Suchergebnisse

RIJEČ UREDNIŠTVAIzgleda da se povijest, kao i moda, periodički ponavlja. Svako toliko pojave se ¨pametnjakovići¨, kako bi narod rekao s "morskim idejama", naravno upitnim i bez razumnih argumenata. Naime, o naslovljenom problemu, aktualiziranome u Glasu Slavonije (14. 2. 2019.), u Šumarskome listu br. 11-12 /2006. u rubrici Izazovi i suprotstavljanja, pisao je prof. dr. sc. Joso Vukelić, komentirajući tada neslužbene inicijative glede odnosnog studija, suprotstavljajući im se argumentiranim činjenicama. Njegovome tekstu nemamo gotovo ništa pridodati, osim da je ovih dana to službena inicijativa jedne lokalne zajednice i da uspješnost ili neuspješnost bolonjskoga procesa sada možemo konkretizirati, s obzirom na vremenski odmak. Sve ostalo bilo bi ponavljanje što ne želimo, ali ćemo samo kratko natuknuti neka pitanja i ukazali na argumente, kako bi Vas ponukali da potražite i pročitate i danas aktualni tekst prof. Vukelića. Ponajprije autor ukazuje na stihijsku pojavu otvaranja sličnih studija s istovrsnim programima izvan postojećih sveučilišta i prijašnjih visokih škola u Republici Hrvatskoj, koja usput rečeno traje i danas, a rezultatima nisu opravdale njihovo ustrojavanje, koje je bilo isključivo političke prirode. Kao krucijalno pitanje postavio je potrebu i opravdanost studija šumarstva uz postojeći na Šumarskome fakultetu Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, navodeći taksativno činjenice:– nema zaključnih spoznaja o uspješnosti primjene bolonjskoga procesa (nema ga ni danas – samo djelomično je ostvario očekivanja);– bolonjski proces ne prate na odgovarajući način ostale promjene u zakonodavno-organizacijskoj sferi u hrvatskome šumarstvu;– preko 200 inženjera (magistara) šumarstva je prijavljeno na Zavodu za zapošljavanje (i danas ima oko 100 nezaposlenih);– sve manji je interes za studij klasičnog šumarstva; – resorno ministarstvo sve manje financira terensku nastavu i režijske troškove postojećeg fakulteta;– postoji novo-izgrađeni suvremen i dostatan radni prostor, kojega treba i suvremeno opremiti; – postoji pet međunarodno priznatih nastavnih poligona, međunarodna razmjena studenata i vrsni mladi nastavnici te 108 (danas 120) godišnja visokoškolska tradicija šumarske nastave u Hrvatskoj - četvrta na Sveučilištu u Zagrebu;– broj diplomiranih studenata je dostatan, da ne kažemo i prevelik za potrebe struke.U nastavku autor se osvrće na potrebe županijskih vlasti, koje su fokusirane na svoj razvoj, a koje se u ovome slučaju krivo usmjeruju na rješavanje lokanih problema. Također navodi i konkretne primjere obrazovanja, potpuno nesvrsishodne te skreće pozornost na stručnost kadrova bez pedagoške naobrazbe i iskustva. Umjesto nepotrebnih proširenja sveučilišne nastave šumarstva, predlaže da se posvetimo permanentnom obrazovanju, koje je danas nužnost, a kod nas se provodi tri puta manje nego u EU. Svakako treba težiti ka izvrsnosti, usmjeravajući prema tome cilju stručnjake specijaliste i financijska sredstva. Nažalost, očito ništa nismo naučili i nismo spremni analizirati negativnosti kao npr. iz srednjoškolskoga šumarskog obrazovanja, utemeljenog upravo na argumentima lokalne a ne nacionalne razine. Programi bi uz specifičnosti trebali biti gotovo jednaki za svih desetak šumarskih škola u Hrvatskoj, a da li možemo među njima usporediti kvalitetu nastave (da li je ona uopće moguća s obzirom na kadrove i opremu) i potrebe struke? Gdje je tu izvrsnost, kojoj i na toj razini treba težiti? Svakako, o ovoj inicijativi potrebna je argumentirana rasprava na nacionalnoj razini (tko će to provesti kada nažalost resorni ministar ignorira šumarsku struku), bez političkih pritisaka, površnosti i bez privatnih interesa, pa i želja za "tezgarenjem", kojih nesporno ima. Uredništvo ; EDITORIALIt seems that history, just like fashion, repeats itself periodically. Every so often there are some "wise guys" with, as folks would say, "outlandish ideas" which are, without exception, highly questionable and almost always groundless. After the idea of establishing a new study of forestry was outlined in the journal of Glas Slavonije (Voice of Slavonia) (14 February 2019), Professor Joso Vukelić, PhD, wrote an article for the column Challenges and Confrontations (Forestry Journal 11-12/2006), in which he opposed the then unofficial idea by providing well argued facts. There is almost nothing to add to Professor Vukelić's text, except that these days the said idea has become an official initiative of a local community and that the success or failure of the Bologna Process can now be viewed objectively given the time passed. Everything else would only be tiresome repetition, which we do not want, but what we would like here is to just hint at some issues and point to arguments in order to encourage you to look for and read the text by professor Vukelić, which is still highly topical.For a start, the author focuses on the chaotic process of establishing similar studies with identical programmes outside the existing universities and former schools of higher education in the Republic of Croatia, a process which is still going on. The results achieved by the newly opened studies have not justified their establishment, so it is clear that their foundation was of an exclusively political nature. The most important issue that the author questions is the need and adequacy of launching a study of forestry in addition to the existing one at the Faculty of Forestry of the University in Zagreb. He lists the following facts:– there are no conclusive insights on the success of the application of the Bologna Process (nor are there any today, either - it has met the expectations only partially);– the Bologna Process is not adequately accompanied by other changes in the legislative-organisational sphere in the Croatian forestry;– there are over 200 engineers (masters) of forestry registered at the Croatian Employment Service (currently with about 100 unemployed forestry engineers);– interest in the study of classical forestry is declining;– the competent ministry allocates less and less money to field training and overhead expenses at the existing faculty;– there is a newly-built, modern and adequate facility which needs to be furnished with up-to-date equipment;– there are five internationally recognized teaching polygons, international student exchange and highly educated young teachers, as well as 108 years (at the time of writing the article and 120 years now) of tradition of higher forestry education in Croatia - the fourth study to be launched at the University of Zagreb;– there are enough graduate students, and maybe even too many for the needs of the profession.The author continues by discussing the need of county governments to stimulate development, which in this case is mistakenly directed at solving local problems. He cites some concrete examples of education which has not fulfilled its purpose and expresses concern about the teaching staff with little pedagogical training and experience. Instead of expanding the university education of forestry, he proposes to focus on permanent education, which is a necessity today but its implementation is three times lower than in the EU. The crucial goal to aspire towards should be excellence; accordingly, both expert specialists and financial means should be geared towards reaching this goal. Regrettably, we have not learned anything and we are not prepared to analyze the negative sides of, for example, forestry education at the secondary school level, based precisely on the needs at the local communities rather than at the national level. Allowing for some specific aspects, the curricula should be almost uniform in all of some ten forestry schools in Croatia. Can we compare the quality of teaching in these schools (is quality at all possible considering the staff and the equipment) and the needs of the profession? Where is educational excellence which should be aspired to at this level as well? Definitely, the initiative to establish another study of forestry should be discussed at the national level (but who is going to conduct the discussion when the current competent minister ignores the forestry profession)? There should be no political pressures and superficiality, and all debates should be free of private interests, including a hidden wish to "make some money on the side". Editorial Board

Replicirajući na tekst Riječ Uredništva u Šumarskome listu br. 3-4/2016., predsjednik Uprave Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o. mr. sc. Ivan Pavelić u svojoj poruci poslanoj elektroničkom poštom na adresu predsjednika i tajnika HŠD-a zaključuje, da "kao Uprava društva, ne želimo podržavati "naklapanja" i "razračunavanja" podvedena pod znanost, a time nećemo financijski potpomagati izlazak tog vašeg takozvanog znanstvenog časopisa".Mi nećemo na ovaj tekst dati paušalno mišljenje, kao što je to učinio odnosni gospodin, umjesto da je argumentirano odgovorio na postavljena pitanja u našem tekstu i otklonio sve sumnje ako one ne stoje. Ponajprije odgovor na pitanje o znanstvenom statusu časopisa. Na temelju mišljenja tada nadležnog Ministarstva informiranja RH br. 523-91-2 od 6. 3. 1991.g., a potom Ministarstva znanosti i tehnologije od 2000 g., Šumarski list se označava znanstvenim časopisom. Za reći što je, a što nije znanstveno, posebice u biotehnološkoj znanosti, koja je ovdje u pitanju, trebaju i neke reference koje gosp. Pavelić nema, kao što nema ni stručnih referenci za rukovođenje tako zahtjevnom gospodarskom granom kojoj nije samo cilj proizvodnja drvne mase, što on svojim rukovođenjem potvrđuje. Osim toga znanstveni status časopisa potkrijepljen je citiranjem članaka u relevantnim međunarodnim znanstvenim časopisima, a posljednjih godina i sa značajnim Impact faktorom, koji potvrđuje visoku kvalitetu časopisa. No, Šumarski list nije samo znanstveno, on je Znanstveno-stručno i staleško glasilo Hrvatskoga šumarskoga društva, kako stoji u podnaslovu, što znači da svi tekstovi imaju isključivo znanstveno-stručnu i stalešku podlogu, a ne političku. Postavljena pitanja u odnosnome tekstu nije "izmislilo" Uredništvo časopisa, nego je samo uobličilo mišljenja struke putem Upravnog odbora HŠD-a koji je ujedno i Uređivački savjet, a kojega između ostaloga čine predsjednici 19 ogranaka, ne postavljeni od središnjice, nego izabrani od svojega članstva (oko ukupno 3000 članova), te delegiranih predstavnika Šumarskoga fakulteta, Akademije šumarskih znanosti, Hrvatskog šumarskog instituta, HKIŠDT i resornog ministarstva. Prema tome, kompetencije ovdje nisu upitne, posebice kada navedenima pridodamo i članove Uredničkoga odbora koji su specijalisti iz pojedinih znanstveno-stručnih područja. No, gosp. Pavelić i ne treba odgovoriti na postavljena pitanja, jer je on predstavnik državnog "kocesionara" kojemu je povjereno upravljanje i gospodarenje nacionalnim bogatstvom, a kojega treba kontrolirati resorno ministarstvo tijekom cijeloga mandata. Da li je ono to činilo ili čini, i da li su odgovorni u resornom ministarstvu i Vladi RH svjesni što je sve "žrtvovano" da bi se ostvarila hvaljena "papirnata" dobit (profit) i naravno, polučili menadžerski bonusi, to je upitno? Glede spomenutih menadžerskih bonusa o kojima je bilo dosta riječi u medijima svih vrsta, interesantno je napomenuti kako se raspravljalo samo o tome, da li su u podjeli te nazovi dobiti trebali adekvatno sudjelovati i svi zaposlenici Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o. Niti jedne riječi o tome koje su štete nešumarskim gospodarenjem učinjene na šumi i šumskom staništu. Nitko, pa ni šumarski inženjeri iz rukovodstva sindikata, nisu tražili odgovore na pitanja koja smo postavili u Riječi Uredništva u Šumarskome listu br. 3-4/2016., a koja su "razljutila" arogantnog predsjednika Uprave Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o.Glede financijskog potpomaganja časopisa, moramo odgovoriti da to nije financijsko potpomaganje, nego pretplata na časopis, pa dotični gospodin svojom odlukom zaključuje da šumarskim stručnjacima nije potrebno cijelo-životno obrazovanje, te otkazuje pretplatu kao prvi rukovoditelj koji je to učinio nakon 140 godina tiskanja časopisa, upravo u godini kada obilježavamo ovu značajnu obljetnicu.Osim toga, analiza postavljenih pitanja nije tema za "komunikaciju na placu ili možda razgovor uz kavicu" kako navodi gosp. Pavelić, nego upravo za ozbiljnu raspravu na najvišoj znanstveno-stručnoj pa i političkoj razini, jer ovdje je riječ o nacionalnom bogatstvu neprocjenjive vrijednosti. Uredništvo ; Reacting to the Editorial published in the Forestry Journal No 3-4/2016, Ivan Pavelić, MSc, President of the Management Board of Croatian Forests Ltd, sent an e-mail to the President and Secretary of the Croatian Forestry Association, in which he stressed that "the Management Board does not wish to get involved in "idle prattle" and "score-settling" under the pretence of science. In other words, we will not continue to financially support your so-called scientific journal".We will not follow suit of the gentleman in question and give our opinion on this email, unlike the gentleman in question, who failed to use arguments to answer the questions raised in our text and remove all doubts if they are groundless. We would first like to clarify the scientific status of the journal. According to the decree of the Croatian Ministry of Information No. 523-91-2 of 3rd March 1991 and the decree of the Ministry of Science and Technology of 2000, the Forestry Journal is denoted as a scientific journal. To say what is and what is not scientific, particularly in the biotechnological sciences, requires some references, which Mr Pavelić, judging from his manner of management, does not possess. Neither does he possess professional references for managing such a demanding economic branch, whose primary goal should not be the production of wood mass only. The scientific status of the journal is confirmed by articles cited from relevant international scientific journals, and more recently, by the important Impact Factor, which further exemplifies the high quality of the journal. The Forestry Journal is not only a scientific magazine; it is a scientific-specialist and professional journal of the Croatian Forestry Association, as stated in its sub headline. This means that all the texts are based on exclusively scientific-specialist and professional foundations rather than on political ones. The questions raised in the subject text were not "concocted" by the Journal's Editorial Board. The Editorial Board only formulated the opinion of the profession via the CFA Management Board, which is also the Journal's Editorial Council. The Editorial Council is comprised of presidents of 19 branches (who were not appointed by the Headquarters but were elected from a membership of about 3,000 members in all), and of representatives of the Faculty of Forestry, Academy of Forestry Sciences, the Croatian Forest Research Institute, HKIŠDT (Croatian Chamber of Forestry and Wood Technology Engineers) and the competent Ministry. The above confirms the unquestionable status of competences. Moreover, the list can further be widened by members of the Editorial Board who are specialists in different scientific-specialist fields. Mr Pavelić does not have to answer all the questions raised in the journal because he is a representative of the state "concessionaire", who has been entrusted with the administration and management of the national treasure and who should be supervised by the competent Ministry throughout his term of office. Whether the competent Ministry has done so or is doing so, and whether those responsible in the Ministry and the Government of the Republic of Croatia are aware of what has been "sacrificed" in order to achieve the glorified profit "on paper" and probably obtain managers' bonuses remains doubtful. As for the bonuses, a topic on which much has been written in different media, it is interesting to point out that the discussions focused only on whether the distribution of so-called profit should have involved all those employed in the company Croatian Forests Ltd. Not one word was said about the enormous damage inflicted on the forests and forestland by inadequate forest management. No one, not even forestry engineers, union members, sought answers to the questions raised in the Editorial of Forestry Journal 3-4/2016, which so incensed the arrogant President of the Management Board of Croatian Forests LtdRegarding the financial support to the journal, we should just point out that this is not financial support but subscription to the journal. By declaring his decision, the gentleman in question concludes that forestry experts do not need life-ling learning and cancels the subscription, thus becoming the first manager to do so after 140 years of the publication of the Journal, precisely in the year in which we celebrate this important anniversary.To sum up, the questions raised in the journal are not the topic of "street chit-chat or coffee shop small talk", as Mr Pavelić says. On the contrary, it is the topic that requires serious and qualified discussions at the highest scientific-specialist and political level. After all, what is at stake here is national treasure of immeasurable value. Editorial Bord

RIJEČ UREDNIŠTVAZa ovogodišnje lipanjske Dane hrvatskoga šumarstva održana je panel rasprava o trenutnoj situaciji u šumama Hrvatske. Naziv rasprave bio je "Hoće li nas šume nadživjeti?". Svrha skupa bila je informirati širu javnost o stanju šumskih ekosustava, ali i o promjenama koje se događaju u njima. Govori li sam naziv skupa dovoljno o ozbiljnosti situacije u kojoj se nalaze naše šume? Promijenjeni klimatski uvjeti koji vladaju na početku 21. stoljeća, donijeli su mnogo neprilika u šumama posljednjih pet godina. Tome treba pribrojiti i nikad veću trgovačku globalizaciju, što doprinosi bržem i lakšem širenju invazivnih vrsta bolesti i štetnika. Danas gotovo da nema ni jedne značajnije šumske vrste drveća koja nema svojih problema. Šume Gorskog kotara sastavljene od jele, bukve i smreke stradale su uslijed klimatskih ekstrema, a potom potkornjaka, nizinske šume hrasta lužnjaka napadnute su hrastovom mrežastom stjenicom, a šume poljskog jasena ubrzano propadaju uslijed više čimbenika, posebice Halare, dok dalmatinske borove šume ozbiljno ugrožava borov potkornjak. Tu su i šumski požari nakon kojih uslijed erozija nestaje i šumsko tlo, što umnogome onemogućuje sanaciju i vodi degradaciji šume. Tako ugroženim šumama smanjuju se financijska sredstva za njihov zaštitu i obnovu, što je sad i definitivno ozakonjeno Zakonom o šumama (NN 68/2018) koji je stupio na snagu 4. kolovoza 2018. O prijedlogu zakona pisali smo u Šumarskom listu 5-6/2018. Saborska rasprava nije donijela zaokret u odnosu na zakonski prijedlog koji je usvojila Vlada Republike Hrvatske. Zakon je ustvari na tragu programa Vlade RH za područje gospodarstva, poljoprivrede i ruralnog razvoja iz listopada 2016. godine. Šumarstvo se u tom programu spominje u potpoglavlju "Aktivno upravljanje šumama, veća proizvodnja i više radnih mjesta u domaćoj drvnoj industriji" s rečenicom: Izmjenom zakonske regulative Vlada će poboljšati i otkloniti poteškoće u načinu raspolaganja šumama i šumskim zemljištima, provoditi razminiranje šuma i šumskog zemljišta, sprječavati ilegalne sječe i trgovine i poticati razvoj domaće drvne industrije koja proizvodi drvni proizvod. Smatramo da takav program baš i nije poticajan za šume i šumska zemljišta. Razminiranje je svakako unaprjeđenje u upravljanju i gospodarenju šumama koje se provodi godinama, kao i najavljeno sprječavanje ilegalne sječe i trgovine, samo za to nema dovoljno pozitivnih pokazatelja, jer je takva djelatnost postala jako unosna na štetu šume i šumovlasnika / šumoposjednika. Početkom godine donesen je i Zakon o poljoprivrednom zemljištu (NN 20/2018, na snazi od 9. ožujka 2018.) koji je propisao, kao i Zakon o šumama, izdvajanje iz šumsko-gospodarske osnove zapuštenog poljoprivrednog zemljišta koje se može privesti poljoprivrednoj proizvodnji i mogućnost davanja takvog zemljišta sukladno Programu raspolaganja u zakup ili prodaju. Omogućeno je i za zemljišta izvan građevinskog područja koja se u katastru vode kao poljoprivredna zemljišta, a u pravilu su zapuštena, da se uključe u šumskogospodarsko područje, jer su troškovi njihovog privođenja poljoprivrednoj namjeni veći od tržišne vrijednosti ili ukupnog iznosa zakupnine toga zemljišta. Ove odredbe trebale bi napokon omogućiti svrsishodnu raspodjelu zemljišta na poljoprivredno i šumsko te njihovo stvarno korištenje. Novi Zakon o šumama uvažio je višegodišnje primjedbe obveznika plaćanja naknade za općekorisne funkcije šuma (OKFŠ), što je u javnosti i medijima često prvo bilo na udaru kao nepotreban i neshvaćen "parafiskalni" namet. Sad se 90 % dosadašnjih obveznika (oko 180 tisuća) izuzima iz plaćanja naknade, jer je prag za obvezu plaćanja godišnji prihod ili primitak veći od 3 milijuna kuna uz zadržanu visinu stope naknade od 0,0265 %. Uvaženo je i traženje jedinica lokalne samouprave o povećanju stopa šumskog doprinosa, pa su one povećane s 3,5 % na 5 % i za jedinice na potpomognutim područjima s 5 % na 10 % prodajne cijene proizvoda na panju. Zakon je uveo i definiciju šumoposjednika: javni šumoposjednik ovlašten za gospodarenje šumom i/ili šumskim zemljištem u vlasništvu Republike Hrvatske, javna ustanova čiji je osnivač Republika Hrvatska i njezine znanstveno-nastavne sastavnice, koje svoju znanstveno-nastavnu djelatnost i znanstvenoistraživački rad obavljaju iz područja šumarstva, pravna osoba čiji je osnivač i vlasnik jedinica lokalne samouprave, a kojoj se odlukom Vlade povjerava gospodarenje te privatni šumoposjednik s podjelom na male (do 20 ha šume i/ili šumskog zemljišta), srednje (od 20 do 300 ha) i velike (većim od 300 ha) šumoposjednike. Za šumskogospodarsko područje ustanovljuje se Registar pri Ministarstvu koji se vodi u elektroničkom obliku, a bit će dostupan pod određenim uvjetima. Registar će sadržavati i dio za izvješćivanje potreban za ispunjavanja međunarodnih i nacionalnih obveza iz sektora šumarstva. Zakon predviđa i izdvajanje namjenskih sredstva u poseban fond za razvoj drvne industrije, što je također jedna od predviđenih aktivnosti u programu Vlade iz 2016. godine.Novi Zakon o šumama pokušao je uvažiti razne promjene koje su se dogodile od donošenja prošloga zakona iz 2005. godine, a koje su nivelirane izmjenama i dopunama kroz proteklih 13 godina, njih ukupno osam. Pokušao se uskladiti i s drugim zakonima iz područja poljoprivrede, zaštite pri­ro­de i okoliša, te strategije EU za šume i sektor koji se temelji na šumama. Potrebno je još uskladiti i donijeti sve podzakonske akte vezane uz zakon.Pitamo se hoće li odredbe novog Zakona o šumama biti na tragu rješavanja nagomilanih problema u šumama Hrvatske?Uredništvo ; EDITORIALA panel addressing the current condition of Croatian forests was organized on the occasion of Days of Croatian Forestry that were held in June 2018. The title of the discussion was "Will forests outlive mankind?" The purpose of the panel was to inform broader public of the condition of forest ecosystems, as well as of the changes taking place in them. Does the title of the panel reflect the seriousness of the danger facing our forests? In the last five years, changed climate conditions occurring at the beginning of the 21st century have inflicted major problems to the forests. Add to this general market globalisation, which contributes to the faster and easier spread of invasive diseases and pests. There is not one important forest tree species today that does not have problems. Forests of Gorski Kotar, which are composed of fir, beech, and spruce, have succumbed to climatic extremes and to attacks of bark beetles. Lowland forests of pedunculate oak are infested with the oak lace bug, while forests of narrow-leaved ash are rapidly deteriorating under the cumulative action of several factors, particularly Halare. Dalmatian pine forests are severely threatened by the pine bark beetle. Forest fires also cause extensive damage. The subsequent erosions lead to the loss of forest soils, which greatly hinders recovery and contributes to the degradation of forests. The financial means needed to protect and regenerate such forests are being minimized and this has now definitely been incorporated in the new Forest Act (Official Gazette 68/2018), which came into effect on August 4th, 2018. A parliamentary discussion did not bring about any changes with regard to the proposed act, which was adopted by the Government of the Republic of Croatia. The Act in fact follows the Government programme for the field of economy, agriculture and rural development of October 2016. In the said programme forestry is addressed in the sub-chapter "Active management of forests, higher production and more work places in the domestic wood industry" with the following sentence: By changing legal regulations, the Government will remove obstacles and improve ways of managing forests and forest land. It will also undertake demining operations in forests and forest land, prevent illegal felling and trade and stimulate the development of domestic wood industry which produces wood products. In our opinion, such programme is not really stimulative for forests and forest land. Demining is certainly an improvement in the management of forests and it has been carried out for years, and so is the announced prevention of illegal felling and trade. However, there are not enough positive indicators for this, since these activities have become very profitable at the detriment of forests and forest owners. At the beginning of the year the Agricultural Land Act was passed (Official Gazette 20/2018, in effect since March 9th, 2018), which regulated, as did the Forest Act, the exclusion of abandoned agricultural land from the forest-management plan and its conversion to agricultural production, as well as the possibility of leasing or selling such land in accordance with the Disposition Programme. The Act also allows for the land outside construction areas, which is listed as agricultural land in the land register but is abandoned in reality, to be included in the forest-management area, since the cost of converting the land for agricultural purposes is higher than the market value or the total amount of rent for such land. These provisions should finally enable a rational division of land into agricultural and forest land, and consequently its proper usage. The new Forest Act has also adopted long-lasting objections made by those obliged to pay a non-market forest function fee. The public and the media often harshly criticized this fee as an unnecessary and incomprehensible "parafiscal" tax. Now, 90% of those obliged to pay the fee (about 180 thousand subjects) are exempt from paying the fee, since the threshold for the obligation has been set down at an annual income or profit higher than 3 million kuna, while the rate of the fee has been retained at 0.0265 %. Demands by local self-management units to raise the rate of forest contribution have also been adopted, and it has accordingly been raised from 3.5 % to 5 %, while for units in subsidized areas it has been raised from 5 % to 10 % of the selling price of the product before felling. The Act also defines a forest owner: a public forest owner authorized to manage a forest and/or forest land owned by the Republic of Croatia, a public institution whose founder is the Republic of Croatia and its scientific-teaching components which carry out their scientific-teaching activity and scientific-research work in the field of forestry, a legal person whose founder and owner is the local self-management unit and which is entrusted with management by a Government decision, and a private forest owner. Private forest owners are divided into small (up to 20 ha of forests and/or forest land), medium (from 20 to 300 ha) and large (more than 300 ha) forest owners. A Register of a forest-management area in the electronic form will be established by the Ministry, and it will be available under certain conditions. The Register will contain a reporting part needed to fulfil international and national obligations in the forestry sector. The Act also provides for the allocation of earmarked means into a special fund for the development of the wood industry, which is also one of the activities in the Government programme from 2016. The new Forest Act has attempted to incorporate different changes taking place since the previous Act of 2005 was passed. There have been a total of eight changes, which have been adjusted by revisions and amendments over the past 13 years. The Act is also coordinated with other laws from the field of agriculture, nature and environment protection, and the EU strategy for forests and forest-based sector. All by-laws related to the Act need to be coordinated and passed.We wonder whether the regulations of the new Forest Act will try to solve the growing problems in the forests of Croatia. Editorial Board