For centuries, since the fall of the Roman Empire (476 A.D.) until the
end of the eighteenth century, Italy has been the victim of war and
strife with neighbors or within its borders, being divided into
numberless commonwealths, almost each city being independent. Hence, no
economic improvements could take place until, under the influences of
the French Revolution, the regeneration period began. Not, however,
until the seven or eight states, which the Congress of Vienna (1815) had
established, were moulded into one united Italy under Victor Emmanuel,
during the years 1859 to 1870, could an effective reconstruction be
inaugurated.
It is true that some of the republics in earlier times paid attention to
their forest property. Notably in Venice, old forest ordinances[14] date
back to 697, and, in 1453, a regular forest administration was
instituted, especially to take care of the large forest area in Istria
and Dalmatia, which fell into the hands of the Venetians about 1420. A
tolerably conservative management continued here until the beginning of
the eighteenth century when, in consequence of political complications,
supervision became lax, and devastation began which continued through
the century, leaving to the new century, and finally to the Austrians,
the legacy of the Karst (see p. 173).
[14] BERENGER, Saggio storico della legislacione Veneta forestale,
1863. An excellent source.
Florence too, managed to prevent the deforestation of the summit of her
mountains until the beginning of the eighteenth century, and in other
republics, kingdoms and duchies, similar efforts at forest
administration existed. Yet Genoa, which in Strabo’s time was the
principal timber market of Italy, had by 1860 nearly all its mountain
slopes denuded.
Before the general legislation for all Italy was enacted there were at
least a dozen laws in operation in the various provinces; in Lombardy,
the law of 1811; in Naples, the law of 1826; in Rome, of 1827; in
Umbria, of 1805; in Bologna, of 1829; in Tuscany, of 1829; in Piedmont,
of 1833; in Sardinia, of 1851; etc. If these had been heeded much better
conditions would have been inherited by the new kingdom.
With the arrival of a national spirit, many schemes for the promotion of
forestry and of forest policy were discussed. The academies of Florence,
Milan, Modena, Palermo, and Pesaro offered premiums for reforesting of
mountains, and called for popular treatises on silviculture. A forestry
journal came into being, furthering the propaganda. In 1860 a very well
written account of “Present Conditions of Forestry and Production of
Sulphur in Sicily,” a collection of reports, was published by Shiro. In
1860 also, an investigation of forest conditions in each province was
ordered by royal decree, and propositions for their improvement were
called for, which led to legislative proposals, introduced in 1862, and
legislation enacted in 1863.
The law of 1863 still treated each province independently: forest
inspectors for each province, and for Naples an Inspector General, with
district foresters and a large number of forest guards were appointed.
Another law, applicable only to certain parts of the Kingdom, was
enacted in 1874, intended to check the progress of deforestation and
prevent turning waste woodlands into pasture; these absolute forest
soils were to be reforested within five years. The law remained a dead
letter, yet it is still in force in part, with modifications enacted in
1886.
The final unification of the country as far as legislative unity is
concerned, was completed in 1877, and in that year the first general
forest law for all Italy was also enacted.
This law, which has mainly in view the protective influence of forest
cover as a factor in the public welfare, leaving all private property
not falling under the character of protection forest entirely free,
established provincial forest commissions--conservation boards--unpaid,
who were to enact rules and regulations best adapted to their
localities. The Board of Commissioners consisted of the prefect of the
province, _ex-officio_ president; an inspector of forests, the technical
officer who administers the government property; an engineer appointed
by the governor; and three members chosen by the provincial council; in
addition, each communal council was to send one member to take part in
the deliberations of the board as far as his particular commune was
interested.
By this law the country is divided into two sections vertically, namely
the territory above the limit of chestnut, and that below this limit,
the latter representing the farming country, the territory above being
unfit for agricultural use. To the former the restrictions of the law
apply as a rule (_terreni soggetti al vincolo forestale_--ban forest),
to the latter, as exception, namely where the removal of forest or brush
cover might cause landslides, or affect stream flow or health conditions
unfavorably. The chestnut limit naturally varies in different parts,
but, generally speaking, lies between 1,800 and 2,000 feet elevation.
The determination of these areas was to be made by the provincial forest
committees, and it is significant to note that in these the State forest
administration did not have the majority.
The territory under restriction, was in 1887, after various revisions,
established as comprising 7.5 million acres of forest and 2.5 million
acres of brush and waste, nearly 71% of the forest area being thus
placed under restriction; leaving 2.5 million acres of forest and over 2
million of brush and waste outside the working of the law; these latter
areas are left entirely without restrictions, except as general police
regulations apply. The execution of the law and regulations is left to
the State Forest Department with an organization of forest guards (some
3,000 in 1883), appointed by the prefect of the province with the advice
of the forestry commission, but acting under the State forest
administration. Their pay was to come to the extent of two-thirds from
the communes, the other third from the provincial treasurer.
In the forests placed under the law, clearing and agricultural use is
forbidden. Fellings and cultures must be made under direction of the
Committee. No compensation is made for this limitation in use except
where hygienic influence was the basis for placing the forest under ban.
If the regulations of the commissions had been observed to their full
extent, all would have been well in time, but it is evident from
subsequent legislative efforts that the execution of the laws was not
what could be desired. Political exigencies required leniency in the
application of the law. An interesting report on the results of the
first quinquennium shows that during that time 170,000 acres were
cleared, over 40,000 without permission, and by 1900, it was estimated,
deforestation had taken place on about 5 million acres.
Wrangling over the classification of the lands under ban has continued
until the present, and local authorities have continued to favor private
as against public interest, to withdraw lands from the operation, and to
wink at disregard of the law. Moreover, rights of user to dead wood,
pasturage (goats are by law excluded) and other privileges continued to
prevent improvement, although several laws to effect their extinction
had been passed.
The devastating floods of 1882 led to much agitation, and, upon a report
of a special commission in 1886, the law of 1874, which had obligated
the communities to reforest their waste lands within five years or else
to sell, was revived, extending the term of obligatory reforestation in
the endangered sections to ten years. By that time, out of 800,000 acres
originally declared as requiring reforestation, not more than 40,000
acres had been planted, but the acreage involved had also been gradually
scaled down by the forest committees to 240,000 acres. The report, on
the other hand, found that the area needing reboisement was at least
500,000 acres, requiring an expenditure of 12 million dollars. The law
of 1877 did not contemplate enforced reforestation of banforests; it
sought to accomplish this by empowering either the Department of
Agriculture or the provinces or the communities or special associations
to expropriate for the purpose of reforestation. Results were nil.
A revision and broadening of the law led to the general reboisement act
of 1888,[15] which has in view the correction of torrents, fixing of
mountain slopes and sand dunes--one of the best laws of its kind in
existence anywhere.
[15] For details see _Fernow_, in Garden and Forest, 1888, page 417.
The principal features of the law are: obligatory reboisement of
mountains and sand dunes according to plans, and under direction of the
Department of Agriculture, the areas to be designated by the department,
with approval or disapproval of the forest committees; contribution to
the extent of two-fifths (finally raised to two-thirds) of the expense
by the government; expropriation where owners do not consent, or fail to
carry out the work as planned; right to reclaim property by payment of
costs and interest, or else sale by government; right of the department
to regulate and restrict pasture, but compensation to be paid to
restricted owners; encouragement of co-operative planters’ associations.
The area to be reforested was estimated at somewhat over 500,000 acres
and the expense at over 7 million dollars.
The execution of the law was not any stricter than before. In 1900, the
Secretary of Agriculture reports that “the laws do not yet receive
effective application.” The difficulty of determining what is and what
is not necessary to reforest, what is and what is not absolute forest
soil made ostensibly the greatest trouble and occasioned delay, but
financial incapacity and political influences bidding for popularity are
probably the main cause of the inefficiency.
Meanwhile the forest department tried to promote reforestation by giving
premiums from its scanty appropriation and distributing from its 130
acres of nurseries, during the years from 1867 to 1899, some 46 million
plants and over 500 pounds of seed, and furnishing advice free of
charge.
In 1897, again a commission was instituted to formulate new legislation.
This commission reported in 1902, declaring that all accessible forests
were more or less devastated, accentuating the needs of water
management, and proposing a more rigorous definition of ban forests, a
strict supervision of communal forests, and the management of private
properties under working plans by accredited foresters or else under
direct control of the forest department, the foresters to be paid by the
State, which is to recover from the owners. It was found that in the
past 35 years of the 125,000 acres needing reforestation urgently only
58,300 acres had been planted at an expense of $1,340,000.
In 1910, conditions seem not to have much improved, for again a vigorous
attempt at re-organization and improvement on the law of 1877 was made
by the Minister of Agriculture; so far without result.
It is to be noted that Italy is perhaps the only country where forest
influence on health conditions was legally recognized, by the laws of
1877 and 1888. The belief that deforestation of the _maremnae_, the
marshy lowlands between Pisa and Naples, had produced the malarial fever
which is rampant here, led the Trappist monks of the cloister at Tre
Fontane to make plantations of Eucalyptus (84,000) beginning in 1870,
the State assisting by cessions of land for the purpose. A commission,
appointed to investigate the results, in 1881, threw doubt on the
effectiveness of the plantation, finding the observed change in health
conditions due to improvement of drainage; and lately, the mosquito has
been recognized as the main agency in propagating the fever. The new
propositions, however, did not any more recognize this claimed influence
as a reason for public intervention. Incidentally it may be stated that
to two Italians is due the credit of having found the true cause of
salubriousness of forest air, namely in the absence of pathogenic
bacteria.