Cav's Place

Overall, it was a pretty good edition, with few poor or poorly performed entries. None truly stood out, however, and I can’t say which deserved to win more, or even which I’d have actually wanted to win, due to reasons I’ll explain a little more below, when I’ll go through my top picks. There were a few entries which should have been in the final and didn’t make it, however.
Rather like last year, I once again didn’t bother at all with this before March, and even after that point I didn’t follow news or reports and didn’t watch any images from the rehearsals. Unlike last year, however, I did listen to all entries carefully before the competition, most of them more than once and some quite a number of times. You can even say that a few more or less made it into my regular playlist over these past two months and a half, as I even got rather stuck on them for a while.

Sweden’s victory was clearly in good part thanks to the show value, as the song, while nice, was not quite one of the best. Still, I don’t exactly disagree with the result, as the overall package was definitely one worthy of fighting for victory. In fact, if they’d have added some more people on stage I may have been inclined to add another point to the show rating, which would have boosted the entry to the top of my classification as well, but with only one person visible I couldn’t do that.
Russia had a good song and, while the performance was static, they did enough for a decent show value as well. Good message as well, but you’ll excuse me if I have a certain unpleasant reaction when I see something like that from Russia at the moment, and I definitely feared the consequences of a Russian victory while this entry was leading.
Italy had one of the best songs in the competition and it may have ended up at the top of my classification in a number of ways, the most obvious being if it’d have had some actual show value on stage as well. However, there were also some slips which I had to take into account at least to some extent, even though it was obvious that they had sound problems and may have been unable to hear themselves while they were singing. And there’s also the fact that they didn’t sing in English, though I’m not sure that would have made me do more than add a positive modifier to their marks, which wouldn’t have changed their rank.
I have absolutely no idea what Belgium is doing in fourth place, as I placed them last in the final and next to last in their semifinal. Disliked the song itself, didn’t see particular qualities being proven by the performance overall and other than filling the stage with dancers there was no notable show value, not even making any real use of the screens and lights.
And couldn’t exactly say what Australia is doing in fifth either, though the fact that they can finally enter the competition definitely counted for something. Still, unlike Belgium, there was some show value, albeit not necessarily in a good way in my view, and the song was all right, if still nothing I’d care about.

My ranking system is still the same, giving one mark for song and another for show value, plus a positive, neutral or negative modifier, and ranking first according to the overall mark that is the result of averaging the song and show ones, then according to the song mark and then, if both marks are equal, according to the modifier. In case all three are equal, the ranking is the result of me trying to quickly compare the performances in question at the end.
Once again, still largely for my own use, I’ll list all the information here, with the first number being the position in my classification, the one between parentheses that follows it being the actual position, the first number that follows the country name being the overall mark, the second being the song mark and the modifier, if not neutral, being listed at the end. All links are from the official channel, so they shouldn’t vanish.

1. (14.) Slovenia (7, 7.5, plus)
2. (21.) Spain (7, 7)
3. (3.) Italy (6.75, 7.5)
4. (2.) Russia (6.75, 7)
5. (1.) Sweden (6.75, 6.5, plus)
6. (10.) Serbia (6.75, 6.5)
7. (27.) Austria (6.75, 6.5)
8. (19.) Greece (6.5, 7.5, plus)
9. (8.) Norway (6.5, 7)
10. (25.) France (6.5, 7, minus)
11. (7.) Estonia (6.5, 6.5, plus)
12. (20.) Hungary (6.5, 6.5, plus)
13. (23.) Poland (6.5, 6.5, plus)
14. (16.) Armenia (6.5, 6.5, plus)
15. (12.) Azerbaijan (6.5, 6.5)
16. (15.) Romania (6.5, 6.5, minus)
17. (18.) Lithuania (6.5, 6, plus)
18. (5.) Australia (6.5, 6)
19. (24.) United Kingdom (6.5, 5.5)
20. (11.) Georgia (6.25, 6.5, plus)
21. (13.) Montenegro (6.25, 6.5, plus)
22. (26.) Germany (6.25, 6, plus)
23. (22.) Cyprus (6, 6.5, plus)
24. (17.) Albania (6, 6, plus)
25. (6.) Latvia (6, 6)
26. (9.) Israel (6, 5.5, minus)
27. (4.) Belgium (5.75, 5.5, plus)

My ranking matched the actual results in case of Italy, was one place off for Cyprus, Lithuania, Norway and Romania, two places off for Armenia and Russia and three places off for Azerbaijan. On the other hand, I was at least ten places off for Australia, France, Greece, Israel, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia and Spain and even 20 or more places off for Austria and Belgium.
As for the semifinals, I must say they were rather different. The first was clear and easy for me, as I wanted exactly ten songs to get through, with a clear separation between them and the other six, and the only difference, albeit an upsetting one, was to see Belgium take the place of Netherlands. From the second, on the other hand, I’d have really wanted to see no less than 12 again in the final and wouldn’t have minded three or even four others, leaving just one that I clearly didn’t want. To compare just the top ten, I’d have picked Czech Republic, Ireland and San Marino instead of Cyprus, Israel and Latvia, though with Cyprus being dropped down the order due to the complete lack of show value I didn’t mind it taking the place of San Marino, which could have been performed much better. Czech Republic seemed to have one of the best songs in the competition, on the other hand, and Ireland was definitely in the upper part as well, so it was annoying to say the least to see them replaced by that crap from Israel and a Latvian entry which, while admittedly valuable and well performed, simply didn’t suit my tastes at all.

And now, as usual, let me briefly explain my top ten picks.
Slovenia simply got stuck in my mind as soon as I first heard it. Not a genre I’d listen to otherwise, but her voice was definitely different. I was quite sure it won’t actually be fighting for one of the top places and being first in the final didn’t help either, but it simply stuck in my mind, I listened to it a lot of times and had this idea that if she’ll perform it properly they’ll probably only have Italy to fear as far as I’m concerned. And since it was performed well, at least in the final, and I was saying that no entry truly stood out, I went with it.
I was uncertain about Spain as I listened to it before the competition, being a quite simple song relying on a few bits showing off her voice, but she sure did show it off in the final and the show value was higher than what many others could come up with despite having only two people on stage and one trying to stay mostly hidden away. Again, with nothing truly standing out, this seemed to me to have good enough elements to fight for a top position.
Mentioned Italy above already, so not sure what else to add. Again, any actual show value on stage would have likely taken them to the top spot for me, and a flawless performance may, possibly, have done the same. It is possible that the sound issues they obviously had decided the winner in the actual competition as well, and I’m quite sure they decided second place.
Already said what I had to say about Russia as well, so won’t repeat. Like last year, did my best to rate the song and performance while ignoring my reaction to the country and I believe I managed it well enough, but have to say I’m quite relieved they didn’t win.
Same issue of having already said what I had to say for Sweden as well. Was it a deserved winner? Possibly, and definitely is one I don’t mind at all as far as the overall package goes, but there were quite a few better songs and I’d have liked more people on stage… Which makes me wonder whether those I saw at the end, when he was singing the song again, were simply some members of the crew or the actual backing singers who had been hidden away for some reason during the actual performance. Though I’m far from certain, if I’d have seen them on stage during the competition as well, I may have picked Sweden as the winner too.
Serbia had a quite good song, again with a good message, and it definitely was performed well as well. Was quite bothered by that change of pace for the last part, however, and that dropped it a few places in my classification.
Austria… I’m not sure anymore, especially after seeing them finish last, with zero points. It was an all right song, far from one of the best but definitely better than at least a few, and likely several, others in my view, and the burning piano definitely offered some show value. I may have taken that into account a little too much, however.
Greece I am sure about, on the other hand, and I wished I could have ranked it even higher. It was one of the better songs of the competition, being a well performed typical but proper ballad, the issue being the lack of show value.
Norway had another good song, and probably the best duet left since the great Czech entry for some reason didn’t make it out of the semifinal and Estonia didn’t quite seem at the level I initially thought it may be at after listening to the studio version. There were a few better songs, however, and there wasn’t much notable interaction between the two, so the performance didn’t have much real show value either.
As for France, good song, but I would have dropped it lower down the order if not for those drummers showing up at least at the end. Too little and too late, however, and if you add the fact that it was in French, otherwise entirely static and, if I’m to think about it again now, in the end quite unremarkable, I have to say I’m not surprised it ended up so low.

This will be short, but I just wanted to say that I got this week’s run out of the way yesterday and decided to go for 5000 meters, so 12 laps and a half, instead of 4000. A part of the reason was that, since I forgot my watch the last two times and couldn’t compare my times with certainty anymore, especially considering the sprints and that obviously particularly fast final lap I managed two weeks ago, I should just move to another stage and start over, but the more important reason was that I was already considering to stick to 5000 meters in under 30 minutes as regular training in order to perhaps take part in a ten kilometer race within a year or so, and an event that included a half-marathon, a ten kilometer “individual race” and a three and a half kilometer “popular race” just took place.
Though the kitchen was, as it frequently tends to happen, blocked before I left and I therefore ran after eating only the last three squares of a chocolate I had in my room, the time was 28:22 or so as I crossed the line, though I stopped the watch a few steps later and it said 28:23.75. Add the possibility of having started it slightly before crossing the start line and I rounded to about 28:20, to stick to the usual rule of rounding to the nearest value divisible by five seconds. The time for 4000 meters was about 23:12, so not the best, and the final lap took me just over 1:50, so clearly the fastest one I actually timed so far but I know it was still noticeably slower than the one I managed two weeks ago, which I didn’t time. It must, however, be noted that I stuck to the first lane most of the time, since the track was almost clear, while my other timed runs were mostly on the second, which required covering a slightly greater distance.

Also yesterday, I decided to finally start reading The Name of the Wind, though I can safely say I already dropped the idea of also finishing it by the end of the week, since I only read 53 pages yesterday and none at all so far today. With my mood still being what it is and Eurovision also taking up three evenings, the final also taking up the whole night since I’ll once gain try to do what I usually do and post my thoughts about this year’s edition before going to bed, it would have been difficult either way, but last evening one of the activists also pointed us to some materials to read and I also can’t seem to just let everyone else sort it out and take myself out of this whole mess for too long despite saying that I will just about every day, when all my attempts to get people to work together and at least try to get along again fall on deaf ears on all sides. And when you also add the fact that I’m exhausted but still sleep so poorly, everything looks bad. But, at least when it comes to the book, there’s no rush, is there?

A few other small related protests took place, both before and after last week’s march, but I’m not actually getting back to writing full “protest reports” and in fact I didn’t even search for that much additional information, so I’ll simply skip those. I won’t however, skip two particular events that took place this week and which should have helped us and the cause significantly, but ended up harming instead, greatly in case of the latter. Not that this is unusual or unexpected, unfortunately, but the kind of alliance which had been formed for this purpose did offer some reason to hope that some things could change, at least temporarily.

The first event I’m talking about is the United We Save Community Forum, which took place Monday. These Forums, which I heard were initially, in the autumn of 2013, called Plenaries, are meetings usually held in bars or clubs where the important decisions should be made. At first they were public and anyone could take part, but seeing as I knew I wouldn’t be able to say anything face to face I never attended one at the time, and eventually they stopped being public after the attendance had grown to unmanageable numbers. However, last autumn, after the elections and after the group had somewhat settled on this decision to break away from the administrators of the United We Save page and form the United We Save Community, it was announced that these meetings will once again be public and I have attended every one of them since, if only in order to be informed of what was to happen.
To return to what happened Monday, the 45 or so people who attended made it the biggest Forum in a long time, only the first one or two after they were made public again having perhaps a similar attendance, at least from what I recall. In addition, this was taking place two days after a particularly successful event, representatives of a number of major NGOs were present and the topic was clearly specified as deciding the next steps of this effort to protect forests, plus that one could have easily assumed that the attendants would feel more serious and responsible after the first part of the meeting was dedicated to the former general manager of the Romanian Geological Institute, who was present to tell us how he and others who refused to change their positions regarding the dangers of fracking and cyanide mining were abusively removed from their positions and how he has since survived what he sees as two assassination attempts, and which definitely seemed to at the very least be very determined attempts to frighten him into silence. As such, despite knowing the mess such Forums tend to turn into, there was reason to believe it will be at least somewhat different.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t, and after the first part mentioned above, which either way ended with a few becoming rather angry, people were once again talking over each other, adding topics or jumping from one to another, delaying discussing the May 16 protest until it ended up being pretty much ignored during the meeting itself and some volunteered to form a separate group and meet at a different time to discuss the matter. Worse, however, was that, in typical fashion, accusations started flying, a few activists vehemently attacking the representatives of some of the major NGOs and the meeting ending in what was pretty much a pointless scandal despite all the efforts of the more reasonable members. A dialogue group meant to bridge the differences between what Alex called the “disorganized” civil society and the “organized” NGOs was formed, but later events prove that, at least so far, it definitely failed in its purpose.

By “later events” I’m referring to all the arguments and accusations that still continue, but most of all to the way the great opportunity offered Wednesday evening, when several activists were invited on a prime time talk show, was turned into a terribly damaging mess. Instead of displaying a united front and making a clear and persuasive case for our objectives and the next steps to take while also explaining, as was agreed on Monday, that the specific demands released are still a work in progress and the less immediate ones are likely to suffer changes and clarifications as a result of the continued discussions between the “disorganized” activists and the major NGOs, what people got to see was a crusade launched by Maria, occasionally backed up by Hetti and one other person I didn’t know, against the WWF representative who was also invited, others who weren’t even there to defend themselves and pretty much everyone else who didn’t share their views to the letter.
To be more specific, this can be said to have started from point eight of the initial list of demands, which called for owners of protected forested areas to receive full compensation for being unable to exploit them for income, which certain activists vehemently oppose. Some oppose the very concept of private ownership of protected areas, or even of forests in general, regardless of the manner in which the area ended up under such ownership or of whether that happened before or after it became protected, demanding them to be nationalized with no compensation, while others claim to want safeguards in place to ensure that only those who own small areas and depend on them for survival and a basic income will receive compensation before such a proposal will be acceptable, but at the same time seem to oppose even discussing it so vehemently that adding such safeguards becomes just about impossible. And, of course, the fact that these proposals came from the Forest and Pasture Owners’ Federation and were pushed forward by WWF, who were after all the ones who fought for years to improve what was initially a dreadful Forest Code proposal, definitely doesn’t help, as quite a number of activists oppose having anything to do with the forest owners and a few, Maria most of all, seem to have a personal battle with WWF for quite some time.
As such, the message that those who were supposed to be the representatives of the activists, of this supposedly large coalition fighting for this cause, presented on prime time television, in a serious and quite respected talk show, was that there is in fact no alliance, but separate groups which try to pull the movement one way or another, infiltrating it and struggling to take over in order to impose their hidden agenda on those foolish enough to fall for their ploy. Therefore, the result was at the very least creating confusion, even the talk show host saying he doesn’t understand anything anymore and asking for more detailed explanations during a commercial break, and more probably sending many potential supporters running for the hills faster than any of our opponents might have. Which only proves once again something I keep saying, which is that we don’t need to look for people who may actually be infiltrated to undermine our efforts, because there are plenty within the movement itself who do an outstanding job of that without needing any outside help.

After all of that, and also considering some confusion with a protest against killing stray dogs which was to take place in the same spot and end 30 minutes before the one against deforestation was to begin, even some media channels mixing the two, we had good reason to fear that yesterday’s event will end up being a failure. Some, myself included, had been uncertain about it from the beginning anyway, but once others decided, rather on their own, to announce it, canceling was not an option, especially since such a course of action would have left room for interpretations that’d have been even more damaging. So people were asked to gather at the University Square fountain from 5 PM and everything else was left to be decided on the spot, depending on numbers and mood.
In the end, there was no march and I see that media reports tend to put the number of participants at around 200, which is in line with what I feared but seems too little compared to what I saw. There were some estimates of 300 or 400 from participants and while there I was thinking we were about 500 at the peak, including all those around the fountain and not only those who had come forward to more or less gather in front of it when the speeches and chants started, but I didn’t actually try to make a more proper estimate and 500 is in line with my initial expectations, before the mess, which may have influenced me when I was tempted to pick that number. I guess you can try to see for yourselves from the pictures I took, if you want.
After getting over a tense moment when one person who had also been responsible for some of the mess at the end of Monday’s Forum started accusing all NGOs of being corrupt and in league with the politicians and shouting that we need to separate ourselves from them, there may have been one opportunity, around 6:30 PM, when we might have attempted to leave. We were probably not enough to take to the street, but if the moment wouldn’t have been lost it may have been possible to use the sidewalk at first and then see whether more would have joined us on the way. Admittedly, it was lost in part because some gendarmes started carding a few participants around that time, informing them that they’ll be fined if they won’t leave and resulting in a tense few minutes before they seemed to have thought better of it, probably after seeing the energy dissipating and some starting to leave and realizing that the maneuver had been successful, if that had indeed been the purpose.
There were attempts to get back to the matter at hand after that, but between those who were leaving or preparing to, the few who saw it as a good opportunity to forget why we were supposed to be there and restart their personal battle with the gendarmes and the rest who tended to split off into separate groups and chat away more than before, they weren’t successful and the protest slowly died down, around 7 PM some of the known activists starting to say the call to end it should be given, reminding people to attend what is hoped to be a bigger one, on June 5. A few did try to keep things going a little longer, however, being eventually persuaded to give up by 7:15 PM, when the attendance had probably fallen in the dozens.

With the deadline being either today or tomorrow, I dropped off the papers I needed to drop off for the Gendarmerie’s appeal this morning, getting all of about two and a half hours of sleep in the morning as a result. Then again, I think I dropped off what I needed to, because the women who were there were busy with the coffee and chocolate they had just been brought and didn’t seem to pay much attention to me, so I hope the fact that I wasn’t asked for the envelope and notice was because they somehow knew it was still before the deadline and not because they simply didn’t care to and I may end up later learning it was considered that I submitted that too late as I didn’t add any evidence to the contrary.
Like I needed another reason to be worried about this, on top of simply needing to deal with the Court again, being scared by another protester at the end of Saturday’s protest, when he told me you need a lawyer for an appeal and aren’t allowed to represent yourself, and learning last night that another whose appeal date already passed lost, the original decision being completely changed. Another won it, however, meaning that the original decision was maintained, so I’ll have to check the others I know as well, two more having dates set next week, and get an idea of what each panel of judges thinks of the matter, to see what I can make out of it. And then, of course, hope that the part about needing a lawyer isn’t true.

Moving on, after getting back I put in the cable needed for my TV tuner to finally have sound once again, since the new motherboard no longer has a four-pin audio port and the external cable which the tuner should have come with and which could have been used for this as well was probably left back in Iasi when I got thrown back here. It works now, but it took so long since it would appear that Leadtek no longer has any partners or distributors in Romania and this type of audio output hasn’t been in use for quite some time, so I couldn’t simply find the required cable, with a small four-pin connector on one end and a 3.5 mm jack on the other, and therefore asked dad whether he knew anyone who could make one, which finally happened yesterday and he brought it last evening, when I was in no state to deal with it right away.

After that, went for this week’s run as well, which once again ended up being slow and untimed as I yet again forgot my watch. Remembered sooner this time, but still didn’t feel like getting back for it, which was actually better since after so little sleep and having already been somewhere else and back, and also considering the higher temperature and the state I’ve been in lately, I’m quite sure the time would have been disappointing even if I would have pushed. As it was, once again pretty much everybody passed me, several multiple times over the ten laps, and I didn’t even try to sprint anymore, even needing to slow down on the last lap after a better start. Could have probably gone about a minute faster in total, maybe two if I really pushed, but while I don’t know the time I did have, I firmly doubt shaving even two minutes off it would have gotten me even close to the previous record.

Did at least eat properly after coming back from the track, since nobody was around and I could just go to the kitchen and make myself something which I then took to my room. Also showered after that, and then managed to get another two or so hours of sleep, waking up only once despite the washing machine running for a while and various other noises. And now I’m going to watch the Europa League match, finally with sound once again, as I was saying, and then I guess I’ll just spend tomorrow getting ready for the next protest, scheduled for Saturday. I was considering reinstalling Windows then, trying to get things done properly, but at the moment I think I’ll wait until the week after the next.

After losing about a year to internal conflicts, splits, egos, stubbornness, indecisiveness, poor planning and unwise choices, the United We Save movement seems to have finally managed to become relevant once again, thanks to yesterday’s protest against deforestation, triggered by the recent developments regarding the Forest Code and the actions of certain companies and the politicians which appear to serve their interests, which include the President. Admittedly, for the main event, in Bucharest, the gathering place was in the same location as a festival dedicated to NGOs and a large number of organizations, including the Romanian branches of major international environmental ones, supported and promoted the event, and even directly participated in the efforts to organize it. But this may actually mean that the success was even greater, due to managing to create such a consensus and persuade some organizations that don’t usually work with others to do so this time.

Unlike the largely unsuccessful, and at times completely failed, other attempts that some activists have made over this past year, this protest started from an idea and one person who became truly dedicated to it, but almost immediately seemed to take a life of its own. It wasn’t a matter of a few people trying to force an issue on the agenda or struggling to gain support even within the movement by spending a great deal of energy only to persuade the rest that their priorities should be those of others as well and that a particular course of action is worth pursuing at a particular moment, but a case of an idea that caught on and spread, with many, from all over the country and even from abroad, jumping in within the first few days, trying to coordinate and do their best to help organize what was obviously going to be a major event, with protests taking place in dozens of cities.
Of course, there were still misunderstandings, disagreements and conflicts, some of which still far from being solved in any way, but that feeling from September and perhaps October 2013, when what needed to be done could usually still somehow be done in spite of all the differences, did tend to return, and the end result speaks for itself. It’s what happens when people fighting for a cause manage to remember that what they have in common is more important than what sets them apart, which is something that over this past year seemed to have been forgotten even more than it had been ever since this movement stopped being merely a method of channeling all discontent through a quick reaction against a specific threat and enemy and became a way to actually fight for goals and ideals, and in some cases unfortunately also for personal gain.

But to return to the day of the march, people were asked to gather at the main entrance of Herastrau park, where a festival dedicated to NGOs was also taking place, starting at 4 PM, what will happen next remaining to be decided according to the numbers. As such, I was pleasantly surprised to see quite a crowd already there around 4:15 PM, when I arrived myself, and perhaps even more pleased to see so many known faces, including some who had unfortunately ended up on different sides and in open and at times particularly heated conflict over this past year. Some were still notably absent, but those who were there, as well as some of the banners and speeches and the way in which things already appeared to have been organized, were enough to give me a good feeling about what will follow. Enough of a good feeling, in fact, to do what I usually tended to do and take a fair number of pictures despite the mood I was in otherwise.
That feeling was proven correct once again not much later, when we started moving at 5:10 PM even though it was said that the march will only begin around 6 PM. In fact, though a route was eventually decided on and made public a few days before, the march was not only not planned from the beginning but not entirely certain even with mere hours remaining, as it all depended on how many people will be present and how long they’ll need to gather, considering past experiences. However, some estimates say we were already around 2000 when we got moving and, while I’m no longer used to estimating such large crowds anymore, I think it’s entirely possible that we were in fact even more.
With the gendarmes not causing any problems, we were then able to stick to the planned route and reach the Government at 5:45 PM, where we stopped to display the banners and chant some slogans, and apparently also to have the anthem played through a loudspeaker. By 6 PM, however, we were once again on the move, making a second stop at 6:50 PM, in front of the Presidential Palace, where the smaller place made it more difficult to arrange the banners properly and people seemed to mostly try to find a way to fit inside the square as those closer to the gate once again led some chants and slogans.
By 7:10 PM we were moving again, and not much later those who had the loudspeakers started announcing that some media channels were reporting that we were 8000 or even 10000. However, at the time I actually told someone that we were probably only around 5000, thinking that 6000 was also quite possible but more was unlikely, and these numbers actually seem to be what many sources eventually settled on after the protest ended. Even many of the activists seem to agree on these or even lower values now, with others limiting themselves to saying we were “thousands”, even though a fair number tended to get carried away and insist on 10000 or 12000 at first, getting upset when seeing the significantly lower estimates reported elsewhere.
Back to the route, we made another brief stop, lasting only about five minutes, in front of the Cantacuzino Institute, which is known for manufacturing vaccines but may be closing its doors after being brought to its knees in recent years, causing problems in hospitals and additional expenses and even an increase in the incidence of side effects as quite a number of products now need to be imported and some aren’t quite suitable for most Romanians. I’m actually not sure whether this was planned from the beginning and simply not announced or not, but those who support the Institute, while carrying banners stating their support for our cause as well, were definitely identifiable as a separate group from the first moments, mainly due to the white medical robes they were wearing. There was also a petition to sign regarding this issue, and activists had mentioned it even before the start of the march, albeit rather in passing until we actually ended up in front of the gate, where it became the main focus for those few minutes.
Once we got moving again, it wasn’t long before we reached Izvor park, crossing it and then, at 8 PM, making a brief stop at its main entrance, which is across the road from the Chamber of Deputies entrance of the Palace of Parliament. Barely a couple of minutes later, we were on our way once again, going around and reaching Constitution Square at 8:15 PM, the march ending there even though the initial plan called for it to end about 100 meters farther on, in front of the Ministry of Environment. Either way, our numbers were already decreasing by then and therefore some activists asked the rest to sit down as some of the banners were laid on the street before a final round of announcements, speeches and chants. The call to end the day came around 8:55 PM, when no more than a few hundred were left.

As far as reactions from politicians go, the first came from the Romanian Ecologist Party (PER), who attempted to get involved in organizing the event from the beginning, causing a significant part of the conflicts and leading to some odd situations in the end, as in some cities this resulted in two separate events in the same place, one organized by activists, which wanted nothing to do with politicians, and the other by PER. Otherwise, the National Peasants’ Party – Christian Democrat (PNT-CD) also attempted to associate itself with the Bucharest event, but they’re too small and the event was too big for this to draw anything more than a few snappish comments from some activists. The Green Party and Remus Cernea, on the other hand, limited themselves to showing their support and promoting the event, but seemed wise enough not to do anything which would lead to conflicts.
Then, on the day of the march, the President released a statement in support of the protest and also mentioned some actions he’s planning regarding the matter of deforestation, even though we don’t quite see how those would help and, either way, one of the protest’s main triggers was the very fact that he returned the new Forest Code to the Parliament not due to any of the significant problems it still has but in order to ask for the removal of certain anti-monopoly provisions that Holzindustrie Schweighofer, which uses the majority of Romania’s softwood, complained about. As such, the statement had the opposite effect, people immediately realizing he was merely trying to find a quick and easy way to save face.
It would appear that the Prime Minister also released a statement, saying that it’ll be easier to fight against illegal logging with the new Forest Code, but with activists and protesters set against him for very good reason at least since 2013, it doesn’t matter what he says. So what was more interesting was that the Minister of Environment said that she was open to talk with a delegation of the protesters at the end of the march, assuming we’d have reached the Ministry, as planned. This statement was made at some point during the evening, however, and the fact that I didn’t hear it mentioned when we stopped in Constitution Square and some of the surprised comments I saw posted last night tell me that hardly anyone was aware of it at the time, so selecting such a delegation was never considered.

Now we’ll see what comes next, but at the moment the plan is to continue with weekly marches, and some are even suggesting to return to the model used in the autumn of 2013 and have daily protests as well, to ensure that the matter will remain on the agenda. What the decision will be is uncertain at the moment, but it definitely should be something that’s properly organized and directed but nevertheless largely comes naturally, as I hope certain activists have finally learned some lessons thanks to this success if the repeated failures didn’t seem to teach them much. The most important lesson, however, is that we need to continue working together, and by this I’m not only talking about the different groups of activists that drifted farther and farther apart and even came to blows, at times nearly doing so literally as well, but also with NGOs and experts, and I’ll say also with certain politicians, though this clearly won’t get me any friends among the activists.
Unlike the issues of Rosia Montana and fracking, where greater harm could pretty much be prevented by keeping things as they were, this is a complicated matter that requires analysis and new solutions, the existing situation being the unacceptable one. In addition, it must be kept in mind that the currently proposed Forest Code is the result of long negotiations between politicians and NGOs and a compromise that said NGOs largely support as being significantly better than the current one, even though all admit that it still has flaws and they weren’t able to obtain a few key provisions. As such, as much as I hate to say this when it comes to environmental issues, being too adamant about it will likely lose us the support of allies we can’t afford to lose at the moment and therefore their opinion must be considered very seriously, no matter how difficult it may be for those of us who are stricter environmentalists.