The draft of the new Forest Code has finally been revealed to the public, after the State Duma discussed changes on July 8.
According to NGO experts, the new draft has very few amendments from the first draft adopted by the Duma 18 months ago. On the contrary, the new version has more contradictions and ambiguities that allow for many interpretations, which may create a favorable environment for corruption.

For instance, the Code makes the leaser responsible for the management on a leased parcel without mentioning the requirements or standards for such management. In reality, the requirements are most likely to be set by government bodies on a case-by-case basis and would be suited to their benefit.
Another example of the incompetence of the proposed Code is that it excludes the possibility to conduct intensive forestry that requires investment back into the ecosystem. In the proposed Code, only primary logging will be allowed, replacing intermediate commercial logging – an important part of intensive forest management.
Such a model makes it legal to abandon a forest after logging, leaving it to regenerate and mature without assisting the ecosystem. However, another article states that intermediate silvicultural logging is allowed “to remove old and mature trees.” Not only does this article contradict others, it defines intermediate logging very closely to primary logging, the removal of the healthiest and most mature trees.
Furthermore, as NGO experts note, even though the Forest Code draft contains an entire chapter devoted to the description of protective forest– forests in the vicinity of towns and settlements, forests important for water and spawning protection, forests that protect from winds and erosion – it is hard to decipher what activities are allowed and what are not within their limits. In practice, this means that there is no guarantee that the protective forests will be preserved.
The new draft allows for private ownership of protected and urban forests. Privatization of national parks, wildlife refuges, zapovedniks (one of the highest categories of forest protection), and other nature sites threatens their disappearance.
Similarly, forests in cities and towns – important for recreation of city dwellers – can become inaccessible for the public. However, the draft guarantees citizens’ access to all other public forests. Here, the Code developers agreed to accept definitions proposed by the civil society organizations. However, in light of other dangers of the new forest Code, this right seems to be a write-off.
The next, second reading of the Forest Code will take place on September 4, 2006. Judging from the drafts of the Forest Code that have appeared, it is unlikely that the developers will be able to produce a competent piece of legislation that would manage Russia’s forests sustainably and responsibly. It is left to hope that civil society organizations will force more of the government’s attention to laws that threaten responsible forestry.