Forestry Now

Dermot McNally 0:00
welcome to forestry now, where we explore the forces impacting profitable and sustainable management of commercial forests and natural woodlands. I'm Dermot McNally. In this conversation, I speak with Peter hoshu you. Peter is a licensed forest engineer and founder of forestry brief Europe's premier forestry intelligence service. His twice weekly newsletter serves forestry professionals across the continent and beyond with verify market analysis and regulatory insights. In this conversation, we discuss one of his most widely read articles, which details how the forestry sector lost the PR battle while perfecting sustainability. We discuss how forestry operates in an open factory and the problem this causes, and how the public often equate the clear fell and red plant approach with permanent deforestation. We also chat about how timber production is often viewed negatively, despite how critical it is to our lives and economies. All links as normal in the show notes below and forestry now podcast@gmail.com if you'd like to get in touch now, here's Peter from forestry brief. Peter, thanks very much for joining me. Maybe you'd explain for the listeners who don't know what the forestry brief is about, tell us a

Peter 1:14
little bit about that. Basically, it's a newsletter service and an intelligence service. I'm trying to develop it into that my main product now is a newsletter, which is called the European forestry pulse, which I send out twice a week. It's Tuesday morning and Thursday morning, and basically it covers all that there is about the last week and that week of European forestry also other major markets and major players in the scene, as you have probably seen, I've been covering a lot of US and Canada lately,

Dermot McNally 1:48
maybe we talk about an article you wrote a while back now, this one really got my interest going. You titled it the PR battle. Forestry never fought, yes, how we lost public opinion while perfect and sustainability, in that article, you mentioned that in 1996 the public ranked forestry as more environmentally damaging than the fossil fuel industry, which which is incredible, but this was what the survey showed. Let's start off then by asking, Why do you think, Peter, that a renewable carbon storing sector like the forestry and timber sector, lost this perception battle way back in the 90s. Well, I think

Peter 2:29
that there is something we have a huge lag in and lack of, and that is to basically and just physically, actually tell the public what we are doing and how that's impacting their world and our world and our common world as well. Unfortunately, we live in a world where it's not enough to be someone. You also have to be perceived as someone. In our case, it's not enough to be managing forests in a sustainable way, you also have to be perceived as someone who manages forests in a sustainable way. In order to do that, you have to communicate your values. And I think we assumed that it's just gonna tell the story itself and tell the story for itself, and it didn't, because we have left a huge communication gap, a vacuum, and that vacuum is going to be filled by anyone who's willing to communicate about forest and forestry, and if we are not willing to do it ourselves, then someone else is going to pick up that narrative and shape and turn it in a way that's favorable to them and not us. So if we don't communicate about forestry proactively, someone else is going to do that. And we've seen that take shape in the last 42 to 50 years, and it's not really favoring foresters and

Dermot McNally 3:42
forestry that resonates in Ireland. Here we've, we've definitely have had a perception issue, and trust is being eroded, not so much by what we're doing, by as much as the lack of understanding of what we do. I think now in your article, you note that some of the nature NGOs basically filled the storytelling gap about forestry. What specifically are they doing? Or have they done that the forestry sector failed to replicate? Maybe you might have examples or ideas there to explain.

Peter 4:16
Yes, I would say that PR and communication is a profession in itself. I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but in Hungary, for example, where I'm from, we have a saying that foresters know everything, and we know everything better, of course. So we like to portray ourselves as being very competent people, and I think we are, because we are dealing with very different aspects of forestry. So there's the biological, ecological aspect, the economical, everything else. So it's a very it's a very complex topic, and it requires a lot of time to be a good forester and a lot of patients. But we just forgot that PR and communication itself is a different profession than forestry, and if you're not educated and don't know. Basics, then we are not going to be able to show and tell the public what we do and why it's important. I think we haven't forgotten, but we have not considered the fact that we are basically storytelling animals. The easiest way to communicate something is not through data or an Excel sheet or, you know, showing certifications or whatever. First of all, we don't provide any context to that. And second of all, you have to think, and you have to exert some mental capacity to get the message, to understand the message. It's much easier to communicate in feelings and emotions, because that's visceral, that's instant, and that's what the NGOs are very good at, especially those who are quite loud against forestry, because they are not foresters. They are basically storytellers. They include many journalists, and some of them are actually created and established by journalists who know how to tell a good story and what to tell and what's going to resonate and what's not going to resonate. So I think there is really a lack there from our side to learn from them and probably not perceive them as enemies, but someone who just filled the gap intentionally or unintentionally that we left behind or we left and we can either learn from them, or, you know, there's a very contrarian thought of mine that we could probably, you know, cooperate with them and just Make them help us tell our story.

Dermot McNally 6:22
Is there any particular NGOs in that stand out for you as having maybe influenced the public quite heavily? Peter, yeah, there are a few.

Peter 6:31
So, for example, Greenpeace is very good at that, not especially forestry. But when, when you take a look at their ships, how they are trying to hinder, for example, the whalers in doing their activities. That's something that looks very good on camera. But if you take a look at the first re angle, what we have is usually FSC labels or, you know, yield tables and stuff like that, and and they just bring baby orangutans and show them on TV, you know, how they lose their habitat or their home. That's something that is instantly understandable and instantly visceral, even if the narrative itself is probably not the same in Borneo as it is in Europe. You're hitting

Dermot McNally 7:09
on something here. We'll say Asian or Brazilian or Amazonian locations. Do you think the public confuse deforestation there, which is often unmanaged and unsustainable, with how we manage forests in Europe?

Peter 7:23
Sustainably? Yes, absolutely. And I think there's a big mistake what we have made in not distinguishing ourselves from these activities. Sustainable forestry. Managed forestry, should be the spearhead of fighting illegal logging and deforestation. So if you take a look at what's happening, the first step is the same. Basically, if you take a look at the clear cut, at a clear cut and the deforestation site, the trees get removed, it's very ugly to be blunt. And if you take a look at the landscape itself, it looks like a scar. And that's very easy to communicate in one picture. You know that's that's a very visceral, strong feeling. The thing that we forgot to communicate is what happens afterwards. Because in deforestation, you either create a cattle ranch, there a parking lot, a hotel or something that is not a forest, but if you do a clear cut harvesting method, for example, in a site, then that site gets replanted, reforested, and in five years, you're going to see seedlings and saplings, and in 10 years you're going to see a young forest. And that's something we forgot to communicate, and that's something that the other side of the storytelling bunch, the NGOs, of course, don't communicate as well. I wouldn't accuse them for not telling the entire story, but the two things look identical, but they're not the same, and it should be our job to emphasize the differences and what we do different.

Dermot McNally 8:50
I notice it here. You make me think about a lot of the forestry companies that we see operating in Anglosphere, world where we're speaking English, and they'll put up lovely pictures of forests. They'll put up planting pictures. They'll put up, you know, maintenance, maybe a little bit of the harvesting stuff. But there is that moment when the forest has been clear cut, when it is quite a jarring site, when you see the broken branches on the ground. And I guess what maybe you're saying here is we haven't taken ownership of that, and we haven't explained how we turn that into the

Peter 9:24
next forest. Yes, absolutely, that's actually one thing. And the other thing is that we don't communicate until someone speaks to us. So we don't proactively communicate that, hey, there's going to be a clear cut here in two years, because this and this and this and that would what you see here, what's going to be harvested is going to be your chair and your paper and your pizza package and whatever. Because there's another general lack of connecting the dots in the general public. Many people don't really think where their paper and their furniture and their houses come from. They think that it. From a store, from Ikea, but it comes from the forest, and we have a lack of communication on this part as well. So we have to make people aware that in order to enjoy their everyday life and their conveniences, trees just have to be cut, and we are going to replant them, of course. But you know, it's, I think it's, it's not a very good idea to say that, hey, don't cut, don't touch your forest. Don't cut trees, because that's a crime. Well, I call it the debt forest provides, because there's, you know, the seesaw forestry on one side of the scale, there's the living forest, which provides ecosystem services, recreation, water filtration and just what a general living forest provides. And on the other side of the scale, there's the what I call, or referred to as the debt forest, which is basically timber. And people don't really put the equal sign in this question, and they don't really connect the dots. And I think that's something we should be communicating a bit more proactively. And you've

Dermot McNally 11:01
a great way of explaining it there, because you're right about forestry having an open factory, a factory where the public can walk in. And I think that's that's really good, because if they walked into an abattoir to see where their burger was coming from, they may not like to eat the meat, but they don't see that. So explain that idea that you came up with the open factory? Peter, yes.

Peter 11:23
So basically, we don't just allow people to come to the forest. We encourage them to do so because, you know, a forest is a lovely site, but it's also a it's an operational site which is designated in my country, for example. So, so every Hungarian forest which is not a protected one, but meant for timber production is designated an operating site, and it's, of course, open, and you're not going to be, you know, chased out by some, some security guard or something, but there is industrial scale sometimes operations going on there. It's basically a very long time planned rotation cycle, what we see there. But since it takes a very long time for a rotation cycle in the forest to complete, people just don't have the same scale and the same understanding of, for example, like a wheat field, because that's one year, our rotation period is at least 30 or 40, and that's the shortest amount I can I can name. It's more akin to to a century. And people just don't comprehend these differences. So they are encouraged to go to basically an open factory, which is there first of all to provide ecosystem services, of course, but it's also there to provide wood back to the point of being able to produce wood at home, we could say that, Hey, don't touch our forests, and they're only going to be designated for ecosystem services. But demand for wood in society is so big, and we don't even realize that, that it's going to be something like with the EVS, that if you don't cut wood locally and source it sustainably, it's going to be sourced from somewhere else in the world, which don't have as strict regulation, for example, as Europe has, and it's going to be like the EV you know, it doesn't have any local emissions. But in order to put a battery together, there are some small hands in the Congo, which are very tired at the end of the day from mining. And I think it's not a very wise idea to do the same with with forests. So in order to protect your forests, source your wood from somewhere else. That's not a not a good idea. So basically, people come to the forest and see an open factory. There are usually and generally no explanatory signs. There's no forester there to tell them what they see. So they try to get their information from wherever they can, and if we don't proactively provide them with information, especially on very difficult topics of force three, because, you know, it's it's so complex that it can't be explained in like a Tiktok video, or it can't be explained in a Facebook post or an infographic. These are very complex topics. I think we just assumed that the product itself and the service itself. What we are doing, managing forests sustainably, is so good that it's going to sell itself, but it doesn't, because we live in our small, little bubble, and we know what we do. But the rest of the society doesn't live in our bubble. They just visit the forest from time to time, and they want to have, you know, bird song and greenery and fresh air and everything else. And if they see that someone's cutting down a tree, and they don't get the right explanation why that's happening, and if it's going to grow back and what's going to happen with that tree, they're going to assume what they assume. Now, basically, especially if they have some some contradicting information coming from the NGO side, for example, then they just are going to assume that the biggest enemy of the forest is the forester. And that ties back to the 96 survey you have

Dermot McNally 14:53
mentioned before. If you're interested in advertising your organization to forest owners and forestry professionals, get in touch to find out more. Four. Similarly, if you have a service topic or news item that should be covered in the podcast, please do feel free to get in touch. Now, back to the chat with Peter from forestry. Brief, do we make life hard for ourselves by not being honest, though? Because I think when we plant a monoculture in a plantation format, let's be honest, timber is the primary output there. And I think at times, perhaps we're trying to tell ourselves or tell them, that the primary objective is, is ecosystem services, but it isn't really. Has that failed? Do we need to just take ownership and say timber production is number one in this forestry, but we do get all these ecosystem services at the same time.

Peter 15:45
Yes, I think that there shouldn't be a this and that at the same time narrative, because that's what actually happens. If you just take a look at the plantation level. You plant the plantation itself, which is like a single age, maybe short rotation plantation, which is like 30 years in our terms, or 40. They the trees do provide ecosystem services while they're alive, but their main purpose to be alive is to become timber and to satisfy the timber requirements and needs of society. And there's also another quick question, just that I want to emphasize on that. I'm not pointing fingers at society. But if you take a look at the question of why illegal logging exists in Europe and other parts of the world as well, there may be more widespread. It's basically because timber is so valuable that people are willing to sacrifice livelihoods, jail time and their life for getting it. And you know, why is the value there? Because, well, because society needs it, and they're willing to pay huge amounts for that. So I think that answers the question of why we need to cut trees and we either do it sustainably and manage forests sustainably, or someone else is going to do it, who's probably not that sustainable or sustainably oriented as we are,

Dermot McNally 17:01
the UK and Ireland have a challenge in that the most productive species are non native species. They're the Sitka spruce, they're the Norway spruce. And these species find it challenging to be managed in anything other than a clear fell rotation, in in on exceptionally good ground and with the right management, a continuous cover forestry approach, or a closer to nature approach, is possible.

Peter 17:27
Sorry, yeah, just just one, one idea or one thought to that. We have the same issue in Hungary, basically. So we do have a lot of nature conservation areas, and 60% of nature conservation areas forest land, but we have one species which rules them all. Basically, it's black locust or robinia. That's an American species that's considered native, but it's still one of the most productive forest species in Hungary and in Central Europe. So I think we should make a clear distinction on why we establish different forest stands. So first of all, being more nature conservation aligned, and being more, you know, protecting more old growth, for example, that's very important. Creating forest stands which are native and which are probably not designated for primary wood production would be a good idea. And communicating this thoroughly, and also emphasizing that in order to satisfy the wood needs, or timber needs of UK or Irish society, you have to use plantations as well. And just take a look at the plantation, how quick that grows and that actually satisfies demand which otherwise had to be satisfied from old growth or close to nature or continuous cover forestry stands. So I think that's a narrative shift here. What we are still not really making, or not really making our own,

Dermot McNally 18:50
yeah, you know, we've had major mistakes in the UK and Ireland, where we planted conifers on deep peat and ground that wasn't very suitable, and in many cases it it seems to have caused more damage. Some of the trees haven't grown that there wasn't the nutrient in the soil. And that's that's an ongoing debacle, really, that seems to pull the industry backwards into dealing with trees that were planted in the wrong place, but that seems to have contaminated trees that were planted in the right place, on the right ground, and people see them all in the same light. Have you that issue in in Hungary Peter where, okay, it's a plantation, but it should never have been planted there? Is that? Is that happening in your country

Peter 19:41
as well. Yes, it's actually happening with black locust. We also have some specificities regarding history. So after trying on, two thirds of Hungary was basically taken away and given to other countries.

Dermot McNally 19:55
Sorry, Peter, that's after World War Two. World War One. World War

Peter 19:59
One, it got it. Bit shifted during World War Two. But after World War Two, we've been put back to the original in air quotes borders, which is the current borders of Hungary. And within that, we lost 85% of first land. So most of them was, of course, the Carpathians and the Transylvanian part of current Romania, and we've been left with like 10% or 12% of forest land in the entire area of Hungary, which is mostly low land and plains. And these forests were not very of high quality. And then we had socialism, of course, for 40 years, which, well, was a big challenge in and of itself, the way of thinking back then was that we have to conquer nature, and we're going to do that and so on. You probably have heard a lot of things which which have been going on in the Soviet Union as well. We had something similar in Hungarian forestry. And actually the silviculture part is very remarkable. So we managed to double the forest land until, like recently, I think it was 2010 or so when we reached 20% of first land in Hungary. But we have also, for example, created conifer stands which were not even suitable back then. On the stable climate, what I would or what many, many Hungarian professionals called a stable climate. They weren't very suitable for being planted in the first place. And now that we have this very rapid climate change, and also our part is mostly desertification, because we live in a basin, and we used to have a lot of wetlands, but in the last 150 years, to credo and the direction was to dry it out as much as possible in order to be used as farmland. And these wetlands are basically very fertile farmlands, but we have been doing water management in a way that we just tried to train the basin as much as possible. And now that we have climate change and this poor management of water, we are basically desert defying the Great Plains. So many, many forest stands in like the 1000s of hectares are drying out because they have no groundwater, and they're just just drying and falling and that's it, and the forest is gone. So yeah, there are some, some similar challenges

Dermot McNally 22:19
here as well, yeah. And just to talk about that, what's the approach there? I mean, is the approach to remove the trees and plant a more suitable species that can cope with the drought, or is it to remove the trees and return it to wetland? Or what's what's the thinking in Hungary?

Peter 22:36
It's basically a mixed approach. So first of all, we have the obligation to to reforest. That's that has been in in law for 250 years or so in Central Europe, going back to Maria Theresa. So what is Forest? Or what was forest and is is designated as forest by law in Hungary, has to be reforested in two years. And that's quite a challenge if you don't have the climate climatic conditions to do so. So we are trying to to species changes as well, and trying to get water back on the Great Plains as much as possible. And this is not just a Forestry Initiative. It's also very or it would be favorable for Nature Conservation and agriculture in itself, because we are losing water like, like, there's no tomorrow, really. So there's a joint effort now to to re wet the wetlands, basically, and re wet the Great Plains. It's not going to be easy, because we also have, you know, politics involved. We also have old ways of thinking which should have changed, because the reality surrounding it has already changed with the climate change aspect, of course. So it's not that easy, and we are basically fighting the same battles, the poor PR and communication management side, the very bad reputation of forestry in Hungary. So, yeah, actually, we're trying to battle that and join forces with all the few 1000 people who are dealing with forestry in Hungary, but we're lagging behind, like, like, 30 years. And it's not just in Hungary, I think it's, it's the same almost everywhere in Europe and and also North America. Of course, there are some very, very good examples. And this is going to be my next piece on the communication pillar, which is coming out, I think next Friday or so. The stories we forgot to tell, you know, the achievements of forestry. It's been already published in for doc, but I'm going to publish it on my site and on forestry brief as well. And then there's going to be a few things regarding communication coming down the pipeline, because I've done a communication playbook for the Hungarian Forestry Association in Hungarian, of course, for just general foresters, and I want to do something similar in English for my readers. But just to come

Dermot McNally 24:58
back to the PR. Aspect, we've identified that in many parts of Europe and further afield, there is a PR deficit where the forestry industry lost the narrative. But why do you think the industry as a whole was so reluctant to invest in professional communication when when it was clear that we were losing the narrative? Well, I

Peter 25:18
think it wasn't as clear until now. And I think we just assumed that, you know, a good product or a good story is going to sell itself, and we don't have to put more effort into telling our story in a more professional way. I think we just assumed that the yield tables and the Excel sheets and everything else are going to be enough. There's some news flash for you. An Excel sheet is not a good story, especially without without context. So I think we just forgot to realize how important the public perception is and how important a good story is. And we actually do have a good story, so we don't have to to borrow from anyone or, you know, exaggerate or anything, we just should tell our story as it is, but in a good way.

Dermot McNally 26:06
In the article, you also suggest that industry should speak up more clearly about nature conservation. But when this has happened in the past, the industry has been accused of greenwashing. So how do we prove or tell the story about our green credentials without being accused of greenwashing.

Peter 26:24
Well, I think the first step would be to just sit down and acknowledge that we are not perfect and that we do have mistakes, and we have mistakes, and I think it would be very favorable to, well, stop battling everyone else who is trying to sell a counter narrative, and just sit down, realize that we do have a common goal, which is to sustain forest as much as possible, and try to work together, first of all, making that happen, and second, on telling the story, especially including people who are good at storytelling and not at forestry, because we have been taking very, very good professionals who are very good foresters, who are biologists, ecologists, economists, scientists. And we expected them to tell a good story by themselves, but we never taught them how to tell a good story. Because, you know, as I said, PR and communication are a profession in themselves. As of now, I don't really think there is a communication curriculum in any of the big forestry schools. However, since we are, for example, in Hungary, managing 60% of state owned forest land, which is basically the forest of Hungarian people and the public, we have no ways of communicating with them because we don't know how to do it effectively. But we should, because we are basically managing

Dermot McNally 27:43
their forests. One suggestion you have is that the industry could collaborate with conservation groups. Have you any examples of what a successful partnership could look like or or what do you think that might gain? Oh, well, actually,

Peter 27:56
I do have a few good projects from Hungary with WWF and in Bulgaria, for example, just that I know of. But what I suggest is not just to cooperate with NGOs, but to cooperate in the industry itself. Because we are so fragmented, small stakeholders and small companies with a few people or a few employees don't really have a common narrative to tell. They don't really have a common message to pass on, and they don't really know how to do that effectively, and they are expected to do it. And as I referred to it's probably not in this article, but it's coming down the line. Then every Forester is a PR person, whether they want or not, or whether they like it or not. So you either do PR knowingly and consciously and and try to do it in the best way, or you just do it unconsciously by by, you know, letting things happen. I don't think that the latter approaches is a good one. Of course, there are good initiatives from FAO, from the FC and the first three communicators network, but we should establish a common ground on what to tell and how to

Dermot McNally 29:00
tell it. Are you looking to buy or sell a forest in Ireland? Or maybe just wondering what, broadly from conifer forests are making on the open market? If so, then take a look at Forest sales.ie. Where you'll find forests across Ireland, and all the information you need to make an offer. Now back to the chat with Peter. Not only I suppose, are we dealing with the loss of trust in some cases of society who don't think we're managing for as well. But you describe that, the the EU, Dr regulations, as the price for lost trust, and that's happening right now at the minute. Maybe you jump on to that Peter and explain why you think that there's almost an element of punishment, or that's one of the really tangible consequence of what has happened over the

Peter 29:47
last 30 years. What I would say is, or how I see things, is that if people don't understand something, and if an industry can't really portray their values, they're not going. Be entrusted of managing valuable products or very variable things like forests. Forests are getting in the limelight right now, which is very good for its own sake, but it's also probably not the best, because people and stakeholders and policymakers as well who are lacking the general understanding of how forests work and what to expect from them, think that they're going to be the silver bullet for climate change, and they're going to solve everything, and it's, of course, very precious and valuable, but they don't really know why that is how to increase that value, and they just think that the forester, by cutting down trees, is doing something bad. If these people elect policymakers, they're going to elect those policymakers who basically have the same views as I just explained. And if the policymakers are also lacking the general understanding of what we do and why it is important that we do it, and if they have the same unclear understanding of confusing, for example, deforestation with a clear cut. Then there, of course, are going to make legislations that are similar to UDR, where you have to where you basically have a very watchful eye on what you're doing, and you have to prove over and over again that what you're doing is not harmful. It's not deforestation, it's sustainable management, and the product you're getting onto the market that doesn't involve anything with deforestation. So if people and policymakers, who are people, of course, as well, lack the general understanding of what we do and lack the general understanding of the value of first three as an industry and as as a profession, then they're going to inflict different policies and different legislations on us, which force us to show them that we are compliant with what they want us to achieve and how they want us to manage forest, and eudr, in itself, is not a burden, because we have to abide by the law. Because I think that anyone who debates the goal of UDR is just plain stupid, and they shouldn't really be in forestry. But the problem is that it's access, paperwork, access, administration and things we have to do and and laws we have to abide, which wouldn't be the case if the people would generally understand what we do and why it's important for them and for forests.

Dermot McNally 32:35
So you're saying that if, if we had have got our our messaging right, that perhaps EU Dr wouldn't be as onerous on us to implement.

Peter 32:44
Yes, and that was actually the case before. So I heard a few things regarding this legislation, that they wanted to be the inside of the EU and joint countries exempt from the UDR. But then they said. Or the outside parties from outside of the EU said that, hey, this is not going to be very fair towards us, so please abide by your own rules. But if we could prove and show that Europe enforced are managed sustainably, which is actually the case supported by numbers, then we wouldn't have to abide by the same laws as, for example, I don't know, Central African countries or or countries which are generally more susceptible to, well, not really transparent ways of dealing with forestry.

Dermot McNally 33:34
And maybe we'll move on to this aspect. In Ireland, forestry is quite heavily regulated. You need a felon license. You must replant to get planning. In the first case, there's, there's quite an amount of assessment that goes on. And you've mentioned some countries where there's a replanting obligation in Europe as well. So, so really, it sounds like in most European countries, we're doing everything right anyway, but EU, Dr is a kind of a it's another way of confirming that, or what?

Peter 34:07
Yeah, I think so. So it's basically the legislative obligation to confirm of what you're doing is actually legit, and what you're doing is actually not harming forests and forestry. But if this would be common knowledge that what we do is actually not harming forests and forestry, and for example, the amount of forest and the area of forests is growing in the EU day by day, and it has been growing on like a level, which is Hungary and Slovakia combined. I don't have the number in front of me right now, but it's it's a huge amount of square kilometers annually and in every decade, then we wouldn't have to apply these very strict rules and administration obligations on ourselves before we

Dermot McNally 34:55
finish up here. Maybe Peter, you'd give listeners details on where they can find out more about your work and the services you offer.

Peter 35:02
Yeah, thank you. Happy to do so. So basically, I'm running first rebrief. It's a one man show for now. The website is first rebrief.com a landing page for the newsletter. If you sign up, you're going to get the European first repulse twice a week in your inbox for free. You're going to get the professional issues every Friday in your inbox for free as well. So it's basically connected. You can find me on on LinkedIn, which is first reprieve on LinkedIn. It's very good to deal with forests on a daily basis, but I'm trying to make this a full time job, so I decided to to offer different services as well, and that's the forestry briefing. So I used to say that the brief is free, but the briefing is not. So if you have anything that you're interested in from your aspect, from your industry, whether you're in forestry, and want to know what different countries are doing, whether you're a non forestry but forestry related industry stakeholder. I'm going to present, for example, at one Ifrah, the convention in Rotterdam, which is the World Association of print magazines. They're of course, interested in first three from a paper supply. And you know what's going to happen. Aspect I'm going to present there, for example. From their aspect, I'm also getting into first three investments lately and just trying to make sense of the entire playground of the industry, if anyone wants to have a custom first rebrief. So to say that's going to be a first re briefing, and you can hire me for custom research, business intelligence. You can also go hire me for communication projects. Because, as I said, I literally wrote a book about that on in Hungarian for the Hungarian Association, and I'm doing the English version for first rebrief, which is going to be available there in a few weeks. My general approach to everything I do, also the brief and the briefings, is basically to ask questions, even if it's inconvenient. I don't really accept the consensus at face value. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I just want to know if what we do is the best we can do so if you need someone or a consultant who is not agreeing right away with your other consultants, that's going to be me. I think that the best way what we can do is to come together, join forces, network as much as possible, try to break down language barriers and different other aspects that fragment the industry that much. And this is what I'm trying to do with first reprieve myself, because you don't have to reinvent the wheel all the time. You can just look at how other countries or other industries have done something and try to make the best out of that, or just ask for help. For example, that's that's something we we don't do very often. I think as forestry gets into the limelight more and more, by the general public, by policymakers in the EU for example, we're going to have to have a clear message on what we do, on why we are valuable, because if people don't see our value as foresters and as professionals, we're going to be forgotten and we're going to be ruled out of existence. So to say, I know these are very harsh words, but it has happened in the past, and if you have constantly bad PR, that's not very good for your health and the industry. And I think that we do have a very important job to do with managing forests sustainably. I wouldn't say it's a burden, but it's it's not easy, obviously, and we have to get it right, and it's much easier to do it

Dermot McNally 38:54
together than on your own. Thanks for listening today's chat with Peter from Pharisee. Brief. If you enjoyed today's conversation, please like or read it wherever you listen, and please share it with someone who might be interested. Bye, for now, you.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai