Legal Analysis of Draft Law No. 13364-1 “On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses Regarding the Strengthening of Administrative Liability for Violations Involving Property and in the Sphere of Nature Conservation and the Use of Natural Resources”

For decades, the system of administrative liability for environmental offenses in Ukraine has remained virtually ineffective, creating conditions for impunity and systematic disregard for environmental protection laws. The fundamental problem is that the current fines are meager and serve neither a preventive nor a punitive function.

Against this backdrop, Bill No. 13364-1 “On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses Regarding the Strengthening of Administrative Liability for Violations Involving Property and in the Sphere of Environmental Protection and the Use of Natural Resources” aims to transform the state’s environmental policy from a symbolic, post-facto registration of violations to a punitive and preventive model.

Draft Law No. 13364-1 was registered with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on June 27, 2025, by a group of People’s Deputies led by Oleksandr Yurchenko. It is important to note that it was submitted as an alternative to government bill No. 13364 dated June 12, 2025, which had a significantly narrower scope of application and focused primarily on strengthening liability in the field of water resource protection.

According to the explanatory memorandum, the purpose of the alternative bill, like that of the main bill, is to ensure environmental safety, prevent the negative impact of economic and other activities on the natural environment, and conserve water resources, by strengthening liability for violations of environmental protection laws regarding the conservation, rational use, and restoration of water resources.

The key mechanism proposed in the bill involves a drastic increase in the amounts of fines, which are calculated in terms of non-taxable minimum incomes (NTMIs). The bill increases the number of NIMs levied for each specific violation by a factor of tens, and in some cases, hundreds.

An analysis of the comparative table and the text of the draft reveals several key areas where liability increases most significantly.

Protection of Land Resources (Articles 53, 532, 54, 55, and 56 of the Code of Administrative Offenses)

In this area, a significant tightening of sanctions is proposed, aimed at combating the misuse of land and the falsification of data.

• Violation of land use regulations (Article 53): The fine for citizens will increase from 5–25 NMDG (85–425 UAH) to 200–300 NMDG (3,400–5,100 UAH), and for public officials—from 15–30 NMDG (255–510 UAH) to 500–800 NMDG (8,500–13,600 UAH). This represents an increase of approximately 12 times for citizens and approximately 26 times for officials.
• Falsification or concealment of data from the State Land Cadastre (Art. 532): The fine for public officials will increase from 5–20 NMDG (85–340 UAH) to 200–300 NMDG (3,400–5,100 UAH), i.e., approximately 15 times.
• Failure to return temporarily occupied land within the prescribed time limits or to restore it to a condition suitable for its intended use (Article 54): Penalties for failure to carry out reclamation will increase from 5–10 NMDG to 200–300 NMDG, which is a ~30-fold increase.
• Destruction of boundary markers, or damage to or destruction of survey points and networks (Article 56): The fine will increase from 5–10 NMDG to 200–300 NMDG, which is also a ~30-fold increase.

Protection of Water Resources (Articles 48, 59, 591, 60, 61, and 62 of the Code of Administrative Offenses)

This set of amendments is a response to widespread violations of water protection legislation, which cause significant damage.

• Violation of the state’s right of ownership over water (Art. 48): Fines for officials will increase from 5–8 NMDG to 200–300 NMDG.
• Violations of water resource protection rules (Article 59): Penalties for water pollution and littering will increase from 3–7 NMDG to 100–200 NMDG for citizens, and from 5–8 NMDG to 200–300 NMDG for officials. The draft also introduces a new section of the article on “destruction of riverbeds” with significant fines.
• Violations of water use regulations (Article 60): The bill expands the scope of the article and establishes a fine for officials in the amount of 200–300 NMDG, which is a huge increase compared to the current 5–8 NMDG.

Conservation of Forest Resources and Flora (Articles 49, 63–70, 72, 74–76, 771 of the Code of Administrative Offenses)

Illegal logging is one of Ukraine’s most pressing environmental problems, so strengthening liability in this area is a priority.

• Illegal logging, damage to, and destruction of forest stands and young trees (Article 65): The fine for a first offense for public officials will increase from 150–300 NMDG to 600–1,000 NMDG (10,200–17,000 UAH). For a repeat offense within one year, the penalty for officials will range from 1,000 to 1,500 NMW (17,000–25,500 UAH).
• Destruction or damage to field-protective forest strips and protective forest plantations (Article 651): Fines for public officials will increase from 60–90 NMW to 600–1,000 NMW.
• Damage to forests caused by wastewater, chemicals, oil and petroleum products, harmful emissions, waste, and debris (Article 72): Penalties for officials for polluting forests with chemicals, waste, etc., will increase from 150–250 NMW to 1,500–2,000 NMW (25,500–34,000 UAH).
• Unauthorized burning of vegetation or its remains (Article 771): Although the fine amounts in this article remain unchanged (they had been increased previously), the draft bill extends its scope to “coastal protection zones and islands,” which is an important clarification.

Protection of Wildlife and Combating Poaching (Articles 50, 85, 851, 861, 881 of the Code of Administrative Offenses)

The bill significantly increases penalties for poaching and the illegal trade in wildlife.

• Poaching (Part 2 of Article 85): For repeated or gross violations of hunting regulations, the fine for public officials will increase from 90–150 NMW to 500–1,000 NMW.
• Gross violation of fishing regulations (Part 4 of Article 85): For fishing using explosives, electric current, etc., the fine for officials will increase from 30–50 NMW to 500–1,000 NMW.
• Manufacture, sale, storage, or advertising of prohibited tools for harvesting (collecting) flora or fauna (Article 851): The fine for officials for advertising or distributing prohibited tools will increase from 100–250 NMW to 500–1,000 NMW.

Control of Industrial Pollution and Waste Management (Articles 78, 79, 821–827, 83, 901, 911–914 of the Code of Administrative Offenses)

This section is one of the most important, as it concerns industrial enterprises—the primary sources of environmental pollution.

• Air Pollution (Article 78): Fines for officials for illegal emissions will increase from 5–8 NMDG to 200–300 NMDG.
• Violations in the field of waste management (Articles 821–827): This group of articles shows one of the largest increases. For example, for transferring waste to unlicensed enterprises (Art. 825), the fine for officials will increase from 2–5 NMW to 100–200 NMW—a roughly 40-fold increase.
• Exceeding limits and standards for the use of natural resources (Article 912): The fine for officials will increase from 9–30 NMDG to 200–500 NMDG.
• Refusal to provide or untimely provision of environmental information (Article 914): The fine for officials will increase from 3–10 NMW to 200–300 NMW, thereby strengthening the public’s right to access information.

The adoption of Bill No. 13364-1 will have a profound and multifaceted impact on the economy, public administration, and society. However, its effectiveness will depend not only on the size of the fines but also on the state’s ability to ensure their inevitable and fair enforcement.

The main expected positive effect is preventive. A significant increase in financial liability should compel companies in key sectors—such as agriculture, metallurgy, construction, and energy—to review their business processes and invest in compliance with environmental standards.

The effectiveness of the law depends entirely on the institutional capacity of the agency responsible for enforcing it—the State Environmental Inspectorate.

Meanwhile, in June 2025, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved at its meeting the Strategy for Reforming the System of State Oversight in the Field of Environmental Protection, rational use, restoration, and protection of natural resources through 2029, and approved an operational plan of measures for its implementation in 2025–2027, according to a press release from the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine.

“With this decision, the government has not only approved a step-by-step roadmap for implementing the reform but also demonstrated to the EU and international partners its readiness to carry out the reform,” said Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk.

According to her, the foundation of the reform is the transition from a “punitive” model of environmental control to a “preventive” one—aimed at preventing environmental harm, introducing modern technologies, and strengthening accountability for environmental damage. Plans include implementing a risk-based approach to planning inspections that will align with European practices. This will make it possible to identify and prevent risks.

Thus, Bill No. 13364-1 and the reform of the State Environmental Inspection are inextricably linked. They are two parts of a single mechanism, and the success of one initiative directly depends on the success of the other.

Thus, Bill No. 13364-1 is a necessary and timely attempt to address the chronic problem of ineffective administrative liability for environmental violations in Ukraine. It marks a fundamental shift from symbolic to truly effective sanctions. This reform is an urgent necessity, driven both by the devastating environmental consequences of the war and by the strategic course toward European integration.

At the same time, the success of this legislative initiative is not guaranteed. It critically depends on the simultaneous and effective reform of state environmental oversight agencies.