Russia's Ministry of Economy and Trade is currently in the final stages of preparing a new Forest Code for Russian Forests, a draft of which was first presented publicly in February this year. But while the Code remains in the final stages of its development, NGOs have been kept busy pointing out the proposal's major drawbacks. Key failures - from an environmental perspective - include that it: opens up strong opportunities for industrial logging, even in strict nature reserves; permits private ownership of forests - including those performing special environmental functions - and could limit public access; destroys the existing forest management system (by failing to describe how the four agencies responsible for forest management will coordinate their activities); and all but eliminates state or public control over the activities of forestry companies. And if all this weren't enough NGOs claim that the language of the code is so open to interpretation that it leaves many opportunities for individual decision-makers to regulate business on the basis of their own interests - thus effectively paving the way for future corruption in forest management. Following the leaking of a draft of the Code in December 2003, effective campaigning by Russian forest NGOs has at least resulted in President Putin's acceptance that "public opinion should be taken into consideration" in the development of the draft Code. Moreover, the Government has agreed to consider certain changes to the Code as requested by NGOs. These include detailing the proposed forest management system, retaining the possibility of establishing new regional protected areas, guaranteeing public access to forests and extending the transition period before any new code would start.

The accession of the 10 new members to the European Union[1] on 1 May 2004 has increased the forested area within the EU by about 20%.[2] Among the new members are forest 'heavyweights' Poland and the Czech Republic, countries that are home to some of Europe's most spectacular forests - particularly in the Bialowieza and Sumava National Parks. But pressure on the forests in most accession countries has been immense. Logging of industrial wood in all accession countries combined is estimated to exceed Sweden's annual cut by 20%,[3] and the majority of accession countries are net exporters of both pulpwood and logs. Moreover, the uncertain legal status of forests in restitution in the Baltic states - in combination with keen interest from the EU's forestry industry - have seen many forests destroyed, often illegally. Finally, existing rates of logging are now expected to increase, with levels of capital flow, trade and transnational investments all expected to grow in the wake of accession. In light of these threats to the remaining intact forests of the enlarged EU, FERN will work closely with local NGOs to promote the protection and sustainable use of forests in the new member states.

1 Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia
2 Figures based on State of Europe's Forests 2003. The MCPFE Report on Sustainable Forest Management in Europe; MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna & UNECE/FAO, 2003; The EU en-largement in 2004: analysis of the forestry situation and perspectives in relation to the present EU and Sweden: A study initiated by the National Board of Forestry. Available from FERN
3 The EU enlargement in 2004 (see footnote 2 above).

FERN is pleased to announce two new joint FERN/TRN publications available soon: "The EU's Impact on Forests: a practical guide to campaigning at EU level" and a briefing on the Habitats Directive. The Guide is divided into three parts presenting basic information on: the EU and its position on forests; concrete campaign tips; and practicalities such as how to get hold of information and how to hold the EU accountable. The Guide will be available in June 2004. The briefing paper on the Habitats Directive provides an introduction both to this important EU Directive[1] and to Natura 2000. The briefing, which will be of particular relevance for NGOs in the new member states, describes the objectives, timelines and means for implementation of this legislation and provides an analysis of its effectiveness and of the potential for NGO participation.

On 6 April the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (EMAC) of the European Parliament voted on the Parliament's "Annual Report[1] on the Activities of the European Investment Bank" in an unusual atmosphere of tension between the Chair of the Committee (Claudia Randzio-Plath, PSE) and the drafter of the report, Monica Ridruejo (Spain) of the Christian Democrat PPE. In the final voting, Ms. Ridruejo cast a negative vote and withdrew her authorship of the report, protesting against the lack of willingness of the EMAC committee to discuss the report in a fair manner and rejecting the complete alteration of her text. The adopted version was formally approved by the EP in its plenary week of 19 April. NGOs monitoring the EIB had strongly welcomed the draft version of this year's report, which for the first time focused on transparency and accountability in the Bank's governance structure, suggesting a series of reforms which would make the EIB at least in line with international standards in corporate governance. These included transparency in the remuneration and conflicts of interests of key staff, the publishing of the minutes of Board meetings, and openness in the Bank's financial operations. NGOs were surprised that these reasonable demands for good corporate governance met such fierce resistance from EMAC members who might be expected to have a prime interest in receiving adequate information to facilitate EMAC's monitoring tasks.

On 20 April 2004, the European Parliament approved its controversial "Linking Directive",[1] designed to regulate the use of carbon credits from the Kyoto Protocol in the EU's Emission Trading Scheme (see FW no. 82). In response, NGOs have warned that the adoption of the legislation will deal a severe blow to the EU's climate policies. For while both the European Commission's original proposal for the Directive and the European Parliament's Environment Committee called for the unambiguous exclusion of carbon credits based on sinks, the approved Directive will exclude carbon credits from sinks projects such as monoculture plantations only in the initial phase of the carbon trading under the EU Scheme. This, in practice, leaves the door open for these destructive credits to still be used following a 2006 review of the legislation. "Sinks are not a permanent solution"  stated an EP Environment Committee report on the issue, adding that the ecological integrity of the Kyoto Protocol would "go down the drain" if carbon sinks were included in this Directive. NGOs dealing with climate issues agree. "Sinks credits will still be as worthless for climate protection in 2006 as they are today" said FERN's climate campaigner Jutta Kill. "If EU institutions want to retain their credibility on this issue they must ensure that sinks remain excluded in the 2006 review of the legislation."

Following committed campaigning by several European NGOs and Dr Emil Salim's European tour in March[1] (see FW no. 83), early April saw the European Parliament support a critical resolution on the World Bank-commissioned Extractive Industries Review (EIR). The Resolution - also supported by the European Commission - called on the World Bank to scrutinise the extractive industries sector and give due consideration to the EIR report's recommendations. It also called on Europe's Irish Presidency to consult with member states with a view to reaching a common EU position in support of the report. The Parliament, in addition, called for the EIR recommendations to be raised within other relevant fora, including the EIB, EBRD and ECAs, requesting that the Council and Commission explore the possibility of a regulation aimed at coordinating the procedures and policies of member states' ECAs in this respect. Meanwhile, a mid-April meeting between Dr Salim and World Bank President Wolfensohn saw the issue of a joint statement and an agreement that both would meet again prior to the Bank's formal response to the EIR in June.[2]

Early 2004 has seen a lot of changes at FERN and this month we say goodbye to Forests and Development campaigner Berenice Muraille and to Chantal Marijnissen who campaigned on trade and illegal logging issues. We would like to thank both of them for all their excellent achievements with FERN and we wish them well in their new positions.

Hello and welcome, though, to Iola Leal Riesco, our new Forests and Development campaigner and to Judith Neyer, our new co-ordinator of the European ECA campaign.