Sažetak When we watch television, read daily and weekly press, attend specialist gatherings or follow them via themedia, we keep hearing the same: “we lack developmental strategies”; in other words, we lack a general developmental strategy at the State level, as well as at the level of economy, education, science, local community, etc. Thisis only understandable, since, conditionally speaking, the sum of these strategies or of their more important parts,would form a general strategy at the State level. Thus, for example, the round table held in the Croatian Academyof Sciences and Arts on the topic of „Forests, Soils and Water – Invaluable Natural Resources of Croatia“ statesthat there is no agricultural developmental strategy, either. The limited space of this column does not allow us toask more than only a few questions that we consider important for the developmental strategy of our profession.First of all, do we have a strategy of development at all? Are we perhaps talking about the Strategy passed by theCroatian Government in the distant 2003? Suffice it to say that it is endorsed by the Forest Law, which advocatesmanagement according to the principles of sustainability.
The new Forest Law has already been discussed in this column, while the need to modernize the valid Law hasbeen dealt with in the Current Topics column. The Ministry has formed a Commission for the new Law, but afterthe initial start, it ceased with its activities. Does the profession know why its work has stopped? Would some articles perhaps be in collision with what we have signed in the pre-accession negotiations with the EU? Allegedly,the public will be informed about what we have signed in several days, but do we know who has conducted the negotiations in the name of the profession? Since the forestry profession has its roof organisation, the CroatianForestry Association, it would be only logical that the attitudes and the cadres (we do not mean the political ones)should be coordinated at this level and then presented to the State and the EU. Yet, if a professional opinion is required, then it is generally sought from the company Hrvatske Šume. We have nothing against it, but in principle,Hrvatske Šume represents the interests of a company, which might be guided only by their own interest and mightbe in collision with the general opinion of the profession. What about afforesting burned areas? What about forestbiomass? Are any efforts being taken in order for this important renewable energy source to be finally consideredat the state level? Has it been included in the Energy Development Strategy programmes, as well as in employment programmes (we have already written about how many new work posts this would open)? Why are theredoubts about the scientifically verified date on the possible available biomass quantities in the near future of over4 million tons, which equals about 2 million tons of oil? Why is the State “not happy” with a domestic energysource instead of an expensive imported one? Do we continue to plan the sale of chips or do our plans extend tothe final product, the energy? What about private forests and how do we guarantee equal business conditions regardless of ownership? As we can see, even when we have plans, we get on with them but we do not finalize them.
In this issue of the Forestry Journal, the article by Domac, J. et al. discusses the development of the domesticpalette market. In 2009, eight Croatian manufacturers planned to produce 212,100 tons of pellets, but in realitythey produced 92,000 tons, of which 98% were exported, and only 1,850 tons (2%) were sold on the home market.In addition to savings and to the ecologically more acceptable heating method in relation to classical heatingwith fuelwood, there is also the question of employment, especially in the home metal industry (furnaces,pipelines, etc.). Where is the Energy Development Strategy now? What about the developmental strategy in timber processing; what is the extent to which we produce semi-products, and what quantities and kinds of finalproducts that we manufacture ensure added value and higher employment? Do we link this strategy to the developmental strategies of domestic manufacturers of tools, glues, varnishes, and other products, which again implies higher employment?
These are only some of the questions, but there are many more. You are invited to ask other questions and toraise issues that should be part of the Developmental Strategy (hopefully, the State will do the same). Finally,think about who will include the answers to these questions into our developmental strategy and, with the help ofvarious lobbies, “force” them into the general Developmental Strategy at the state level? Parliamentary electionsare approaching, and it will be interesting to see what strategies particular political parties advocate and indeed,if they have any strategies at all.