Current status of prescribed burning laws in Italy, Spain, and Portugal: A comparative study

Mestrado em Gestão da Floresta e dos Recursos Naturais no Mediterrâneo. Universidade de Lisboa, Instituto Superior de AgronomiaPrescribed burning (PB) is a practice that reduces wildfire hazard by burning excessive vegetation under specific topographical and environmental conditions, and with the supervision of qualified personnel. Fire-adapted ecosystems benefit most from PB. Additionally, PB aids with some land management objectives. In the Mediterranean European region, this practice could represent a great opportunity to lessen the negative impacts caused every year by large wildfires. However, PB is not homogenously applied across Southern Europe. PB is mainly limited by policies that restrict its use. While there is some general information about the current state of laws governing PB in Southern Europe, there is no study that goes into detail about the policies. This study reviews and compares the PB policies of Portugal, Spain, and Italy, three nations where PB is used, by emphasizing key elements. Only Portugal has a national legislative framework for PB; in Spain and Italy, it is primarily governed on a regional scale. Catalonia, with a comprehensive decree-law, has provided the most stringent rules for PB in Spain. Recent laws in Italy's Campania and Apulia have been approved solely for the use of PB. The remaining Spanish and Italian Regions regulate PB either via legislations or plans for wildfire management, with varying degrees of restriction. The technical directives and objectives for PB operations vary regionally depending on local geographical conditions. Currently, only the Catalan and Portuguese laws outline the necessary training course for PB-qualified staff, whilst in the other regions the identification of the authorized personnel is not clear. The study also discusses the implementation of PB in the agro-pastoral context. The study identifies which regulatory models aid the implementation of PB the most while addressing the gaps in the legal frameworks for PB in Southern Europe.O fogo controlado (FC) é uma prática que reduz o risco de incêndios florestais reduzindo a quantidade de vegetação (biomassa) sob condições topográficas e ambientais específicas e com a supervisão de pessoal qualificado. Os ecossistemas adaptados ao fogo beneficiam desta utilização do fogo controlado. Além disso, o fogo controlado permite gerir a vegetação ao nível da paisagem. Na Europa mediterrânica, esta prática pode representar uma oportunidade para diminuir os danos anualmente causados por grandes incêndios florestais. Porém, o uso do fogo controlado não é aplicado de forma homogénea em todo o Mediterrâneo. A sua utilização é limitada principalmente por políticas que restringem o seu uso. Embora existam algumas informações gerais sobre o estado das leis que regem o FC na Europa mediterrânica, não há nenhum estudo que entre em detalhes sobre as Políticas. Este estudo analisa e compara as Políticas de Fogo Controlado em Portugal, Espanha e Itália, enfatizando os seus elementos-chave. Apenas Portugal tem um quadro legislativo nacional para o FC; em Espanha e em Itália, o FC é regido principalmente a nível regional. A Catalunha-Espanha, tem um decreto-lei de 2005 bastante abrangente sendo a região autónoma espanhola com as regras mais rigorosas. Em Itália, leis recentes nas regiões italianas da Campânia e Apúlia foram aprovadas exclusivamente para o controle do FC. As restantes regiões espanholas e italianas regulam o FC por leis ou planos de gestão de incêndios florestais, com diferentes graus de restrição. As diretivas técnicas para as operações de FC variam regionalmente em função das condições geográficas locais. Apenas as leis Catalã e Portuguesa definem a formação necessária para o pessoal qualificado para o FC, enquanto nas outras regiões a identificação do pessoal autorizado não é clara. O estudo também discute a implementação do FC no contexto Agro-pastoril. O estudo identifica quais os modelos regulamentares que mais contribuem para a implementação do FC, enquanto aponta as lacunas nos quadros jurídicos do FC na Europa Mediterrânica.N/

Empagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Background The effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease who are at risk for disease progression are not well understood. The EMPA-KIDNEY trial was designed to assess the effects of treatment with empagliflozin in a broad range of such patients. Methods We enrolled patients with chronic kidney disease who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 20 but less than 45 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area, or who had an eGFR of at least 45 but less than 90 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of at least 200. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of progression of kidney disease (defined as end-stage kidney disease, a sustained decrease in eGFR to < 10 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2), a sustained decrease in eGFR of & GE;40% from baseline, or death from renal causes) or death from cardiovascular causes. Results A total of 6609 patients underwent randomization. During a median of 2.0 years of follow-up, progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 432 of 3304 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 of 3305 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.82; P < 0.001). Results were consistent among patients with or without diabetes and across subgroups defined according to eGFR ranges. The rate of hospitalization from any cause was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.95; P=0.003), but there were no significant between-group differences with respect to the composite outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes (which occurred in 4.0% in the empagliflozin group and 4.6% in the placebo group) or death from any cause (in 4.5% and 5.1%, respectively). The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Among a wide range of patients with chronic kidney disease who were at risk for disease progression, empagliflozin therapy led to a lower risk of progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo