdictions with a high level of legal culture and effective institutional mechanisms of environmental control, which makes it possible to formulate practical recommendations for Ukraine.

In the European Union, there is a general trend towards criminalizing not only large-scale logging but also actions involving encroachment upon rare or protected species. For example, Article 332 of the Spanish Criminal Code provides for liability for any illegal actions involving protected plant species, even if no significant material damage was caused. A similar approach is found in the criminal norms of Belgium and the Netherlands, where special emphasis is placed on combating the illegal commercialization of timber and damage to biodiversity.

The Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) use a more classical model: criminal liability arises when illegal logging results in substantial damage, and the degree of punishment directly depends on the extent of the harm. Sanctions include fines and imprisonment, with a clear correlation to the economic value of the damage.

In the Nordic countries, including Norway, legislation has a comprehensive nature: illegal logging is treated not only as an offence against property or economic interests but also as a violation of environmental protection rules. Penalties combine criminal and administrative mechanisms, allowing for flexible responses depending on the severity of the violation.

A common feature of the European models is the combination of ecological and economic criteria for determining harm, whereas the differences lie in emphasis: Western European countries prioritize the protection of biodiversity, while in the Baltic and Central European states the economic valuation of damage plays a key role.

Compared to these models, Ukraine’s criminal legislation (Article 246 of the Criminal Code) focuses primarily on the material dimension of damage and qualifying elements of illegal logging as criminal offences. Consequently, the national model is closer to the Baltic approach but is less environmentally oriented than, for example, that of Spain or Belgium.

Thus, the experience of foreign countries demonstrates the relevance of integrating both approaches: combining strict sanctions for large-scale illegal logging with special criminal protection for rare species and their habitats. Such a balanced approach may be the most effective under current conditions.

---

Spain

As of 2017, Spanish forests covered 13.5 million hectares, which constituted 26.5% of the country’s territory. According to the Criminal Code of Spain (Ley Orgánica 10/1995), illegal logging is classified as a crime against the environment and flora. Article 332 establishes liability for cutting, destroying, damaging, or illegally using protected tree or plant species, as well as for significantly disturbing their natural habitat. These acts are punishable by imprisonment from six months to two years or a fine from eight to twenty-four months. If the offence concerns species listed as endangered, the penalty is increased and may be applied at the upper limit.

Importantly, the court assesses the extent of damage when determining liability. Damage is calculated based on the economic value of the destroyed trees, the cost of ecosystem restoration, and the ecological value of the affected area. In cases of significant harm or the destruction of rare or protected species, compensation may reach very large sums. According to the principle of proportionality, the offender must compensate for the damage, which may include financial restitution and obligations to restore the damaged areas.

Additionally, the court may impose supplementary sanctions, such as disqualification from certain professional activities. This enhances the preventive effect and helps deter repeated offences.

Belgium

Under Article 537 of the Belgian Criminal Code, a person who maliciously fells one or more trees, or cuts, injures, or strips them of bark so that they rot, or who destroys one or more grafts, is punishable by:

• For each tree — imprisonment from eight days to three months and a fine from €26 to €100;

• For each offence — imprisonment from eight to fifteen days and a fine from €26 to €50, or either sanction separately.

In all cases, the total punishment may not exceed three years of imprisonment and a fine of €500.

Forests cover approximately 22.6% of Belgium’s territory (over 689,000 hectares as of 2022).

Thus, sanctions under Belgian law can be regarded as relatively mild. Short prison terms and low fines indicate that the focus is more on prevention and deterrence rather than harsh punishment.

The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, illegal logging (illegale bomenkap) is considered a medium-severity offence and primarily entails financial liability. Municipalities may impose strict measures, including mandatory replanting, fines (dwangsom), and, in severe cases, imprisonment of up to six months and fines up to €21,750.

National legislation classifies illegal logging as an economic crime, for which imprisonment up to six months and substantial fines may also be imposed. Court practice varies depending on the severity of the violation.

Examples:

• In Tiel, a company illegally felled more than 1,500 trees. The prosecutor demanded a €375,000 fine, community service, and replanting; the court imposed a €100,000 fine, 120 hours of community work, and a suspended sentence.

• In Drachten, a resident who cut down 40 trees without a permit received a €50,000 fine and 180 hours of community service.  

• Smaller violations are punished more leniently but still significantly: e.g., in Terneuzen, illegal felling of three old oaks resulted in a €3,000 fine and an obligation to plant new trees.
  
  
  
  
  

Estonia

The Estonian Criminal Code establishes clear criminal liability for illegal logging and for actions causing significant environmental harm (Articles 354–357).

Article 356: illegal felling causing significant environmental harm is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to three years. If committed negligently — a fine or up to one year of imprisonment. For legal entities, only monetary fines apply.

The term “significant harm” is evaluated by the court and does not have strict quantitative thresholds in the Criminal Code. Courts rely on environmental and ecological standards.

Articles 354 and 355 establish liability for destruction or damage to trees and shrubs in violation of forest protection rules, including negligent offences. Article 357 provides liability for violating rules of protected natural areas if significant harm occurs — up to five years of imprisonment (three years if negligent).

Thus, Estonian law clearly distinguishes intentional and negligent offences and provides differentiated sanctions for natural and legal persons.

Latvia

In Latvia, illegal logging is also a criminal offence, and sanctions are among the strictest in the Baltic region. For intentional acts causing significant harm, imprisonment for up to 5 years is possible (Article 109 of the Latvian Criminal Code). 

Fines range from 10 to 2,000 minimum monthly wages — potentially hundreds of thousands of euros. Negligent offences entail up to 2 years of imprisonment. Legal entities may face large fines, confiscation of property, or even liquidation.

Lithuania

Criminal liability for illegal logging in Lithuania is governed by several articles of the Criminal Code:

• Article 270: environmental protection violations that caused or could cause significant harm — imprisonment up to 3 years; in cases of serious harm — up to 6 years.

• Article 271: destruction or damage to protected territories or natural objects — imprisonment up to 5 years, even if committed negligently.

• Article 273: illegal felling of privately owned forest exceeding 1 hectare or other actions causing harm to forest resources — fines, arrest, or imprisonment up to 2 years.

Thus, Lithuania has an extensive system with penalties depending on the scale and consequences of the offence.

Norway

In Norway, illegal logging can result in administrative and criminal liability. The Criminal Code (Straffeloven 2005 No. 28) and the Forestry Act (Skogbruksloven 2005) apply.

Unauthorized felling on private or state land may qualify as property damage (§§351–352). Large-scale or ecologically harmful logging falls under environmental crimes (§§240–242), punishable by fines and imprisonment up to 6 years, and for serious ecological crimes — up to 15 years.

Administrative sanctions under the Forestry Act include restitution of damage, the cost of replanting, and administrative fines. Violations in protected areas are treated as ecological crimes and sanctioned severely.

Article 22 of the Forestry Act also provides for fines or up to one year of imprisonment for failure to ensure proper reforestation, failure to pay forestry fees, or failure to implement environmental measures.

---

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.

---

Oleh Storchous