WWF, Greenpeace, and the Forests and the European Union Resource Network (FERN) drew up the model legislation as a response to the European Commission?s Action Plan to combat illegal logging and its related trade (FLEGT), whose first package of measures will be discussed by EU Agriculture Ministers on 21 December 2004.

?Our draft Regulation is intended to press the EU to take swift action to stop the ongoing tragedy of forest destruction, which lays waste to vast areas of forest and destroys the livelihoods of millions who depend on them. The EU is clearly implicated in the trade,? said S?bastien Risso of Greenpeace.

The NGO-drafted Regulation recognizes illegal logging and its related trade as an environmental crime, and allows for sanctions in the event of abuse of documents certifying the wood?s legality (eg, no import notification, false declaration, forged documents). It also proposes that sustainability criteria be developed in cooperation with timber-producing countries and progressively integrated into laws to reassure the consumer that timber is both legal and from a sustainably managed forest.

This builds on the Commission?s current proposal, presented in July 2004, which aims to implement a credible chain of custody to ensure the legality of timber imports from those countries that choose to sign partnership agreements with the EU. The European Commission and European Parliament have each recognized that illegal timber imports from countries without partnership agreements will remain a problem, as will crimes associated with the trade, but these concerns have not been addressed to date.

?The timber industry faces an uncertain ?uture if it fails to address the problem of illegal logging and unsustainable wood imports," said Beatrix Richards, WWF’s Forest Policy Officer for Europe. "Europe needs to remove this wood from the market to ensure a level playing field for legal traders and the survival of the world?s forests.?

The statement signed by NGOs calls for civil society to be fully involved in the development of partnership agreements to propose solutions and to promote responsible forest management. It also requests measures in the areas of customs cooperation, investment, and public-purchasing policies.

WWF, Greenpeace, and FERN emphasize that in addition to their draft regulation, the EU will need to deal with the crimes associated with the illegal timber trade, such as bribery and money-laundering.

Notes:

? More than 1.2 billion people depend on forests for their livelihoods, according to the World Bank?s Sustaining Forests report

? 50 per cent of tropical timber imports into the EU are estimated to come from illegal sources (European League Table of Imports of Illegal Timber, Friends of the Earth), and up to 25 per cent of imports from north-west Russia (Illegal logging in north- western Russia and export of Russian forest products to Sweden, WWF, April 2003).

? The European Commission acknowledged in its Action Plan that for a variety of reasons, some important wood-producing countries may choose not to enter into FLEGT partnership agreements with the EU, despite the advantages outlined.

Ivan Zavadsky, the head of a U.N. project aiming to clean the river, said that EU subsidies to Eastern European economies could lead to intensified farming, putting the river’s wildlife at risk.

"At the moment we have the first signs of recovery of the ecosystems but the trend and the processes are not irreversible yet. It’s still a very fragile equilibrium," Zavadasky said in an interview earlier this week.

Fertilizers used by farmers leak into the Danube, boosting the growth of alg?e that reduce the amount of oxygen available to other organisms, he said.

The United Nations Development Program in 2001 launched the Danube Regional Project to help countries along the river protect its water and that of the Black Sea. The project, set to end in 2006, has reached it’s halfway point, and so far, experts have helped the 13 Danube countries develop policies and legal tools to protect the river, Zavadsky said.

The project also aims to educate the 80 million residents in the Danube River basin _ an area that stretches from Germany in the west to the Black Sea in the east, and from Poland in the north to Albania in the south _ about how their actions affect the Danube and the Black Sea.

"The fisherman in the Danube Delta is very sensitive; there is no other job for him other than to be a fisherman. If the pollution is reaching his point, and the diversity of the fish stock in the Danube Delta is shrinking, then he’s out of business," Zavadasky said.

Project officials aim to reduce the level of nutrients in the river to the level that was measured in the early 1960s, a time when scientists say wildlife in the Black Sea appeared to be doing fine, Zavadsky said.

Zavadsky’s office will now finance dozens of smaller, non-governmental organization projects ranging from ecological education in primary schools in Bosnia to promotion of organic farming in Moldova and Serbia-Montenegro. Successful projects will be replicated elsewhere.

"The solution is … not repeat the mistakes that Western Europe did in the 1970s," Zavadsky said. "The solution is to use appropriate agriculture practices, to focus on more environmentally sound agriculture practices."

The Americans avoided any commitment to negotiate mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, something President Bush rejected in 2001 when he renounced the Kyoto Protocol, which requires rollbacks in other industrial nations by 2012.

On their side, the Europeans won a new forum for discussing just that ? a "seminar" next May at which governments can informally raise a range of climate issues, including next steps on emissions control after 2012.

"The only thing we want to discuss is future options, and we will," said a key EU negotiator, Pieter van Geel, the Dutch environment secretary.

If they do, U.S. diplomats are sure to ignore them. That was one reason other Europeans saw the Buenos Aires agreement as at best a small step to keep the multilateral process moving on climate change.

"It’s a finger-hold, like hanging on by your nails," said Michael Zammit Cutajar of Malta, a veteran climate negotiator.

The accord on the seminar was the chief outcome of a low-key, two-week annual conference on climate change, notable otherwise for its timing: on the eve of the final entry into force of the 1997 Kyoto pact next Feb. 16.

In 2001, when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol to the umbrella U.N. climate treaty, Bush said its pre-2012 emissions cuts would damage the U.S. economy, and he complained that China and other poor but industrializing countries were exempt under Kyoto. Here in Buenos Aires, the United States resisted efforts to design seminars in 2005 as forums to explore ways to control emissions after 2012.

"We think it is premature," U.S. delegation chief Paula Dobriansky, an undersecretary of state, said of the idea of post-Kyoto talks.

The Americans sought to focus attention he?e instead on long-range U.S. programs to develop cleaner-burning energy technologies ? not on immediate, mandatory emissions rollbacks.

Although they won no U.S. commitment to talk about reductions, the Europeans viewed the deal as a start, possibly to spur talks with developing nations, such as China and India, about post-2012 steps to help the climate.

Environmentalists and many delegates viewed the position of the United States, the world’s biggest emitter, as irresponsible.

"They’re trying everything possible to discredit any dialogue that would impact on certain economic interests," Tuvalu delegate Enele Sopoaga told a reporter, alluding to the oil and coal industries.

His Pacific nation of small scattered islands is already losing precious land to rising seas ? one consequence scientists predict from global warming.

Defending the Bush stance here on Wednesday, Dobriansky said the United States "believes that the best way to address climate change is through economic growth that at the same time preserves the environment."

The Kyoto Protocol itself requires member nations ? the United States not among them ? to open negotiations before 2006 on next steps after 2012. Environmentalists and delegates feared that if the Americans were not brought back into the process by next year ? under the umbrella treaty, not Kyoto ? the long-term brunt of fighting climate change would remain with the Europeans, Japan and Canada.

That, some worried, might eventually unravel even the fragmented global effort to put mandatory restraints on emissions.

Carbon dioxide, byproduct of automobile engines, power plants and other fossil fuel-burning industries, traps heat that otherwise would escape the atmosphere. A broad scientific consensus, endorsed by a U.N.-sponsored network of climatologists, holds that most of the past century’s global temperature rise ? 1 degree Fahrenheit ? was probably caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Latest figures, for 2000, show that the United States accounted for 21 percent of the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and the handful of other problem gases, compared with 14 percent for the 25-nation European Union.

The Kyoto Protocol established a schedule of greenhouse-gas emissions for 30 industrial countries that ratified it. By 2012 the European Union, for example, must cut emissions by 8 percent below 1990 levels, and Japan by 6 percent.

As for the post-2012 period, expert studies suggest a "menu" of approaches to restraining emissions, particularly if poorer countries in various stages of development take on commitments.

The options might include firm caps and rollbacks for some, with voluntary targets for others; emissions quotas targeted at specific industries, such as electric-generation; acceptance of energy-efficiency standards; and more liberal "indexed" emissions targets that rise with economic growth.

The NODA is part of the EPA process toward delivering a final mercury rule by March 15, 2005. Initially proposed on Jan. 30, 2004, the Clean Air Mercury Rule would reduce mercury emissions from power plants for the first time ever.

Administr?tor Mike Leavitt has outlined five guiding principles that provide context for additional inquiry and that narrow the focus of the Agency?s deliberations. The five principles will ensure that the final mercury rule:

(1) concentrates on the need to protect children and pregnant women from the health impacts of mercury;

(2) stimulates and encourages early adopters of new technology that can be adequately tested and widely deployed across the full fleet of U.S. power plants utilizing various coal types;

(3) significantly reduces total emissions by leveraging the $50 billion investment that CAIR will require;

(4) considers the need to maintain America?s competitiveness; and

(5) comprises one of many agency actions to reduce mercury emissions.

In December 2003, EPA proposed two alternatives for controlling mercury. One approach would require power plants to install controls known as "maximum achievable control technology? (MACT) under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. If implemented, this proposal would reduce nationwide mercury by 14 tons or about 30 percent by early 2008. Currently, nationwide mercury emissions from power plants are about 48 tons per year.

A second approach would create a market-based "cap and trade" program that, if implemented, would reduce nationwide power plant emissions of mercury in two phases. Beginning in 2010, the first phase would reduce power plant mercury emissions by taking advantage of ?co-benefit? controls ? mercury reductions achieved by reducing SO2, and NOx emissions under the Clean Air Interstate Rule. In 2018, the second phase of the mercury program sets a cap of 15 tons. When fully implemented, mercury emissions would be reduced by 33 tons (nearly 70 percent).

Since the inception of the Protocol, the U.S. has phased out over 95% of our consumption of ozone depleting substances. The total amount of our 2006 methyl bromide request corresponds to only about 1.5% of our overall use of ozone depleting substances in 1989.

The Montreal Protocol allows countries to continue to have access to methyl bromide by granting critical use exemptions in cases where effective alternatives are not available. On the issue of methyl bromide, the Parties meeting in Prague agreed to approve a large majority of country requests for exempt production in 2006. This will provide a much needed degree of certainty for the agricultural groups that rely on methyl bromide because technically and economically feasible alternatives are not yet available.

The Parties approved the U.S. request to produce and import a total of 27% of the 1991 baseline consumption of methyl bromide, or about 6,900 metric tons for 2006. In addition, the Parties granted interim approval for the balance of the U.S. request for 2006, which represents almost 10% of the baseline amount. The Parties agreed that the amount subject to additional review will be considered by technical experts under improved guidelines that were also agreed upon at the Meeting of Parties. Based on this improved technical review, it is expected that final decisions can be made promptly on the remaining portion of critical use nominations at a short Meeting of the Parties in June or July of next year.

In a separate action for 2005 critical use exemptions, the Parties approved approximately 2.5% of the baseline amount of methyl bromide requested by the United States, bringing the total to approximately 37% in production and inventory for that year.

The Parties also reached agreement on continued use in 2006 of chlorofluorocarbons for metered dose inhalers used to treat asthma and other health conditions.

This new grant program supports the federal goal to eliminate lead poisoning in children by 2010. State and local governments, Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal consortia, territories, institutions of higher learning and non-profit organizations are eligible to apply.

Grant applicants must represent communities with historical and likely incidences of elevated blood lead levels. Proposals should include ways to address unique and challenging issues in lead-poisoning prevention, particularly ones that could be replicated i? other high- risk areas.

Applicants should submit written applications on plain paper to regional lead contacts. Decisions will be made on the basis of this informal application; successful applicants will then be required to submit the full application.

The EPA intends to award individual grants ranging from $25,000 to $100,000. The grantees will be announced in April 2005.

Blair has pledged to put climate change at the top of his agenda for the 12 months starting in January that Britain has the helm of the Group of Eight rich nations.

But his high-profile commitment contrasts sharply with the Bush administration which has refused to sign up to the benchmark Kyoto treaty to combat global warming.

"I have always thought that it was a very high risk strategy for Tony Blair to put climate change so high on the G8′s agenda," Victor Bulmer-Thomas, director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs think-tank, told Reuters.

"The question is — can he persuade the United States to move closer to the European view on the environment, and the answer is ‘no,’" he added.

Environmentalists insist that now is payback time. "It is time Blair used his diplomatic capital and persuaded the United States to agree to international commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions," said Greenpeace head Stephen Tindale.

"But the signs are not good. At the moment it looks like Blair is all mouth and no trousers on climate change and that he is a serial flunker of challenges. He has yet to stand up to Bush on anything," he told Reuters.

And if Blair can’t do it, no one can, Friends of the Earth head Tony Juniper said.

"If there is anyone in the world who can challenge the Bush?administration’s position on the environment it is him," he told Reuters. "But climate seems to be treated almost as a taboo subject in meetings between them."

The government has already scheduled a three-day climate change conference in Exeter, south western England in February, a meeting of G8 energy and environment ministers in London in March and another of environment and development ministers in central England a few days later.

The G8 summit in Scotland in July will also focus firmly on climate change.

The Kyoto treaty, derided by many as too little, too late, is aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Years in negotiation and then abeyance waiting for enough nations to sign up, Kyoto finally comes into force in February after Russia ratified it.

But the world’s greatest polluter does not even accept that man-made climate change is happening and Blair’s officials have been negotiating to try to produce some agreement on the science of climate change.

"If they could persuade the Bush administration to accept that man-made climate change is happening it would be a small but welcome step," Tindale said. "But even that is a long shot."

"Anything is better than nothing. If they could persuade them to sign up to the science it would make some of their existing policies look bizarre if not insane," said Juniper.

However, Bulmer-Thomas said trying and failing might not necessarily be damaging to Blair — facing an election expected in May.

"He may be able to say ‘this shows we are independent of the United States.’ There could be lots of mileage among those voters who feel that Blair has been Bush’s poodle," he added.

Large-scale cuttings including illegal fellings of the living wood within the protected area, artificial afforestation and some other activities dramatically changed this forest and its unique biodiversity. Serious social crises and the pressure of local population provided by the administration of the National Park are additional troubles in this region.

Many of these facts and events are accessible on-line now. Please VISIT THE WEBSITE "Belovezhskaya Pushcha – 21st Century" (http://bp21.org.by/) AND JOIN OUR EFFORTS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THIS FOREST. YOUR CONTRIBUTION IS VERY WELCOME.

Please we do ask you to forward and distribute this information about the new website accessible to your friends and colleagues, as far as possible.

It is also very important that today this is the only website devoting the specially protected natural area in Belarus and widely showing its unique nature and problems.

For the attention of.
S. Repnikov, Head of the Organisation of Public Hearings Working Group

Dear Mr Repnikov,

Although the notice given of the public hearing on the "Creation of the Danube-Black Sea Deep-Water Navigation Canal on the Ukrainian Part of the Delta – Complete Development", and the time available to send objections, is ridiculously short, the fact that a public hearing is being held at all is a positive development.

It is to be hoped that the public hearing will be conducted in a democratic manner. In this context we would be grateful if copies of this email be lodged with the officials conducting the public hearing.

Based on all available information it is clear that this project will result in degradation of the natural biodiversity of the Danube delta, will destroy traditional ways of management, and could also result in a worsening of economic conditions in the region. It conflicts with the principles of the function of a biosphere reserve defined by UNESCO’s program "Man and the Biosphere".

The proposals to construct this channel through the reserve are based on the conclusions of the environmental assessment conducted by Kiev National University. This assessment is basically and factually flawed and several NGOs already have lodged complaints against its conclusions.

We urge that the report of the joint mission which was carried out by the Man and Biosphere Programme (MaB) of UNESCO and the Ramsar Secretariat to the Danube Biosphere Reserve and Kyliiske Mouth Ramsar Site in October 2003 is considered by this hearing. The report at
[url=http://www.ramsar.org/w.n.ukraine_danube_ram53.htm]http://www.ramsar.org/w.n.ukraine_danube_ram53.htm[/url] This concludes that the canal construction as presently proposed will irreversibly change the hydrological regime of the delta, disturb natural processes of delta formation, inescapable pollution of the ecosystem by oil products, change the habitat for most of the species, decrease of the trade fishery amount, will threaten endangered species inhabiting the area. In particular the nesting of tens of thousand
birds will be threatened. The reserve will lose almost all staging areas for migrating waterfowl and waders. Altogether 223 species of birds, including 5 on the European Red List and 31 in the Ukraine Red Book will be affected as well as many rare and disappearing species of mammals and insects.

The outcome would be that the Danube Biosphere Reserve will lose its importance on an international and national level. Furthermore the proposed construction project violates both national legislation and international obligations of Ukraine. It would be wrong to implacably and thoughtlessly oppose ship transit through the Ukrainian part of the Danube delta. We do however feel that you should positively consider other alternative canal variants; which also have a chance of attracting investment and sparing the taxpayer and the environment. On this basis we herewith lodge our objection to the project as planned on the grounds that the heritage of present and future generations of all Europeans is at risk.

We remain,

Yours sincerely,

Hannes Cloete and Isaiah Tefutor,
c/o Proact International
Marathonallee 16
D-14052 Berlin
Germany
< [url=http://www.proact-campaigns.net/]http://www.proact-campaigns.net/[/url] >

and the fol?owing members of the Proact Team representing the continent of Africa

David Aboagye Ashante, Winfried Ashiaghor, Russel Berry, Francis Bilto, Mark Brown, Lydia Burger, Clayton Burne, Terry Burne, Veonna Burne, Herbert Byaruhanga, Mel Cardwell, Peter Carson, Callan Cohen, Roy Astley Fryer, Hlorbu Godson, Mutebi A. Hassan, Johnnie Kamugisha, Dawie Kleynhans, John McPherson, Tabitha Saaki Nettey, George Ofey Nyarko, Rita Du Preez, Ronel Du Preez, Duncan Pritchard, Jacqueline Reeve, Isaac Sackey, Itai Shanni, Neels Taute, Ellen Tefutor, Raphael kwaku Tefutor, Belinda Beauty Tefuttor, John k. A. Tefuttor, Peter Thompson, Dennis White, Malcolm Wilson.