Suchergebnisse

RIJEČ UREDNIŠTVAHrvatski sabor prošle je godine donio novi Zakon o šumama (NN 68/2018.), koji je stupio na snagu 4. kolovoza 2018. O tome smo pisali u ovoj rubrici u ŠL br. 7-8/2018., gdje smo izrazili svoje mišljenje pa i opetovali svoje prigovore, koji pri njegovom donošenju uglavnom nisu usvojeni. Slušajući i čitajući ovih dana u medijima, ponajprije negativna mišljenja o šumarstvu i šumarskoj struci, nesporno se nameće pitanje iz naslova. Naš posao nije donositi sud o tome je li poslovanje Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o. transparentno ili netransparentno. Za to će se pobrinuti nadležne institucije. No, kratko ćemo se osvrnuti samo na neke članke odnosnog Zakona o šumama pa i Pravilnika po kojima je propisano kako gospodariti šumama.Tako npr. članak 2. (3) Zakona o šumama kaže da Vlada RH upravlja šumama i šumskim zemljištem, između ostaloga "načelom učinkovitosti upravljanja šumama i šumskim zemljištima osigurava ispunjavanje trenutne i buduće odgovarajuće ekološke, gospodarske i društvene funkcije na lokalnoj, nacionalnoj i globalnoj razini, kao javnog interesa, uvažavajući socioekonomsku važnost šuma i šumskih zemljišta Republike Hrvatske"……… "pri čemu te aktivnosti moraju biti u skladu s javnim interesima ……….a sve zajedno temeljeno na načelu održivoga gospodarenja prirodnim resursom." Načelo održivog gospodarenja prema čl. 3. (3) ostvaruje se uz"učinkovito korištenje resursa, pri čemu se optimizira doprinos šuma, sektora šumarstva i sa šumom povezanih sektora ruralnom razvoju, rastu i otvaranju radnih mjesta."Pitamo se, da li i koliko poštujemo propise i zadana načela? Namjera nam je da naznačimo poneki problem, a na čitateljima je da utječu na njegovo rješenje. Primjerice, da li učinkovito koristimo sve resurse šume? Ako je riječ o biomasi kao energentu, možemo reći da je za privatne džepove bilo učinkovito (hvale vrijedni su otkazi ugovora od strane Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o.), no, da li je za društveno optimalno i što je tu pravi cilj gospodarenja sukladan načelu održivosti. Pitanje je da li će biti ikakvih sankcija za one koji nisu jeftini energent koristili optimalno (za električnu struju i grijanje) i nisu poštivali ugovore, pa i za one koji su potpisivali te ugovore? Ako je pak riječ o drvnim sortimentima kao sirovini koju treba oplemeniti dodatnom vrijednošću, unatoč ovih dana i javnom priznanju nekih drvo-prerađivača da se drvni sortimenti raspodjeljuju ispod cijena na tržištu, i dalje se inzistira na netržišnom gospodarenju. Kažu da je ponuda (koja je ograničena godišnjim prirastom drvne mase) i do tri puta manja od potražnje (što po ekonomskoj logici vodi povećanju cijena), a isto tako da je jeftino dobivena drvna sirovina uglavnom "oplemenjena za izvoz" tek primarnom preradom. Ako drvo kao sirovina sudjeluje u proizvodnji namještaja s prosječno 17 % vrijednosti, onda nije teško zaključiti da izvozom "tako minimalno oplemenjene" sirovine izvozimo radna mjesta, kako u drvnoj, tako i u pratećim industrijama (ljepilo, boje i lakovi i sl.). Zašto svi drvoprerađivači hoće svoje pilane, a gdje je burza piljene građe koja bi opskrbljivala finaliste? Kao uzgajivači i uređivači pitamo se čemu svi uzgajivački i uređivački radovi, pa i troškovi (čišćenja, njege, prorede, formiranje sastojina, zaštita i dr., pogodujući stablima nositeljima proizvodnje, klasirajući ih potom po kvaliteti u drvne sortimente, sukladno Pravilniku o uređivanju šuma), ako je cilj proizvodnje najveća kvaliteta drvnih sortimenata, a mi ih obezvrjeđujemo netržišnim cijenama? Nesporna je i činjenica da te cijene omogućuju veliku zaradu, a minimalnu dodanu vrijednost i uz relativnu nisku obrazovanost radnika (što će im primjerice inženjeri?) neoptimalno korištenje drvnih sortimenata. To se zove rasipanje nacionalnog bogatstva, a takvim smanjenjem prihoda dovodi se u pitanje i optimalno ispunjenje ekološke i društvene funkcije šuma, koja se ocjenjuje višestruko većom od proizvodnje drvne mase. Ako struka gospodari preko 250 godina po načelima potrajnog gospodarenja i do danas nastoji sačuvati optimalnu strukturu i kvalitetu naših šuma, unatoč neargumentiranom mišljenju amatera iz Zelenog odreda i inih, pa i nekim upitnim kriterijima zaštitara općeg profila, imamo i odgovor na postavljeno pitanje u naslovu.Uredništvo ; EDITORIALLast year the Croatian Parliament passed a new Forest Act (Official Gazette 68/2018), which came into effect on August 4th, 2018. We discussed the new Forest Act in this column in Forestry Journal 7-8/2018, where we expressed our opinion and reiterated our objections, but they were generally ignored. In the light of mostly negative opinions about forestry and the forestry profession in the media, the question in the headline becomes understandable. Whether there is truth in criticisms of the transparent or non-transparent way in which the company Croatian Forests Ltd does business is not on us to decide - there are institutions responsible for such issues. However, we shall mention in brief several of the articles from the new Forest Act and the Regulations that prescribe how to manage forests. According to article 2 (3) of the Forest Act, the Government of the Republic of Croatia manages forests and forest land and follows, among other things, "the principle of efficient management of forests and forest land in order to ensure the fulfilment of current and future ecological, economic and social functions on the local, national and global level, being in public interest, by taking into account the socio-economic importance of forests and forest land of the Republic of Croatia" ."to do so, these activities must be in accordance with public interests . and all together must be based on the principle of sustainable management of the natural resource." The principle of sustainable management, according to article 3 (3) is fulfilled with "an efficient use of resources, whereby the contribution of forests, the forestry sector and forest-related sectors to rural development, growth and creating work places is optimized." Do we respect the regulations and principles, and if we do, to what extent? We shall only highlight a problem, and leave it to the readers to influence the finding of a solution. For example, do we use all forest resources efficiently? In the case of biomass as an energy source, the contracts which Croatian Forests Ltd recently cancelled, which is praiseworthy, were very profitable for private pockets, but whether they were equally profitable for the society is another question. What is the real goal of management according to the principle of sustainability? Will there be any sanctions for those who did not use cheap energy sources optimally (to generate electricity and heating) and did not respect contracts, as well as for those who signed these contracts? Take, for example, wood assortments as raw material to be improved with added value: despite the fact that several wood processing companies publicly confessed that wood assortments were sold at prices that were below market value, insistence on non-market business practices continues. They say that supply (which is limited by annual increment of wood mass) is up to three times lower than demand (which, using the logic of economics, should lead to an increase in prices), but also that cheaply obtained wood raw material is mostly "improved for export" only through primary wood processing. If wood as raw material participates in the manufacture of furniture with 17 % of the value on average, then it is not hard to conclude that by exporting "such minimally improved" raw material we export work places both in the wood industry and in the auxiliary industries (glues, dyes and varnishes, and similar). Why do all wood processing subjects want their own sawmills, and where is the sawn timber stock market which would supply the final processing companies? As silviculturalists and forest planners we ask ourselves what use are all silvicultural and planning activities and costs (cleaning, tending, thinning, establishing stands, protecting, and others, geared to favouring trees - bearers of production and classifying them by quality into wood assortments pursuant to the Regulations on Forest Planning), if the goal of production is to obtain the highest quality of wood assortments, which are then devalued with non-market prices? It is an indubitable fact that such prices generate high profit but minimal added value. Add to this the relatively poorly educated work labour (why should they need engineers?) and you get the non-optimal use of wood assortments. This is what we call squandering the national wealth. Low profits also jeopardize the optimal fulfilment of the ecological and social function of forests, which is estimated to be several times higher than the production of wood mass. If the profession has managed forests for over 250 years on the principles of sustainable management and has succeeded in preserving the optimal structure and quality of Croatian forests despite groundless opinions of the amateurs from the "Green Cadre" and others, including some protectors, we have an answer to the question in the headline.Editorial Board

Previše je komentatora koji krivnju za zločin povezuju s drogom. Da, oni su uistinu povezani, ali smjer uzrokovanja ide gotovo suprotno. Radi se o tome da zabrana supstanci koje uzrokoju ovisnost vodi do zločinačkog ponašanja, a ne obrnuto. Ukoliko želimo sigurnost povezanu s drogom, utoliko je legalizacija preferentno rješenje za javnu politiku. ; All too many commentators blame crime on drugs. Yes, the two are indeed correlated, but the direction of causation is almost entirely in the opposite direction. It is the prohibition of addictive substances that leads to criminal behavior, not the other way around. If we want drug safety, legalization is the preferred public policy solution.

A rebuttal to V. Vujacic's theses on the Balkan conflict presented in the contribution "Povijesno naslijed, nacionalisticka mobilizacija i politicke posljedice u Rusiji i Srbiji" (Historical Legacy, Nationalistic Mobilization and the Political Consequences in Russia and Serbia) The following arguments are made counter to Vujacic's theses: (1) There never was, & there is not now, any democratic opposition in Serbia; the opposition against Milosevic had nothing to do with democracy & everything to do with the disappointment that followed from the Serbian leader's failure to deliver on his promise of Greater Serbia. (2) To call the Balkan conflict a civil war is a euphemism attempting to blame equally every nation involved, while taking the responsibility for the conflict from militant Serbian politicians embarking on a bloody crusade for Greater Serbia. (3) The Croat army did not destroy Mostar but defended the town from Serbian invasion. (4) It is not true that the Serbian minority was & is persecuted in Croatia. (5) It is a complete rewriting of history postulating that Croatian nationalistic mobilization was equally responsible for the Balkan war as Serbian nationalistic mobilization. (6) It is a complete fallacy to argue that Serbian nationalism did not evolve from itself but was only a reaction to the mistreatment of Serbs by peripheral ethnic minorities during the Yugoslavia state. Z. Dubiel

The SANU Memorandum of 1986 is the ultimate manifesto of the Greater Serbian idea; in the economic department, it is manifested in the form of vying for investments into Serbia, of the elimination of the "political & economic domination of Slovenia & Croatia," & of "disencumbering Serbia from contributing to the Federation fund." Its authors put the blame for the alleged lagging of Serbia exclusively on Slovenia & Croatia, & thus consequently make them responsible for all unsound economic policies in the former Yugoslavia. Particularly venomous charges are reserved for the Constitution of 1974, which makes for the independence ("secession") of Slovenia & Croatia, viewed as a precursor of a possible catastrophe. These two republics, they believe, are "morally obliged" to aid the development of the underdeveloped republics, since Serbia has sacrificed most, & the price of that has been its own thwarted development. Two issues are central to Serbian economists: the 1961-1965 five-year plan & the system of financing a faster development of the underdeveloped regions (the Federation Fund). They demand that Serbia should be completely exempted from aiding the underdeveloped &, at the same time, extra measures for a faster development of Serbia proper should be decreed. The impossibility of solving these problems in this dictated manner brought about the economic disintegration of Yugoslavia, followed by the strategy of violence, which ended in the aggression. Nevertheless, the Serbian political elite think that their political & economic standing has been enhanced & thus, in the negotiations about the succession, they flaunt the Memorandum propositions, & continue to live under the illusion that the Greater Serbia is a viable option, both economically & politically. Adapted from the source document.

The text provides an overview and evaluation of the strategy and tactics of Croatian politics in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The analysis focuses on the historical Tenth Session of CK SKH (Central Committee of the League of Communists of Croatia) held in 1970, which defined Croatian politics with regard to economic and social reform, as well as to centralist unitarism and Croatian nationalism. The Tenth Session was conceived and held on the initiative of Vladimir Bakaric, a great figure and a veteran of Croatian politics, who was the uncontested master of Croatia from the end of the war to 1969. With the fall of Rankovic (1966), the symbol of "neo-Stalinist centralism, bureaucratism and Great-Serbian hegemonism", one of the principal obstacles to modernization and democratization of Yugoslav communism was removed. The finest advocates of economic and political liberalization of the regime, of decentralization and of a stronger position of the republics were Bakaric and his disciples, an intelligent and well-educated generation of communists (Tripalo, Dabcevic-Kucar, Pirker). They are the ones who would eventually become symbols of the struggle against the Party's dogmatic conservatism and Stalinist voluntarism. The author puts forward a series of elements which make it possible to understand how the political career of this generation of dynamic and popular politicians, recognized and successful representatives of socialist democracy and national equality, came to a tragic end marked by accusations of flirting with chauvinism, of using "neo-Stalinist" methods against opponents and colleagues, and of attempting to establish a quasi-fascist state, in which the dictatorial rule of the clique of (former?) communists and nationalists, in alliance with the new middle class of managers and "technocrats", would be masked by socialist rhetoric and pseudo-mobilization of the masses deluded by nationalism into believing that members of some other nation are to blame for all problems. Adapted from the source document.

Na Veliki petak 1494, 28. ožujka, u Sikstinskoj kapeli, pred papom Aleksandrom VI. (Borgiom) i članovima papinskog dvora rapski arhiđakon Martin Nimira održao je – dakako, na latinskom – propovijed o Muci; njezinu je pisanu verziju u travnju iste godine u Rimu tiskao Eucharius Silber. Propovijedati pred papom za vrijeme mise značajan je društveni uspjeh; objaviti održanu propovijed dodatno ističe njezinu važnost; pa ipak, Nimirin su život i djelo do danas u povijesti hrvatske i novolatinske književnosti neistraženi. Donijet ću ovdje osnovne podatke o Nimiri, društvenom kontekstu njegove propovijedi, o strukturi tog djela i njegovim kurijalno-humanističkim obilježjima te recepciji (knjižicu je posjedovao Marko Marulić, a 1522. nekoliko je Nimirinih stranica u svoje djelo uvrstio Giovanni Mercurio da Vipera). ; On Good Friday 1494, Martin Nimira, archdeacon of Rab and scion of a wellregarded Rab family, delivered a sermon on the Passion to Pope Alexander VI and members of the papal curia. After April 3 that same year the sermon was printed in Rome by Eucharius Silber. Nimira built his career in the Papal States of Italy as a client of the cardinal of Siena Francesco Todeschini Piccolomini (1439–1503); some years earlier, in March 1487, Nimira had already preached before the Roman cardinals, on the feast of Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Dominican church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva. Nimira's known writings and activities (a poetic prayer for the health of the cardinal Todeschini Piccolomini Hecatosticum carmen ad Christum optimum maximum pro cardinalis Senensis salute, perhaps in 1488; his copyediting of the Politics of Aristotle translated by Leonardo Bruni and commented on by Thomas Aquinas and Ludovico Valenza, 1492) suggest Nimira was a curial humanist, dependent on the patronage of the Roman court and its cardinals. Nimira's sermon on the Passion, in the printed edition dedicated to the cardinal Bernardin López de Carvajal (d. 1523), bishop of Cartagena, Spain, displays Nimira's learning, his command of theological, philosophical and lyrical registers of expression, as well as oratorical elegance and a readiness to adopt Cicero's rhetorical models (sentences from speeches Against Verres 2, 5, For Publius Quinctius and For Aulus Cluentius, as well as the famous fragment of Gaius Gracchus reported by Cicero in On the Orator). The sermon has an introduction, two main parts, and a short closing prayer for God's mercy, especially to the Pope. The first part is philosophical (in Nimira's words, stemming from ingenium), the second part lyrical (arising from pietas). The philosophical part considers the necessity of Christ's Passion and death, touching also on the suffering of the good and the success of the evil in this world, while the lyrical part shows how Christ suffered and died. There is a prosopopoeia of the Virgin Mary, and the piercing of Christ's body is seen as the culmination of his suffering. The Jews (including Judas Iscariot) are presented as the main enemies, their faith as utterly wrong and depraved (confirmation is presented in a collage of biblical quotes), and the piercing of Christ's body is seen as their most terrible crime. The extremely strong antisemitic tone of Nimira's sermon might have been set partly by the tradition of the liturgical Improperia as part of the observance of the Passion, partly by the rhetorical need to contrast blame (of the Jews) and praise (of Christ), but possibly also by the antisemitic leanings in the circle of Nimira's acquaintances: these must have included Antonio Lollio, the secretary of the cardinal Todeschini Piccolomini, who had already in 1486 composed another highly antisemitic sermon before the Pope, and the Dominican Paolo Moneglia from Genova, who as the magister Sacri palatii chose Nimira as the preacher for the Good Friday of 1494; in April of the same year Moneglia was appointed inquisitor of the March of Genoa, which was under strain because of the influx of large numbers of Sephardic Jews and Marranos expelled from Spain and Sicily (later, in Rome in 1498, Moneglia led a spectacular auto da fé of several hundred Marranos in front of St. Peter's Basilica). The success of Nimira's sermon can be inferred from the privileges granted to his family by the cardinal Todeschini Piccolomini later in 1494, from the relatively large number of printed copies of Nimira's small book that survive today (32 in public libraries), from the record of Nimira's preaching in the diaries of Johannes Burchard, papal Master of Ceremonies, and from those who read Nimira's sermon during the Renaissance: we know that a copy of the sermon was owned by Marko Marulić, and that Giovanni Mercurio da Vipera (bishop of Bagnoregio 1523–1527) quoted extensively from the philosophical part of the sermon in his Contra a recto divini cultus itinere aberrantes (Rome 1522). We present an edition of Nimira's sermon following a digital facsimile of a copy in Bavarian State Library. In the edition, the abbreviations are expanded, orthographic variants of ae, u and i are removed, the punctuation is modernized, the spelling and capitalization standardized. Nimira's explicit and implicit textual sources are identified wherever possible.

Riječ uredništvaPrije nekoliko godina u jednom dvobroju Šumarskog lista pojasnili smo zadaću ove rubrike. Naglasili smo da ona nije zamišljena da podučava šumarske stručnjake o šumarstvu (struku su učili na Fakultetu), nego da podsjetimo na aktualnosti koje se događaju u šumi i šumarskoj struci. Navodeći činjenice, nastojimo pomoći da šumarska praksa, pa i znanost, lakše zauzme stav o pojedinom aktualnom stručnom problemu ili događanjima kako bi štitila šumu i struku. Stoga, osvrnimo se na prošlogodišnje rubrike koje nam ukazuju na probleme koji nas očekuju.U dvobroju 1-2/2021. najavili smo cjelogodišnje obilježavanje 175-e obljetnice osnivanja Hrvatskoga šumarskog društva (1846. g.) i 145-e obljetnice (1877. g) tiskanja znanstveno-stručnog i staleškog glasila Šumarskog lista. Naveli smo kako je Hrvatsko šumarsko društvo, uz ostalo, ostvarilo svoja dva glavna cilja: uvođenje više šumarske nastave u Hrvatskoj osnivanjem Gospodarsko-šumarskog učilišta u Križevcima 1860. godine, a potom Šumarske akademije (danas Šumarski fakultet) 1898. godine kao četvrte visokoškolske ustanove Zagrebačkog sveučilišta. Tiskanjem prvoga broja svojega glasila, Šumarskog lista 1. siječnja 1877. godine, ostvaren je i drugi cilj. Posebno smo istaknuli kako je već tada usvojeno mišljenje da je za gospodarenje šumskim ekosustavima potrebno visokoškolsko obrazovanje. Upitali smo se kakva je danas situacija sa šumarskom strukom? Zaključili smo: nikakva – svi znaju sve o šumi, a nisu niti "primirisali" šumarsko obrazovanje bilo kojega ranga. Skrenuli smo pozornost na netržišno gospodarenje šumskim resursima, posebice najvrjednijima, kada izvozom drvne sirovine, a ne drvoprerađivačkih proizvoda izvozimo radna mjesta i obezvrjeđujemo dugogodišnji trud šumarskih stručnjaka.U dvobroju 3-4/2021. raspravljali smo na temu teksta Thomasa Waitza, zastupnika Zelenih u EU, objavljenog pod bombastičnim naslovom "Novo izvješće o krčenju šuma u Hrvatskoj", na kojega su se odmah "zalijepili" naši Zeleni. Nakon više od 250 godina gospodarenja našim šumama po načelu potrajnog gospodarenja, ovaj naslov je uvreda hrvatskim stručnjacima. Osim toga, ovo je poistovjećivanje pojmova krčenja i kontrolirane sječe šuma, što je očiti primjer neznanja, bolje rečeno amaterizma koji danas preplavljuje ne samo šumarsku nego i druge struke. Svakako preporučamo opetovano pročitati ovu Riječ Uredništva, kako bi imali jaču podlogu za eventualnu raspravu o odnosnoj temi.U dvobroju 5-6/2021. rubriku smo posvetili "Odlasku čovjeka koji je život posvetio šumi i šumarstvu". Bez obzira na njegov životni put opširno prikazan u rubrici In memoriam, osvrnuli smo se kratko na najvažnije dijelove toga životnog puta, zaključujući: "Odlaskom profesora Matića završilo je jedno razdoblje, koje će nama suvremenicima ostati u sjećanju kao nezaboravno iskustvo, plemenitog, šumarskog načina života i zajedništva, a koje je rezultiralo njegovanim i očuvanim šumama. Hoće li novi trendovi koji su sve izraženiji u današnjem šumarstvu, a prema kojima su šumarski stručnjaci sve manje povezani sa šumom, ali i međusobno, uspjeti odgovoriti na nove izazove, posebice u okolnostima sve izraženijih klimatskih promjena, tek je za vidjeti."U dvobroju 7-8/2021. uz temu: Tko je kriv za loše poslovanje drvoprerađivača? navodimo tekst Europskoga šumarskog instituta i Svjetske banke pod naslovom "Pregled i preporuka za sustav prodaje drvne sirovine Hrvatskih šuma". Čitamo da se kod nas 93 % drvnih proizvoda prodaje administrativno na temelju dugoročnih ugovora, a tržišno samo 5 % (Poljska 89-90 %, Češka 96 %, a Estonija i Francuska približno 100 % tržišno). Hrvatska prodaje drvnu sirovinu po 20-30 % nižoj cijeni u usporedbi s europskim cijenama i cijenama u susjednim zemljama, što čini gubitak od oko 316 milijuna kuna godišnje (hrast 163 milijuna kn, bukva 105 milijuna kn, smreka i jela 48 milijuna kn). S obzirom na gospodarenje po načelu potrajnosti te na kvalitetu i prirodnost naših šuma (čime je osiguran i FSC certifikat – od čega najveći benefit ubiru upravo drvoprerađivači), mišljenja smo da je gubitak i veći.Što donosi nova EU strategija za šume do 2030. tema je dvobroja 9-10/2021. Smatra se ključnim za ostvarivanje ciljeva Europskoga zelenog plana, smanjenje emisija stakleničkih plinova za najmanje 55 % do 2030. i klimatske neutralnosti do 2050. godine. Pomaže i ispunjavanje ciljeva EU-a za povećanje uklanjanja CO2 prirodnim ponorima prema Zakonu o klimi. Strategijom se šumi, šumarima i sektoru koji se temelji na šumi daje središnja uloga u ostvarivanju tih ciljeva. Uz njihovu pomoć očekuje se europski prelazak na moderno, klimatski neutralno, resursno učinkovito i konkurentno gospodarstvo.U dvobroju 11-12/2021. pokušali smo sažeti nazovimo prognoze "Što nam donosi Glazgovska klimatska konferencija". U sklopu potpisane Deklaracije o korištenju šuma i zemljišta, koju je do sada podržalo preko 140 država u kojima se nalazi više od 90% svjetskih šuma, čelnici zemalja obvezali su se zajednički raditi na zaustavljanju i preokretanju gubitka šuma i degradacije zemljišta do 2030. godine. Glavni cilj konferencije odnosio se na ograničavanje povišenja globalne prosječne temperature na razinu koja je znatno niža od 2°C iznad razine u predindustrijskom razdoblju. Ovdje nas zabrinjava činjenica da mnogi neupućeni, a mjerodavni, poistovjećuju krčenje šuma i kontroliranu sječu šuma koja je uzgojni zahvat u održavanju, a posebice u obnovi šumskih sastojina. Usprkos našoj visokoj šumovitosti, to bi nam u budućnosti moglo bitno utjecati na dosadašnji dokazano uspješni način gospodarenja našim šumama.Uredništvo ; EditorialWe explained the mission of this column in a double issue of Forestry Journal several years ago. We pointed out that the intention of the column was not to teach forestry experts about forestry (the profession which they study at the faculty), but to point to some current events taking place in the forest and the forestry profession. By stating the facts, we try to help the forestry practice and science to take a stand on a particular professional problem or event, all with the view of protecting the forest and the profession. Therefore, let us remind ourselves of last year's columns, which point to the problems that await us in the future.In the double issue 1-2/2021 we announced the year-round celebration of the 175th anniversary of the founding of the Croatian Forestry Society (1846) and the 145th anniversary (1877) of the publication of the scientific-professional paper Forestry Journal. Among other things, we pointed out that the Croatian Forestry Society achieved its two main goals. The first was the introduction of higher forestry education in Croatia by founding the College of Agriculture and Forestry in Križevci in 1860 and the Academy of Forestry (the present Faculty of Forestry) in 1898 as the fourth higher education institution of the University of Zagreb. The second goal was achieved by publishing the first issue of Forestry Journal on January 1st, 1877. We especially emphasised that the awareness of the need for higher education to manage forest ecosystems was keenly felt even then. We asked ourselves what the current situation was regarding the forestry profession. We concluded it was dire: everybody knows everything about the forest without having the slightest idea of the forestry profession. We also drew attention to the non-market management of forest resources, particularly the most valuable ones, when by exporting wood raw material instead of wood processing products, we export jobs and devalue the long-lasting hard work of forestry experts. In the double issue 3-4/2021, we discussed the text by Thomas Waitz, representative of the Green Party in the EU, published under the bombastic title "New Report on Deforestation in Croatia", which our Greens immediately "embraced". In view of over 250 years of managing our forests according to the principle of sustainable management, this title is an insult to Croatian experts. In addition, this mixing up of the concepts of deforestation and controlled felling of forests is a blatant example of ignorance, or rather amateurism, which today permeates not only forestry but also other professions. We warmly recommend rereading this Editorial in order to gain a stronger basis for a possible debate of this subject.The Editorial in the double issue 5-6/2021, was entitled "The demise of a man who has devoted his life to forests and forestry". Although his life path was extensively presented in the column "In memoriam", we briefly described the most important points of his life path, concluding: "The demise of Professor Matić ends a period which we, his contemporaries, will always look upon as an unforgettable experience of living a noble foresters' life in togetherness, the result of which are well-tended and preserved forests. Will the new trends, increasingly visible in present day forestry, in which foresters have less and less contact with forests and with their colleagues, be able to respond to all the challenges, particularly in the light of distinct climate changes, remains to be seen." The topic of the double issue 7-8/2021 "Who is to blame for poor business results of wood processors?" is accompanied by the text of the European Forestry Institute and the World Bank, entitled "A survey and recommendations for the wood raw material sale system in the company Croatian Forests Ltd." According to the text, 93 % of wood products in Croatia are sold administratively on the basis of long-term contracts, and only 5 % are sold on the market (Poland 89 - 90 %, Czechia 96 %, and Estonia and France about 100 % on the market). Compared to European prices and prices in neighbouring countries, Croatia sells wood raw material at prices which are 30 – 30 % lower, which incurs a loss of about 316 million kuna annually (oak 163 million kuna, beech 105 million kuna, spruce and fir 48 million kuna). Taking into consideration the principles of sustainable management, as well as the quality and naturalness of Croatian forests (which has earned them the FSC certificate – of which it is the wood processors who reap the highest benefits), we suspect that the losses are even higher than the ones mentioned above. The topic of the double issue 9-10/2021 was "What does the new EU forest strategy for 2030 bring?" A core part of the European Green Deal, this strategy anticipates a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 % by 2030 and a climate-neutral continent by 2050. It also helps meet EU targets to increase CO2 removal through natural sinks under the Climate Act. The strategy gives forests, foresters and the forest-based sector a central role in meeting these targets. With their help, a European transition to a modern, climate-neutral, resource-efficient and competitive economy is expected. The double issue 11-12/2021 was concerned with predictions contained in the text "What does the Glasgow Conference bring us?" As part of the signed Declaration on Forests and Land Use, which has so far been supported by over 140 countries in which more than 90 % of world's forests are located, the leaders pledged to work together to "halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation" by 2030. The main objective of the conference was to limit the increase in global average temperature to a level significantly lower than 2°C above the level in the pre-industrial period. Here, we are concerned about the fact that those who are uninformed, but in position of authority, equate deforestation and controlled felling, which is a silvicultural operation performed in order to maintain and regenerate forest stands. Despite the fact that Croatia is highly forested, this could significantly affect our proven success in the management of our forests.Editorial Board