The Astana Court of Appeal on 4 July upheld the fine imposed on the founder of the FBRC, Kirill Pavlov, for a publication about the scale of the locust infestation.
In June, the capital's court fined Pavlov 78,640 tenge (20 MCI) under Article 456-2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan for disseminating false information. The Ministry of Agriculture accused the author of the Telegram channel "Kazakh Chuvash" of providing an inaccurate account of the locust situation.
THE HEART OF THE DISPUTE
After the verdict was delivered, Pavlov commented on the situation:
"We asked the court of appeal three times what was inaccurate about my data. No one answered. I published data on the area of distribution and used the territories designated for survey as a comparison. The Ministry of Agriculture has no issue with the figures for the survey and infected areas."
The journalist noted the paradox of the situation:
"They themselves said they don't use or count my figures on the area of distribution. I don't understand then what the complaint is, what the essence of the complaint is."
TERMINOLOGICAL DISPUTE
The central issue became the discrepancy between international standards and Kazakhstani practice.
The conflict centred on the use of the term "area of distribution", which is standard in international pest monitoring practice but not used by the ministry.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), whose data the journalist cited, indicated an infestation of over 11 million hectares, while the Ministry of Agriculture gave a figure of 2.5 million hectares.
Pavlov explained this as the difference between the area of distribution (where locusts may appear) and the area of direct infestation — an approach consistent with international methodology.
Thus, the journalist was punished for using international terminology, even though his data was based on official sources without any factual distortions.
PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS
Pavlov also raised objections to the conduct of the proceedings:
"Numerous procedural violations were committed in court. I wasn't even given the opportunity to respond."
He noted a suspicious detail:
"We asked not to use the term 'scale', explaining that it was erroneous. Nevertheless, the judge repeated those same words in her ruling. This suggests that the decision was made before the proceedings — everything was decided in advance, because the text had been agreed upon."
The journalist expressed doubts about the objectivity of the process, noting that he had reason to believe in the bias of the ruling.
At the same time, Pavlov emphasised that he was not seeking to politicise the case, but wanted it to uncover possible instances of corruption.
THE COURT'S POSITION
The court supported the ministry's position but failed to give a clear answer to the key question:
what exactly is inaccurate about Pavlov's data, if the ministry itself admits it does not use the disputed terminology?
IMPACT ON THE EXPERT COMMUNITY
Thus, using international terminology to analyse Kazakhstani data could be considered dissemination of false information, even if the data itself is not distorted.
This could restrict independent analysis and comparison of statistics with international standards. Experts may avoid international terminology for fear of accusations.
CONCLUSIONS
This case exposes the absurdity of a system where an expert is fined for using international terminology that the state itself does not employ, while none of his figures have been refuted.
Does this mean any independent analysis can be declared 'false information' if it does not fit the official methodology?
Pavlov drew attention to a dangerous precedent set by the court's wording:
"The judge said that my data 'does not correlate with the official data'. So, does that mean all non-state media can be shut down because they report data that does not correlate with the official data?"
The expert community risks falling into self-censorship, and Kazakhstan risks becoming isolated from international research standards.