In recent weeks, the future of Lithuania’s forests has sparked intense public debate. At the Environmental Dialogues event in Anykščiai, politicians, experts and representatives of civil society were invited to discuss forest policy, but constructive dialogue ultimately failed to take place. The event was disrupted by a protest organised by Girių inspekcija, and the debate later continued on social media.
The discussion in Anykščiai left more than questions about the future of Lithuania’s forests unanswered. It also raised another, perhaps even more important question: where does activism end and radicalism begin?
We came to Anykščiai in search of constructive dialogue. We invited two Members of Parliament, Simonas Gentvilas and Aistė Gedvilienė, both of whom have worked on forest policy for many years. We wanted to understand why agreement on the future of Lithuania’s forests has remained so difficult to achieve, and what concrete solutions and commitments these politicians were prepared to pursue going forward.
Unfortunately, Girių inspekcija disrupted the event to the point that it had to be brought to an end before representatives of local communities who had come to speak had an opportunity to do so. The fact that a number of other environmental NGOs distanced themselves from the actions of Girių inspekcija shortly after the incident demonstrates how deep the divide within Lithuania’s environmental community has become.
Aggressive activism alienates the public
Measuring impact should be at the heart of every non-governmental organisation’s work. Ultimately, what matters is not how much attention we attract, but whether our actions help achieve meaningful change. This is often where the distinction between activism and radicalism emerges. Activism seeks to change society and policy, while radicalism can begin to pursue something entirely different – provoking a reaction.
In practice, however, such actions often have the opposite effect: rather than attracting new supporters, they push people away. This creates a paradox. A large part of society supports environmental goals but chooses not to become more actively involved because people do not want to be associated with a culture of conflict, aggressive rhetoric or attempts to silence opposing views. Instead of building broader support, the movement is left with a narrower circle of like-minded people that can gradually become more closed and radical. And the narrower that circle becomes, the more difficult it is to achieve meaningful change in public policy.
This type of radicalism is based on the assumption that greater conflict means greater impact. If an event is disrupted, a scandal is created or an emotional reaction is triggered on social media, it is treated as a victory. But publicity alone is not a result. Views are not change, and noise is not public support.
Division that weakens environmental action
Recently, we have increasingly seen a strange competition emerging within Lithuania’s environmental community: who is “green enough”? Instead of discussing solutions, the focus is increasingly shifting towards perceived ideological purity.
Our organisation, Baltijos Lizdas, was accused of representing the interests of the timber industry simply because we invited politicians to engage in an open discussion with community representatives. Such accusations reveal a dangerous tendency: dialogue begins to be treated as betrayal, while encouraging discussion becomes grounds for labelling others.
No organisation has a monopoly on the truth. When discussion is replaced by labels, it is not one organisation or another that loses – we lose the opportunity to reach agreement on solutions.
Who benefits from our division?
Across both the European Union and the United States, we are seeing an increasingly concerning trend: climate policy is becoming a major source of polarisation. Such conflicts not only make decision-making more difficult, but also deepen divisions within society – divisions that, in today’s geopolitical context, can benefit forces hostile to Lithuania.
One example is protests against the Kapčiamiestis military training area presented as being driven by “environmental” concerns. Such protests have no place on the environmental agenda. Organisations that use forest protection narratives while in practice seeking to stop national defence projects risk becoming tools for forces interested in a weaker and more divided Lithuania.
In Lithuania’s context, environmental protection must go hand in hand with national security. By strengthening our energy independence and developing locally produced renewable energy, we directly contribute to the security and defence of the country.
Environmental protection should not be placed in opposition to either the economy or national security. That is why we seek solutions to complex challenges through dialogue rather than confrontation.
