Skrbništvo kao institut obiteljskog prava je desetljećima bilo važno, ali ipak neriješeno pitanje. Posljednja reforma obiteljskog prava iz 2014. i 2015. godine donijela je određene promjene koje su objašnjene i zagovarane kao novi doprinos poboljšanju pravnog položaja odraslih osoba s invaliditetom s jedne, te doprinos pravnoj sigurnosti te vladavini prava s druge strane. Obiteljski zakon propisuje da se osoba ne može potpuno lišiti poslovne sposobnosti, već samo djelomice. Možemo se samo zapitati kako se ova odredba može primijeniti, primjerice, u slučajevima kad je ta osoba u komi? Mudar zakonodavac dopušta da suci budu daleko više od samih izvršitelja njegovih namjera. Međutim, čini se da bi mudar sudac pri donošenju odluke o tom pitanju u određenim slučajevima djelovao contra legem, ako bi pokušao dosljedno i sveobuhvatno zaštititi osobu s invaliditetom, što ne može biti prihvatljivo. Stoga je cilj ovog rada dodatno osvijetliti novousvojene odredbe Obiteljskog zakona u odnosu na lišenje poslovne sposobnosti, s općom pretpostavkom da se takva zakonodavna intervencija ne može smatrati ni razmjernom niti učinkovitom. ; Guardianship as a family-law institute has been an important, yet unsolved issue for decades now. The latest family law reform of 2014 and 2015 brought certain changes, which have been explained and advocated for as a new contribution to the improvement of the legal position of adults with disabilities on one hand as well as the legal certainty and the rule of law on the other. The Croatian Family Act proclaims that a person cannot be deprived of legal capacity completely, but only partially. One can only wonder - how can this provision be implemented in cases of a coma for instance? A wise legislator allows judges to be far more than the pure executors of a person with disabilites´ intentions. However, it seems that a wise judge when deciding upon this issue would in certain cases be acting contra legem if attempting to coherently protect the person with disabilities, which cannot be acceptable. Therefore, it is the aim of this paper to shed additional light on the newly adopted provisions of the Family Act as regards the deprivation of legal capacity, with the general premise that such a legislative intervention is neither proportional nor efficient.
RIJEČ UREDNIŠTVAU prošlome dvobroju pisali smo na temu "Treba li osuvremeniti Nacionalnu šumarsku politiku i strategiju?" očekujući odgovore na postavljena pitanja. Nismo ih još dobili, a nema niti najave o široj stručnoj raspravi, osim što čujemo kuloarske pohvale kako je to prava tema za raspravu. Znači i dalje ćemo probleme u struci rješavati nesveobuhvatno nego po nametnutoj nam potrebi "iz rukava". Napomenuli smo, kako sigurno ima još pitanja i nismo trebali dugo čekati argumente za pitanje iz naslova. Naime, ovih dana čitamo u Poslovnom dnevniku, kako drvoprerađivači traže od Trgovačkog društva Hrvatske šume d.o.o. smanjenje cijenu sirovine za 15 % i produženi rok plaćanja na prvotno 90 dana, a prema zadnjoj informaciji čak na 120 dana te kako će Hrvatske šume d.o.o. ovih dana "vagati" rezanje cijena. Ta potreba tumači se padom cijena drvoprerađivačkih proizvoda na tržištu za 20 % i narudžbi za 25 % pa se od Države traže kompenzacijske mjere. Najviše su kaže se pogođeni proizvođači peleta i paletiziranog ogrjevnog drva, dakle proizvoda s malom dodanom vrijednošću. O tim proizvodima (kao i o parketu proizvodu iz tzv. "dorade" te finalnim proizvodima) smo više puta pisali, ističući kako je sirovina posebice za pelete ponajprije otpad finalne prerade drva, dakle suho, a ne mokro drvo čije sušenje na potrebnu vlažnost bitno podiže troškove proizvodnje. Oni su upravo kompenzirani do sada, moglo bi se reći brutalno "jeftinom sirovinom", a sada se traži i njeno smanjenje i produženje roka plaćanja. Ako je to 90 dana onda je to obrtaj kapitala 4 (za 120 dana to je okruglo 3 - dakle katastrofalno) i tu nema osiguranja postojećeg stanja a kamo li razvoja, no jeli to važno kada sve to plaća šuma! Naravno, zagovornici netržišnog poslovanja iz Drvnog sektora sugeriraju u odnosnom tekstu, kako Vlada "nakon ozbiljnih intervencija u brodogradnju i kroz konsolidaciju strateških tvrtki, ima priliku usvojiti hitne sektorske mjere kroz poslovanje Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o." Uz prethodno spomenuto smanjenje cijena od 15 % i produženje roka plaćanja na 120 dana, od 7 predloženih mjera Vladi, interesantna je ona, značajna sastavnica tržišnog poslovanja o ukidanju maloprodaje u Hrvatskim šumama d.o.o. – znači uklanjanje konkurencije. Komparirajući prodajne cijene glavnih drvnih sortimenata s tržištima u okruženju (Austrija, Italija, Mađarska, BiH i Srbija) s onima po kojima Hrvatske šume d.o.o. prodaju drvne sortimente našim drvoprerađivačima, dolazimo do brojke od oko 500 mil. kuna godišnje, kojim Država već potiče drvoprerađivače. Koliko i kako pak drvoprerađivači pripomažu Hrvatskim šumama d.o.o. kod rješavanja pitanja zaliha drvne sirovine, to je posebno pitanje? Kada im treba sirovina, vrši se pritisak na dobavljača da im se ona osigura bez obzira na vremenske uvjete i nastanak šteta na šumskom tlu. Kada ima viška drvne zalihe to nije njihov problem, bez obzira na potpisane ugovore! O nenaplaćenim potraživanjima Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o. od kupaca nećemo ovom prilikom. Isto tako predstečajne nagodbe nećemo niti spominjati, kao i tumačenja odgovornih kako su tim mjerama spašavali radna mjesta u preradi drva, a ne pogodovali velikim dužnicima. Država daje potporu, ali "upravljačka ekipa" koja je dovele firmu u to stanje ostaje i dalje na njenom čelu! Što reći nakon svega ovoga nego upitati se, kako to politika zagovorom netržišnog poslovanja u šumarstvu štiti šumu kao nacionalno bogatstvo naroda, a pripomaže razvoju primarne, a posebice finalne prerade drva? Evo im rezultata! Uredništvo ; EDITORIALIn the last double issue we raised the question whether the National Forestry Policy and Strategy should be modernised. While still waiting for some answers, we have only heard that the topic deserves a wide specialist discussion. This means that such issues will continue to be treated individually when they occur, instead of being solved on a global level. We hinted that there certainly were some more questions, and we did not wait long for the reaction; in the Business Diary (Poslovni dnevnik) we have read that the wood processors require from the trading company "Hrvatske šume" a 15% decrease in timber prices and prolonged payment terms of the former 90 days, or, according to the latest information 120 days. The demand accounts for 20% price decrease in wood products on the market and 25% decrease in orders, which calls for compensation measures from the Government. It is said that the most affected are the manufacturers of pellets and pellet-formed fuelwood - the products with low added value. We wrote about these products (as well as about parquet and final products) on several occasions, pointing at the fact that pellets are primarily the waste material from final wood processing, the dry wood, while the moist wood requires price-raising drying to achieve a required degree of moisture. So far they have been compensated by the brutally "cheap raw material"; now both price reduction and payment terms are required. If it is 90 days it means a turnover of 4 (for 120 days it rounds up to 3 - which is a catastrophe). There would be no insurance of the existing situation, not to mention the development. Indeed, does it matter anything at all when forests are here to pay the bill?! The advocates of non-market business from the wood sector suggest that the Government after serious interventions in ship building and through the consolidation of strategic firms has the opportunity to accept urgent sector measures through the business of the Croatian Forests Ltd. With the mentioned price decrease of 15% and the payment prolongation of 120 days, of the seven measures proposed to the Government a significant component of the market business operation is the interesting one - the elimination of the retail sale in Croatian Forests Ltd., which means the elimination of the competition. Compared to the selling prices of the main wood assortments on the markets in the region (Austria, Italy, Hungary, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Serbia), the prices at which Croatian Forests Ltd. is selling their wood assortments to our wood manufacturers amount to round 500 million hrk a year, by which money have the wood manufacturers already been encouraged. Another question is how the wood manufacturer helps Croatian Forests Ltd. with solving the issues of raw wood stock. When they need raw material they exert pressure upon suppliers without considering weather conditions and the damage upon the forest soil; When there is stock surplus, it is not their problem in spite of the signed contracts! To the unpaid credits and debits to Croatian Forests we shall refer on another occasion. We shall not even mention the pre-bankruptcy settlements as well as the explanations of the responsible parties saying that these measures are saving the jobs in wood processing instead of doing favour to the big debtors. A firm with significant rent status as to raw material asked for Government intervention. They received encouragement but the whole "management team" that brought the firm to this situation stayed in charge! What can be said after all this but wonder what kind of policy which supports non-market business in forestry protects the forest as national wealth while encouraging the development of both primary and final wood processing? The answer is in the results! Editorial Board
RIJEČ UREDNIŠTVA Nova promjena u vezi s plaćanjima naknade za općekorisne funkcije šuma, tretirane kao parafiskalni namet, potiče nas da opetovano progovorimo o tom problemu. Na Poduzetničkom portalu čitamo: Premda se službeno zovu "neporezna davanja" u javnosti se već uvriježio termin "parafiskalni nameti", a popisan je 161 parafiskalni namet, koji kažu naciji oduzima oko 2,5 % BDP-a. Detaljnije pak pojašnjenje prema definiciji Ministarstva financija kaže: "parafiskalni nameti su sva propisana obvezna neporezna davanja koja plaćaju poduzeća središnjim tijelima državne uprave, jedinicama lokalne i područne (regionalne) samouprave ili drugim tijelima s javnim ovlastima, ako pri tome: platitelj ne dobiva za uzvrat neku uslugu, dobro ili pravo .". Ako je tome tako zbog čega se onda naknada za općekorisne funkcije šuma tretira kao parafiskalni namet? Naime, u ovome slučaju nesporno je da platitelj dobiva za uzvrat uslugu, dobro ili pravo. To bi trebalo biti svima jasno ako samo pogledaju Zakon o šumama, gdje su navedene općekorisne funkcije šuma kako slijedi: 1. zaštita tla, prometnica i drugih objekata od erozije, bujica i poplava; 2. utjecaj na vodni režim i kvalitetu voda; 3. utjecaj na plodnost tla i poljodjelsku proizvodnju; 4. utjecaj na klimu i ublažavanje posljedica klimatskih promjena; 5. zaštita i unapređenje čovjekova okoliša; 6. stvaranje kisika, ponor ugljika i pročišćavanje atmosfere; 7. rekreativna, turistička i zdravstvena funkcija; 8. stvaranje povoljnih uvjeta za divljač i ostalu faunu te 9. povećan utjecaj zaštitnih šuma i šuma posebne namjene na bioraznolikost. U pojedinim funkcijama imaju korist samo neki, a u nekima svi. Naknada za općekorisne funkcije šuma prvotno je iznosila 0,07 % od ukupnoga godišnjeg prihoda, 2010. godine pada na 0,0525 %, a potom 2012. godine na 0,0265 % da bi 2018. godine bili oslobođeni plaćanja oni koji ostvaruju ukupni prihod manji od 3 milijuna kn godišnje. Sada se oslobađaju plaćanja oni s ukupnim godišnjim prihodom manjim od 7,5 milijuna kn, a postotak pada na 0,024. Da bi nam bilo jasnije, izračunajmo koliko je to novaca godišnje – na 3 milijuna kn to je bilo 795,00 kn/god., a na 7,5 milijuna kn to je 1.800,00 kn/god. (velik novac !?). Sagledavajući kronologiju smanjenja naknade za općekorisne funkcije šume i histeriju koja vlada oko parafiskalnih nameta, ne bi nas iznenadilo da obnašatelji vlasti nakon parlamentarnih izbora potpuno ukinu ovaj po nama potreban ekološki progresivni porez. Nažalost, ne bi bilo prvi puta da se radi populizma povlače potezi koji nisu dobri ni za državu ni za društvo. Od glavnih gospodarskih djelatnosti: 1. proizvodnje drvnih šumskih proizvoda, 2. proizvodnje šumskog reprodukcijskog materijala i 3. proizvodnje nedrvnih šumskih proizvoda, očekuje se i dobit koja se uplaćuje u državni proračun. Sve to unatoč netržišnom poslovanju u prometu tim proizvodima i nužnim potrebama pravodobnog i sveobuhvatnog rada na uzgojnim i zaštitarskim radovima u šumskom ekosustavu koji se često "preskače", kako bi dobit bila čim veća. Više puta ukazivali smo da u šumarstvu nema dobiti, ako vratimo šumi ono što smo joj uzeli, a da bi ona bila u optimumu, ili slikovito rečeno "vječna". O svakoj od devet navedenih općekorisnih funkcija često smo govorili, potkrijepivši naše riječi istraživačkim rezultatima. Brojke su impresivne i najbolje se pamte. Govoreći, zbog manjka prostora u rubrici, primjerice samo o njenoj hidrološkoj funkciji, rečeno je kako niti jedan vegetacijski oblik ne utječe tako djelotvorno na vodu kao šuma - ona uravnotežuje raspored vode u prostoru, ravnomjerno opskrbljuje vodotoke i ublažava pojavu visokih vodnih valova, utječe na čistoću vode i broj izvorišta. Procjeđivanjem vode kroz živo i rahlo šumsko tlo, ona u podzemne tokove ulazi pitka. Ako uzmemo u obračun prosječnu godišnju količinu oborina u Hrvatskoj od 1200 mm i površinu šuma od samo 2 milijuna ha (ona je veća) računa se da iz šume istječe oko 13 milijardi tona pitke vode. Tko dobiva tu uslugu – svi uključivši i platitelja! Ovako bi mogli i o ostalim općekorisnim funkcijama. E sada, neki kažu pisano je već o svemu tome i rečeno na mnogim šumarskim skupovima, ali mi šumari govorimo sami sebi – a mi pitamo kolegice i kolege: servirani su vam podaci u ovoj rubrici i drugim tekstovima – zašto to ne širite među poznanike, a oni politički angažirani šumarski stručnjaci među kolege političare na lokalnoj, regionalnoj pa i državnoj razini? Pitamo se, da li je pristojno reći da ste se "zavukli u mišju rupu"? Vi odgovorite! Uredništvo ; EDITORIAL A new change referring to the payment of non-market forest function fees, regarded as a parafiscal tax, urges us to again discuss this problem. We read on the Entrepreneurial Portal: Although officially called "non-tax benefits", the term "parafiscal levies" has already become commonplace in the public, and 161 parafiscal levies have been listed, which is believed to take away about 2.5 % of the GDP from the nation. A more detailed explanation according to the definition of the Ministry of Finance states: "parafiscal levies are all prescribed mandatory non-tax benefits paid by companies to central state administrative bodies, local and regional self-government units or other bodies with public authority, if the payer does not receive a service, goods or right in return .". If so, then why is the non-market forest function fee treated as a parafiscal levy? In this case it is indisputable that the payer receives a service, goods or right in return. It should be clear to everyone who reads the Forest Act and where the non-market forest functions are listed as follows: 1. protection of soil, roads and other facilities from erosion, torrents and floods; 2. impact on water regime and water quality; 3. impact on soil fertility and agricultural production; 4. impact on climate and mitigation of climate change; 5. protection and improvement of the human environment; 6. oxygen generation, carbon sink and atmospheric purification; 7. recreation, tourist and health function; 8. creation of favourable conditions for wildlife and other fauna, and 9: increased impact of protective forests and special purpose forests on biodiversity. Some of the functions provide benefits only for some individuals, while other functions provide benefits for all. The non-market forest function fee initially amounted to 0.07 % of the total annual income, in 2010 it dropped to 0,0525 %, and then in 2012 to 0.0265 %, whereas in 2018 all those who generated total income less than 3 million kuna annually were exempt from payment. Now all these with a total annual income of less than 7.5 million kuna are exempt from payment, and the percentage has dropped to 0.024. To make it clearer, let us calculate how much money it is per year - at 3 million kuna it was 795.00 kuna/year, and at 7.5 million kuna it was 1,800.00 kuna / year (what an amount!). In view of the chronology of the reduction of the non-market forest function fee and the hysteria surrounding parafiscal levies, it would not at all surprise us if, after the parliamentary elections, the government completely abolishes this, in our view, necessary and environmentally progressive tax. Regrettably, it would not be the first time that populism takes steps that are not good either for the state or for the society. The main economic activities, including 1. production of wood forest products, 2. production of forest reproductive material and 3. production of non-wood forest products, are expected to generate income which is paid into the state budget. All this despite non-market business moves in the trade of these products and the necessary need for timely and comprehensive work on silvicultural and protection operations in the forest ecosystem, which are often "skipped" in order to maximize profit. We have repeatedly pointed out that there is no profit in forestry if we return to the forest what we have taken from it so as to leave it in the optimal state, or figuratively speaking, so as to make it "eternal". We have often discussed every one of the nine non-market functions listed above, corroborating our words with research results. The numbers are impressive and are easy to remember. Due to limited space in the column, let us only take the hydrological function; no vegetation form affects water as effectively as a forest - it balances the distribution of water in space, evenly supplies watercourses and mitigates high water waves, and affects water purity and the number of water springs. Water filtered through live and friable forest soil reaches ground courses as potable water. If we take into account the average annual rainfall in Croatia of 1200 mm and the forest area of only 2 million ha (it is larger), it is calculated that about 13 billion tons of drinking water flows from the forest. Who receives this service? Everyone, including the payer! We could continue in the same way with other non-market forest functions. Some would say, these issues have been treated at a number of forestry conferences, but we foresters speak for ourselves - and we ask our colleagues: you have been served information in this column and in other articles - why do not you spread it among your acquaintances, and why those politically active forestry experts do not raise these issues among their fellow politicians at the local, regional and even state level? We wonder, is it polite to say that you have "crawled into a mouse hole"? You answer it! Editorial Board
"Izrada hrvatske poljoprivredne strategije jedan mi je od prioriteta, a ona neće zanemariti ni aspekte ruralnog razvoja, okoliš, proizvode zaštićenog podrijetla, ruralni turizam, obnovljive izvore energije." Ovo je izjava novoga resornog ministra poljoprivrede iz opširnog intervjua kojega je dao Večernjem listu 10. ožujka 2016. god. U nastavku navodi kako je za izradu strategije poljoprivrede i prehrambene industrije, šumarstva i prerade drva rok do kraja 2016. god. Također navodi kako je trenutno u tijeku redefiniranje Programa ruralnog razvoja. O nedostatku strategija Države za gotovo sve resore gospodarstva, kao i očekivanjima da se iste konačno naprave, što se odnosi i na šumarstvo i preradu drva, pisali smo u br. 5-6 Šumarskoga lista 2011. god. Bilo je to vrijeme uoči novih parlamentarnih izbora, pa su se strategije očekivale od nove Vlade. Kao što vidimo, protekao je cijeli mandat sada već stare Vlade i ništa nije učinjeno, pa se stihijski radilo. Bez strategije i uz slabu kontrolu resornog ministarstva, koje bi trebalo biti odgovorno za šumarsku politiku i strategiju, posebice prepuštanje Hrvatskim šumama d.o.o. i nekompetentnom rukovodstvu da provodi svoju šumarsku politiku uz svoju strategiju, iako su uvjetno rečeno samo "koncesionari", evidentno je da su nastale velike štete za šume i šumarstvo. Nestručno vođenje firme i robovanje "profitu" pod svaku cijenu, zahtijeva od nas da postavimo pitanja i na njih tražimo odgovore. Na temelju činjeničnog stanja će se uz ostalo temeljiti, nadamo se, napokon zacrtana konzistentna šumarska politika i strategija. Naravno da ne možemo ovdje postaviti sva sporna pitanja, pa stoga dopunu prepuštamo čitateljstvu. Neka od tih pitanja su: treba li preskočiti jedan etat jer smo dirnuli u glavnicu; da li je narušen omjer smjese sječom vrjednijih vrsta drveća; da li je narušena debljinska struktura sastojina; da li se, gdje i koliko kasnilo s uzgojnim radovima njege i čišćenja koji određuju buduću sastojinu; koje sastojine trebaju ići u prijevremenu obnovu jer su nestručnim gospodarenjem dovedene u stanje da ne koriste optimalno potencijale šumskoga staništa; što je s prirodnom obnovom sastojina; zašto i koliko ostaje drvne sirovine u šumi; što je sa šumskim redom; koliko i zašto imamo toliko oštećenih stabala prouzročenih vučom sortimenata; zašto imamo previše Ad stabala; kako obrađujemo sortimente da ne oštećujemo šumsko tlo; da li su nam i zašto šumske vlake postale vododerine; da li je istina da od ubranih prihoda za korištenje šumskih cesta samo manji dio vraćamo za njihovo održavanje, pa su stoga u vrlo lošem stanju; da li privatnicima plaćamo vuču i dalje tako malo da vozni park obnavljaju kupnjom naših isluženih traktora koji zagađuju okoliš; zašto je nekim pilanskim klasama trupaca cijena niža od ogrjevnog drva; što je s pošumljavanjem opožarenih površina koje su potencijalna opasnost za eroziju tla; kome i zašto je prepušteno gospodarenje (osim sirovinskog) s ostalim gospodarskim potencijalima šume i naposljetku pitanje koliko će šuma i šumarstvo platiti robovanje isključivo novčanom profitu utopljenom u nezajažljivost birokracije? Kada neslužbeno razgovaramo s našim kolegama, pa i s nekima koji su trenutno u vladajućoj strukturi Hrvatskih šuma d.o.o., svi negoduju, pa i čude se nekim naredbama neutemeljenim na načelima šumarske struke i znanjima koje su na Fakultetu polučili. Višekratna eksperimentiranja iz strogo centralizirano ustrojene uprave, a zapravo jednog čovjeka, dovela su šumarstvo gotovo do ruba obstojnosti struke. U ovoj smo rubrici uz ostalo pisali o odstupanju jednog od načela iz 10 sentenci o šumi, uvaženog akademika Dušana Klepca, a ono se odnosi upravo na organizacijski oblik šumarstva od centralističkoga do proklamirano decentralističkoga, koji kao najpovoljniji "omogućuje na istom prostoru i istoj organizacijskoj jedinici korištenje svih izravnih i neizravnih beneficija koje šuma pruža". Rekli smo tada da je to danas strogo centralistički oblik, u kojemu za svaku sitnicu treba tražiti odobrenje centra, gdje upravitelji uprava nemaju nikakvih ingerencija, čime im je ograničena inventivnost i primjena stečenih šumarskih znanja i iskustava te narušen ugled pred zaposlenicima i lokalnom zajednicom, gdje revirnici i ostali inženjeri sve više postaju kancelarijski službenici, a beneficije šume su svedene na isključivo sirovinsku bazu. Time se zapravo želi poništiti i omalovažiti multifunkcionalnu ulogu šume, a šumarske stručnjake svesti na razinu neinventivnih nadničara. Začuđujuće je da su osim središnjice HŠD-a, koja je posebice u ovoj rubrici Šumarskoga lista upozoravala na činjenično stanje, mnogi smatrali da će se nešto samo po sebi riješiti, i što je još gore, ne osjećaju se odgovornima. O svemu tome, pa i po pitanju prerade drva i energetske strategije također smo više puta pisali u ovoj rubrici i još u nekim tekstovima – samo treba "prolistati" Šumarski list i početi aktivno štiti struku, jer inače nemamo pravo prigovarati. Uredništvo ; "Formulating the Croatian agricultural strategy is one of my priorities, which will on no account neglect the aspects of rural development, environment, products of protected designation of origin, rural tourism and renewable energy sources." This is what the new Minister of Agriculture stressed in an extensive interview given to Večernji List (Evening Paper) on 16 March 2016. The Minister went on to say that the deadline for drawing up the strategy of agriculture and food industry, forestry and wood processing was the end of 2016. He pointed out that the Rural Development Programme was currently being redefined. In the Forestry Journal No. 5-6 we already wrote about the non-existence of state strategies for almost all economic sectors, including forestry and wood processing, and about general expectations that they would finally be formulated. Since this was at the time of new parliamentary elections, the strategies were expected to be drawn up by the new Government. As we can see, the entire mandate of the old Government had elapsed without anything being done in this respect, which in a way legitimized disorganized work. Lack of strategies and poor control in the competent ministry responsible for the forestry policy and strategy, and particularly the fact that the company Hrvatske Šume Ltd and its incompetent management were allowed to implement their own forestry policy and their own strategy, despite being, conditionally said, "concessionnaires", resulted in evident and great damage for forests and forestry. In view of how incompetently the company is managed and how its primary goal is "profit" at any cost, we must demand the answers to some questions that will reveal the factual state. These answers will, we hope, finally lay the foundations for a consistent forestry policy and strategy. It is not possible to raise all controversial issues here, so we leave additional issues to the readers. Here are several of these questions: should one annual cut be skipped because we have nipped into the growing stock; has the mixture ratio been disturbed by cutting more valuable tree species; has the stand diameter structure been disturbed; have the silvicultural operations of tending and cleaning, which determine the future stand, been delayed and by how much; which stands should be regenerated prematurely owing to inexpert management which brought them into a state in which they cannot make optimal use of forest site potentials; what about natural stand regeneration; how much raw wood material remains in the forest and why; what about the forest order; what quantity of damaged trees is caused by skidding the assortments and why; why are there too many accidentally cut trees; how do we process assortments so as to avoid damage to forest soil; have forest skidding lines turned into gullies and why; is it true that only a small portion of the money collected from forest road use is spent on their maintenance, leading to their extremely poor condition; do we continue to pay very low amounts for skidding to private entrepreneurs, so that they restock their vehicle fleet by purchasing old tractors that pollute the environment; why is the price of some sawlog classes lower than the price of fuelwood; what about afforesting burnt areas, which are a potential hazard for soil erosion; who has been entrusted with the management (in addition to raw material) of other economic forest potentials and why: and finally, how much will forests and forestry suffer because of blind servitude to monetary profit only, dictated by greedy bureaucracy? In unofficial conversations, our colleagues, including some colleagues who are currently in the managing structure of the company Hrvatske Šume Ltd, express disapproval and wonder at some directives that are not based on the principles of the forestry profession and on the expertise acquired at the Faculty of Forestry. Multiple experiments conducted by the strictly centralized management, or better said, by one man, have led forestry almost to the very brink of survival. Among other things, we already wrote about abandoning one of the principles contained in the 10 sentences on forests by distinguished Academician Dušan Klepac. This principle relates precisely to the organisational form of forestry, from centralist to decentralist, which "allows the use of all direct and indirect benefits of a forest in the same space and in the same organisational unit". We have already pointed out that at present this form is strictly centralist, according to which approval of the centre must be obtained for any little thing, and in which forest administration managers have no jurisdiction over anything. Naturally, this hampers their inventiveness and limits the application of forestry knowledge and experience, as well as undermines them before other employees and the local community. Moreover, forest rangers and engineers are increasingly turning into office clerks, while the benefits of a forest are exclusively limited to the raw material base. In fact, all this is aimed at nullifying and undermining the multifunctional role of a forest and downgrading forestry experts to the level of uninventive labourers. It is surprising that, with the exception of the management of the Croatian Forestry Association, which has repeatedly warned of the factual state in this column, many believe that things will work out by themselves, or even worse, do not feel responsible for any of the above. We have tackled these issues, as well as issues of wood processing and energy strategies, on several occasions in this column and in some other texts - all we need to do is browse through Forestry Journal and start protecting the profession more actively; otherwise, we have no right to complain. Editorial Board
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
