• Energy Research

AbstractAt the end of October 2018, a storm of unprecedented strength severely damaged the forests of the eastern sector of the Italian Alps. The affected forest area covers 42,500 ha. The president of one of the damaged regions asked for help from the University of Padua. After eight months of discussion, the authors of this article wrote a consensus text. The sometimes asper debate brought to light some crucial aspects: 1) even experienced specialists may have various opinions based on scientific knowledge that lead to conflicting proposals for action. For some of them there is evidence that to restore a destroyed natural environment it is more judicious to do nothing; 2) the soil corresponds to a living structure and every ecosystem’s management should be based on it; 3) faced with a catastrophe, people and politicians find themselves unarmed, also because they rarely have the scientific background to understand natural processes. Yet politicians are the only persons who make the key decisions that drive the economy in play and therefore determine the near future of our planet. This article is an attempt to respond directly to a governor with a degree in animal production science, who formally and prudently asked a university department called “Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry” for help before taking decisions; 4) the authors also propose an artistic interpretation of facts (uncontrolled storm) and conclusions (listen to the soil). Briefly, the authors identify the soil as an indispensable source for the renewal of the destroyed forest, give indications on how to prepare a map of the soils of the damaged region, and suggest to anchor on this soil map a series of silvicultural and soil management actions that will promote the soil conservation and the faster recovery of the natural dynamic stability and resilience.

One of the new objectives laid out by the European Union’s Common Agriculture Policy is increasing environmental sustainability. In this paper we compare the degree of average dependence index for each member state (ADIMS) in EU28 from 2007 to 2019 in order to verify the following: (1) whether there was a difference in this index when comparing two CAP periods—(a) from 2007 to 2013 and (b) from 2014 to 2019—and (2) which crops had a larger effect on the ADIMS. The study showed no significant variation in the average ADIMS at EU level between the first (2007–2013) and second (2014–2019) CAP periods. The AIDMS index highlighted three types of EU agriculture: (1) agriculture in Eastern Europe, including Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia, characterized by a high level of ADIMS (10.7–22) due to the widespread cultivation of oil crops as rapeseed and sunflower; (2) Mediterranean agriculture including Portugal, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Greece, Malta, Cyprus and France with lower AIDMS levels (5.3–10.3) given their heterogeneous crop portfolios with different degrees of dependence on animal pollination (almond, soy, rapeseed, sunflower and tomatoes) and (3) continental agriculture including Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Baltic countries, Benelux, Finland, Sweden and Ireland, which are characterized by the lowest ADIMS level (0.7–10.6) due to the widespread cultivation of cereals (anemophily and self-pollination) which increase the denominator of the index. The study suggests that a sustainable management of the agroecosystem will be possible in the future only if CAP considers pollinators’ requirements by quantifying the timing and spatial food availability from cultivated and uncultivated areas.