DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu




ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2013 str. 7     <-- 7 -->        PDF

Riječ uredništva
KUDA NAS JE TO DOVELO STRANAČKO KADROVIRANJE I NETRŽIŠNO GOSPODARENJE
Stranačko (političko) kadroviranje u resornom Ministarstvu i Hrvatskim šumama d.o.o. išlo je jedno vrijeme donekle prihvatljivo ruku pod ruku sa stručnim stajalištima, a onda je sve više i više skretalo, da bi prešlo gotovo u potpunosti na stranu onoga prvog. Desetljećima proklamirano jedinstvo šumarskoga obrazovanja, znanosti i prakse, negdje se zagubilo. Penjući se po političkoj ljestvici mnogi su postali najpametniji i najbolji stručnjaci, a zapravo su zaboravili na struku i na obećanje koje su dali na promociji primajući diplomu šumarskog inženjera, kako će stečeno znanje časno koristiti. Nije ni čudo što smo tako stigli i do Fimi Medije i Planinske. Lošoj percepciji šumara pripomogli su i šumari dušobrižnici iz oporbenih stranaka, ne razlučujući objedu kolega od objede struke, pa sada imamo što imamo. Nakon promjene vlasti dolazimo do novog kadroviranja, proklamirano, pa i očekivano stručnog. No, strogo stranačko nastavljeno je po načelu ne samo iz moje stranke, nego iz moga sela i moj prijatelj ili susjed, a što je najžalosnije, čak ni struka nije važna. Valjda je sada konačno svima jasno da je krenuo atak na šumarstvo, jer samo naivci mogu vjerovati da je šumarstvo slučajno izostavljeno iz naziva resornog ministarstva. Trenutno je Ministarstvo već gotovo dva mjeseca bez pomoćnika ministra za šumarstvo i nikome ništa. Opravdane sumnje struke u stručnost i nedoraslost zadatku imenovanog, obistinile su se upravo njegovom ostavkom. Sada struka nema svoga zastupnika, jer resorni ministar ne može izaći na kraj s poljoprivredom, a ne da bi mislio o šumarstvu. On se nije pomakao dalje od krava i mlijeka, a već ga opetovano čeka pšenica.
Prije 115 godina pametni su ljudi zaključili kako za vođenje šumskog gospodarstva nisu dovoljni šumarski stručnjaci srednjeg ili višeg obrazovnog profila, već oni visoko stručni. To je ostvareno 1898. god. početkom rada Šumarske akademije (danas Šumarskoga fakulteta) kao 4. visokoškolske ustanove Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. To znači da su već tada tražena iznimna biotehnička znanja. Danas, posebice za čelne pozicije, uz časne iznimke, dovoljna je isključivo politička podobnost, a sve više nas iznenađuje činjenica da se šumarski stručnjaci, zamjenjuju s nazovi menadžerima općeg profila. Šumarstvo je biotehnička znanost i struka, pa mu nisu primjereni rukovodeći kadrovi "opće prakse", posebice ne oni poslani po zadatku i zadojeni isključivo "šuštavim" profitom. Oni, kao politički poslušnici ne poznaju načela potrajnog gospodarenja i nemaju odgovor na pitanje što je s profitom koji daje čisti zrak, čista i uskladištena voda, zaštita od erozije, turistički i zdravstveni benefiti i ostale općekorisne funkcije šume. Važno je ostvariti profit, pa makar i s neobavljanjem i preskakanjem radova na biološkoj reprodukciji šuma, ukidanjem radnih mjesta ili najnovije smanjenjem plaća zaposlenika (recimo ukidanje nekih radnih mjesta, i raspoređivanje zaposlenika na niže rangirana radna mjesta s daleko manjom plaćom, što se upravo čini). Čemu prijevremene mirovine uz otpremnine, i koja je to politika ako se govori da umirovljenika ima gotovo isti broj kao zaposlenih, a podiže se starosna dob za odlazak u mirovinu, dok je onih koji imaju puni radni staž za mirovinu svega oko 17 %. Mladi stručnjaci se pak ne zapošljavaju. Zašto u isti koš trpati firmu koja posluje pozitivno s gubitašima u koje su bez rezultata ulupane puste milijarde. Gdje su najavljivani novi poslovi temeljeni na biomasi, rekreaciji, športu, turizmu i sl., kao što primjerice rade Austrijanci. Već smo se umorili ističući kako je drvo samo klasični šumski nusproizvod potrajnog gospodarenja šumama. Ali neprestano se profit bazira samo na njemu i to na netržišnim načelima, jer ne postoji slobodno formiranje cijena i nadmetanje za sve raspoložive količine šumskih drvnih proizvoda. Finalni proizvod iz drva samo je deklarativno opredjeljenje politike, jer je nespojivo proklamirati ga, a istovremeno i pogodovati prekobrojnim pretendentima iz primarne proizvodnje (pilanarima) na propisane, a time i ograničene količine šumskih drvnih sortimenata. Više puta smo već napomenuli da drvo kao sirovina svega do 20 % sudjeluje u proizvodnji finalnog proizvoda, pa bi bilo logično potražiti određena olakšanja u proizvodnji kod onih s 80 % toga udjela, a ne isključivo u šumarstvu.
Na kraju, šumarstvo je kao gospodarska grana nastalo prije 2,5 stoljeća upravo zbog bojazni od nestručnog gospodarenja i prekomjernog korištenja šumskih drvnih proizvoda. Danas se, imajući u vidu ovdje rečeno, nameće pitanje: neće li nam uskoro trebati Zakon koji će narediti da se vratimo isključivo struci, s time da sada, kao nekada, neće trebati tražiti visoko­školsko šumarsko obrazovanje, jer ga već 115 godina imamo, ali stečena znanja prisilno sve manje koristimo.
Uredništvo

ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2013 str. 8     <-- 8 -->        PDF

WHERE DID POLITICALLY BASED PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT AND NON-MARKET MANAGEMENT LEAD US
Party-based (political) personnel recruitment in the Ministry and the company Hrvatske Šume Ltd for some time went hand in hand with professional attitudes, but later began to swerve, to be finally almost completely taken over by politi­cal and party interests. The unity of forestry education, science and practice, which had been at the core of every ini­tiative for decades, somehow disappeared in the process. On their climb up the political ladder, many suddenly became the cleverest and the best experts, but in fact utterly forgot the profession and even the promise given at the graduation ceremony that they would apply the acquired knowledge to the best of their possibility. No wonder, then, that the Fimi Media and Planinska affairs took place. The poor perception of the foresters was aided by forestry "guardian angels" from the opposition, who did not discriminate between criticizing their colleagues and criticizing the profession. The ensuing result is the current situation. After the change of govern­ment, new personnel recruitment, proclaimed to be based on expertise, took place. However, the strictly party-biased recruitment continued to adhere to the principle of nepotism (my party, my village, my friend or neighbor), neglecting the profession completely. It is finally clear to all that an at­tack on forestry was launched, since only the most naive believe that the term "forestry" was only accidentally omitted from the name of the relevant Ministry. The Ministry has been without a deputy minister of forestry for almost two months, but nobody blinked an eye. The justified doubt of the professionalism and aptitude for the task by the aforementioned deputy minister were confirmed when he resigned from the post. At the moment, forestry is without a representative, with the current Minister being incapable of coping with agriculture, let alone thinking of forestry. He will not stir from the problem of cows and milk before the prob­lem of wheat assails him.
One hundred and fifteen years ago, some clever people concluded that forestry management required the most highly educated forestry experts instead of those with secondary or college degrees. This was put to practice in 1989, when the Academy of Forestry (today’s Faculty of Forestry) was established as the fourth institution of higher education within the University of Zagreb. This testifies to the fact that exceptional biotechnical knowledge was in high demand even then. Today, however, with some honourable exceptions, what is needed for managerial positions is political allegiance. We are constantly surprised by the fact that forestry experts are being replaced by so-called managers of the general type.
Forestry is a biotechnical science and profession which definitely does not need managers of the "general practitioner" type, and even less those who are sent on duty or who are lured by the rustle of banknotes. In their "political correctness" they completely overlook the principles of sustainable management and the benefits of clean air, pure and stored water, erosion protection, tourist and health services and other non-commercial forest functions. All that matters is profit, even if it is made by not performing or by omitting operations related to biological forest reproduction, by abolishing work posts or cutting down on the employees’ salaries (e.g. by closing down some work posts and relegating employees to lower-ranked positions and much lower salaries). What is the purpose of early retirement and severance money if there is constant complaint that the number of the retired almost equals the number of the employed, what kind of politics raises the age for retirement while only about 17 percent employees manage to reach full retirement age? At the same time, young experts cannot get employment. Why is a company that makes positive business put in the same boat with a company that compiles losses amounting to billions of kuna? Where are the new jobs based on biomass, recreation, sport, tourism and other services, as in Austria, for example? We are getting tired of pointing out that timber is only a classical side product of sustainable forest management. Yet, the profit is constantly based on timber, and what is worse, on non-market principles, since there is no free price formation and no bidding for all available quantities of forest wood products. The final wood product is only a declarative political strategy: it is incompatible to proclaim it and at the same time favour numerous aspirers from primary production (sawmills) by prescribing and limiting the quantities of forest wood assortments. We have stressed more than once that wood as raw material participates in the manufacture of final products with only 20%. It would therefore be logical to seek certain concessions in production among those who participate with 80%, and not exclusively among foresters.
Finally, forestry as an economic branch was established two and a half century ago from fear of inexpert management and overuse of forest wood products. In view of the above, we may well ask ourselves: will we soon need a new Law which will enforce the exclusive return to the profession? This Law will not need to enforce higher forestry education since we have had it for 115 years, but regrettably, we have been forced to apply the acquired knowledge to a much lesser extent.
Editorial Board