Improvement of the mechanisms of taxation of forest resources of Ukraine to ensure sustainable forest management

Nazakat Musayeva, Nigar Atakishiyeva, Ulkar Mammadova, Nahid Almasov, Maksym Shevchenko
Received: 18.02.2025 Revised: 14.07.2025 Accepted: 27.08.2025
Retrieved from Vol. 28, No. 8, 2025 Pages: 179-191
Download article Read article

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to substantiate ways to optimise fiscal mechanisms in the forest sector to increase its economic efficiency and sustainability. A quantitative analysis was carried out based on the reporting data of six enterprises of various forms of ownership (state, municipal, and private), which allowed identifying imbalances in tax pressure. In the public sector, this figure was 31.1%, and in the municipal sector – 26.5%. In the private sector, the tax burden reached 40.1% in the Forest enterprise and 35.2% in the Karpatlis enterprise, which significantly exceeded the indicators of the public sector – 29.3% in Chernihivlishosp, 32.9% in Sumylishosp, and 40.4% in the Forests of Ukraine enterprise. In the municipal enterprise Kharkivlis, the tax burden was 26.5%. The level of profitability in private enterprises was 4.7% in the Forest and 6.0% in Karpatlis, while state-owned enterprises showed stable indicators: 9.1% in Chernihivlishosp, 7.4% in Sumylishosp, and 5.0% in the Forests of Ukraine. Municipal enterprise Kharkivlis showed the highest profitability – 9.7%. The structure of indirect fiscal expenditures was analysed separately, among which the main ones were expenditures on environmental monitoring, forest protection, certification, and reporting. It was established that the share of indirect expenses in the total expenses of enterprises ranged from 5.4% to 11.8%. The risk assessment of tax reforms was carried out on a point scale (from 1 to 10) according to five criteria: legal framework, personnel readiness, business resistance, digitalisation, and fiscal losses. The highest risk profile was recorded in the private sector (average level – 7.4 points), the lowest – in the public sector (4.8 points). The projected effects of the introduction of the adaptive tax model included a reduction in the tax burden by 5.5%, an increase in profitability by 3.2%, investment in reforestation – by 18%, and a decrease in the level of shading by 12.5%. The results of the study can be used to develop a tax policy and support sustainable forest management at the state and enterprise levels

Keywords

economic efficiency; indirect costs; digitalisation of reporting; fiscal regulation; reform risks

  1. Aggarwal, S., Larson, A., McDermott, C., Katila, P., & Giessen, L. (2020). Tenure reform for better forestry: An unfinished policy agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 123, article number 102376. doi: 10.1016/j. forpol.2020.102376.
  2. Anane, S., Kombiok, E., & Afrifa, A.B. (2023). The characteristics and impact of small and medium forest enterprises on sustainable forest management in Ghana. Scientific Reports, 13, article number 1208. doi: 10.1038/s41598023-28403-8.
  3. Barbier, E., Burgess, J., Bishop, J., & Aylward, B. (2023). Deforestation: The role of the international trade in tropical timber. In K. Brown & D.W. Pearce (Eds.), The causes of tropical deforestation: The economic and statistical analysis of factors giving rise to the loss of the tropical forests (pp. 271-297). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003428190-22.
  4. Besacier, C., Garrett, L., Iweins, M., & Shames, S. (2021). Local financing mechanisms for forest and landscape restoration: A review of local-level investment mechanisms. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. doi: 10.4060/cb3760en.
  5. Blanton, A., et al. (2024). The status of forest carbon markets in Latin America. Journal of Environmental Management, 352, article number 119921. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119921.
  6. Chisika, S.N., & Yeom, C. (2021). Enhancing sustainable management of public natural forests through public private partnerships in Kenya. SAGE Open, 11(4). doi: 10.1177/21582440211054490.
  7. Chisika, S.N., & Yeom, C. (2024). The implication of the changing forest management paradigms in formulating forestry policies in Kenya. Forestist, 74(3), 278-288. doi: 10.5152/forestist.2024.23040.
  8. Chowdhury, P.K.R., & Brown, D.G. (2023). Modeling the effects of carbon payments and forest owner cooperatives on carbon storage and revenue in Pacific Northwest forestlands. Land Use Policy, 131, article number 106725. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106725.
  9. Danley, B., Bjärstig, T., & Sandström, C. (2021). At the limit of volunteerism? Swedish family forest owners and two policy strategies to increase forest biodiversity. Land Use Policy, 105, article number 105403. doi: 10.1016/j. landusepol.2021.105403.
  10. Deng, D., Ye, C., Tong, K., & Zhang, J. (2023). Evaluation of the sustainable forest management performance in forestry enterprises based on a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model: A case study in China. Forests, 14(11), article number 2267. doi: 10.3390/f14112267.
  11. Destek, M.A., Hossain, M.R., Manga, M., & Destek, G. (2024). Can digital government reduce the resource dependency? Evidence from method of moments quantile technique. Resources Policy, 99, article number 105426. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105426.
  12. Forest Stewardship Council. (2024). Giving forest a voice: To claim their rightful place. Retrieved from https://fsc. org/sites/default/files/2024-12/FSC_Annual_Report_2023.pdf.
  13. Franco, C.R., & Conje, J. (2022). The evolution of the dialogue and perspectives on sustainable forest management with special emphasis on the United States of America. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 42(8), 747-791. doi: 10.1080/10549811.2022.2059687.
  14. Gavkalova, N., Martin, J., Shumska, H., & Babenko, K. (2024). Landscape and circular economy as a mechanism of sustainable development in globalisation and digitalisation of the world economy. Economics of Development, 23(2), 80-90. doi: 10.57111/econ/2.2024.80.
  15. Heine, D., Hayde, E., & Faure, M.G. (2021). Letting commodity tax rates vary with the sustainability of production. In Designing fiscal instruments for sustainable forests (pp. 145-171). Washington: World Bank.
  16. Huang, D., Shen, H., Miao, Y., Ding, R., Lin, Y., & Tan, H. (2024). The impacts of forest resources, green investment, healthcare, and education on environmental pollution: China Carbon neutrality program. Journal of Cleaner Production, 467, article number 143038. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143038.
  17. Imbrenda, V., Coluzzi, R., Mariani, F., Nosova, B., Cudlinova, E., Salvia, R., Quaranta, G., Salvati, L., & Lanfredi, M. (2023). Working in (slow) progress: Socio-environmental and economic dynamics in the forestry sector and the contribution to sustainable development in Europe. Sustainability, 15(13), article number 10271. doi: 10.3390/su151310271.
  18. Kadam, P., Dwivedi, P., & Karnatz, C. (2021). Mapping convergence of sustainable forest management systems: Comparing three protocols and two certification schemes for ascertaining the trends in global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 133, article number 102614. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102614.
  19. Khan, K.A., Subhan, M., Tiwari, S., Anser, M.K., & Destek, M.A. (2025). Impacts of natural resources and technological innovation on SDG achievement of OECD countries: How does democracy and globalization behave? Technology in Society, 81, article number 102778. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102778
  20. Law of Ukraine No. 185-V “On the Management of State-Owned Objects”. (2006, September). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/185-16#Text.
  21. Liagre, L., Pettenella, D., Pra, A., Ortiz, F.C., Arguedas, A.G., & Chien, C.N. (2020). How can National Forest Funds catalyse the provision of ecosystem services? Lessons learned from Costa Rica, Vietnam, and Morocco. Ecosystem Services, 47, article number 101228. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101228.
  22. LLC Forest. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://vkursi.pro/card/tov-lis-32157264.
  23. LLC Karpatlis. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://vkursi.pro/card/tov-karpatlis-00275820.
  24. Ministry of Finance of Ukraine. (2022). Methodological guide on risk management aspects. Retrieved from https:// surl.li/nwioad.
  25. Naumenkova, S., Mishchenko, V., Chugunov, I., & Mishchenko, S. (2023). Debt-for-nature or climate swaps in public finance management. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 21(3), 698-713. doi: 10.21511/ ppm.21(3).2023.54.
  26. Pravdiuk, N. (2024). Information security of the management of forestry in the part of taxation. Effective Economy, 8. doi: 10.32702/2307-2105.2024.8.3.
  27. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. (2024). Sustainable forest management – requirements. Retrieved from https://cdn.pefc.org/pefc.org/media/2024-11/89abc90f-975f-4571-b4560314a749f9fa/08907ebe-4c07-522c-9fab-8c1e8523853c.pdf.
  28. Project “On Taxation of Rent for the Special Use of Forest Resources”. (2024). Retrieved from https://od.tax.gov. ua/media-ark/local-news/743333.html.
  29. Proyava, S.O. (2024). The impact of foreign investments on the development of the forestry complex of Ukraine. Kyiv: National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”.
  30. Public Limited Liability Company Kharkivlis. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://vkursi.pro/card/dlhokharkivlis-00994408.
  31. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D.A., Pavel, M.I., Faruk, O., & Rahman, M. (2022). An econometric analysis of the potential emission reduction components in Indonesia. Cleaner Production Letters, 3, article number 100008. doi: 10.1016/j.clpl.2022.100008.
  32. Raihan, A., Voumik, L.C., Zimon, G., Sadowska, B., Rashid, M., & Akter, S. (2024). Prioritising sustainability: How economic growth, energy use, forest area, and globalization impact on greenhouse gas emissions and load capacity in Poland? International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 43(1), article number 2361410. doi: 10.1080/14786451.2024.2361410.
  33. Saxena, A., Buettner, W.C., Kestler, L., & Kim, Y. (2022). Opportunities and barriers for wood-based infrastructure in urban Himalayas: A review of selected national policies of Nepal. Trees Forests and People, 8, article number 100244. doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100244.
  34. Shahini, E., & Shahini, E. (2025). Role of urban green spaces and tree plantations in improving ecosystem services and urban resilience. Ukrainian Journal of Forest and Wood Science, 16(2), 136-151. doi: 10.31548/ forest/2.2025.136.
  35. Shen, X., Gatto, P., & Pagliacci, F. (2023). Unravelling the role of institutions in market-based instruments: A systematic review on forest carbon mechanisms. Forests, 14(1), article number 136. doi: 10.3390/f14010136.
  36. Sofitri, L. (2025). Can be synergized carbon tax and carbon trading in the forestry sector? Ministrate Journal of Bureaucracy and Regional Government, 7(1), 14-40. doi: 10.15575/jbpd.v7i1.22249.
  37. State Agency of Forest Resources. (2024). Public report of the head of the State Agency of Forest Resources of Ukraine for 2024. Retrieved from https://surli.cc/pjuwat.
  38. State Enterprise Chernihivlishosp. (2022). Balance sheet statement of financial position as of June 30, 2022. Retrieved from https://surl.li/rshctp.
  39. State Enterprise Forests of Ukraine. (2024). Balance sheet (statement of financial position) as of December 31,  2023. Retrieved from https://e-forest.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/DP-LISY-UKRAINY_F1.-Balans_ stanom-na-31.12.2023.pdf.
  40. State Enterprise Sumylishosp. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://opendatabot.ua/c/00992964.
  41. State Statistics Service of Ukraine. (2024). Sales of forest products within Ukraine by species in 2024. Retrieved from https://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2021/sg/lis/lis_u/arh_real_lis_pr_u.htm.
  42. Stubenrauch, J., Garske, B., Ekardt, F., & Hagemann, K. (2022). European forest governance: Status quo and optimising options with regard to the Paris climate target. Sustainability, 14(7), article number 4365. doi: 10.3390/su14074365.
  43. Tsehelnyk, N. (2021). Economic state of the forest industry in Ukraine and its influence on sustainable development of forestry enterprises. Agrosvit, 13-14, 17-24. doi: 10.32702/2306-6792.2021.13-14.17.
  44. Tynaliev, K., Dzhumabekov, N., Adamkulova, Ch., Esenalieva, B., & Makeeva, S. (2024). Modern vectors of development of the country’s tax system: International experience. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University. Series “Economics”, 11(2), 90-101. doi: 10.52566/msu-econ2.2024.90.
  45. Wang, S., Xing, L., Chen, X., & Song, M. (2024). Evaluating and enhancing natural resource asset management efficiency in China: A data envelopment analysis study. Resources Policy, 92, article number 105000. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105000.
  46. Yan, J., Işık, C., Ongan, S., Pinzon, S., & Tillaguango, B. (2024). Analysis of green total factor productivity in China’s forestry industry: Technological, organizational, and environmental framework for sustainable economic development. Sustainable Development, 32(6), 7278-7291. doi: 10.1002/sd.3080.
  47. Yang, W., Min, Z., Yang, M., & Yan, J. (2022). Exploration of the implementation of carbon neutralization in the field of natural resources under the background of sustainable development – an overview. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), article number 14109. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192114109.
  48. Yang, Y., Li, H., Cheng, L., & Ning, Y. (2021). Effect of land property rights on forest resources in Southern China. Land, 10(4), article number 392. doi: 10.3390/land10040392.
Musayeva, N., Atakishiyeva, N., Mammadova, U., Almasov, N., & Shevchenko, M. (2025). Improvement of the mechanisms of taxation of forest resources of Ukraine to ensure sustainable forest management. Scientific Horizons, 28(8), 179-191. https://doi.org/10.48077/scihor8.2025.179