Various

The regulatory and environmental context of our agriculture

The regulatory and environmental context of our agriculture


The regulatory and environmental context of our agriculture

What is currently being done in Europe for more sustainable agriculture?

The EU member states currently define similar strategies so that all agricultural land, especially land that is no longer used and uncultivated for production purposes, is kept in good agricultural and environmental conditions in accordance with art. 5 of EC Reg. 1782/03 which establishes common rules relating to direct support regimes within the Common Agricultural Policy and establishes certain support regimes for farmers and amends other previous regulations.

All farmers who benefit from aid thanks to all payment schemes or single support for the area or direct to production or livestock activity based on EC Reg. 1782/03 are subject to Cross-compliance obligations sanctioned and confirmed by Reg. CE796 / 04, under penalty of payment of penalties or reductions of the aids themselves.


All farms receiving the single area payment (non-cultivated) or direct to production are subject to cross-compliance checks.

Furthermore, each region, on the basis of the specific territorial characteristics represented in it, prepares its own Rural Development Plan (PSR) which is approved in the community. It is a tool through which farmers operating in the rural world can access funding to carry out projects and interventions for structural development and agro-environmental management of the company.

But what are Cross-compliance and Rural Development Plans?

Cross-compliance makes direct payments to farmers subject to compliance by farmers with a whole range of environmental and other requirements, at national and European level. To benefit from the single payment scheme and / or other direct payments to production, farmers are not obliged to produce but to comply with the rules of cross compliance in two ways.

  1. With the application of "Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions": all farmers who apply for direct payments, regardless of whether their land is used for production purposes or not, must comply with the rules that will be established by the Member States. This new requirement is a consequence of the introduction of the single payment scheme and is aimed at avoiding the abandonment of agricultural land (and the related consequences for the environment);
  2. With the application of "Mandatory Management Criteria": farmers must comply with other cross-compliance standards, established in accordance with 19 EU directives and regulations relating to environmental protection, public health, plant and animal health. Failure by farmers to comply with these criteria can lead to deductions or even the total abolition of direct payments. Therefore these activities should not be considered as fulfilments to be carried out in response to regulatory requirements, but could represent a real development opportunity for companies through the qualitative improvement of production, their eco-sustainability and respect for the landscape which constitutes a significant added value.

The so-called conditional support or cross compliance has therefore been created, which makes the granting of direct payments subject to compliance with particular regulatory provisions.

On the front of rural development measures, on the other hand, it was always considered in the European community that it was necessary to provide financial support to farmers who participate in a particular group of interventions, only on condition that they comply with the minimum requirements or that they undertake to produce additional efforts such as for example, innovative projects that have never been developed before (agritourism, accommodation, catering, direct sales, sports-recreational and educational activities, etc.).

Currently, the overall budget of the common agricultural policy is about 40 billion euros or about 38% of the total budget and is almost entirely covered by direct support to farmers (about 72%) but it will go down with the new CAP reform 2014-2020.

The RDP or Rural Development Plan It is a programming document drawn up by the Regions in the European reference framework of Agenda 2000 which operates on the regional territory; it is therefore the main programming and financing tool for interventions in the agricultural, forestry and rural development sectors managed directly by the regions in agreement with the European community.

The strategic priorities identified in the National Strategic Plan (Psn) and in the Community Strategic Orientations (Osc) are adapted to regional realities with the RDP in order to pursue the development and competitiveness objectives of rural areas. The main regulatory framework of the RDP is now the EC Regulation 1698/2005 which governs the support for rural development by the EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development).

The structure of the Psr

The RDP is divided into 4 intervention axes for each of which are indicated the objectives to which packages of measures specified in detail refer.

In this way an integrated planning policy is defined to guarantee a balance in the distribution of resources and the integration between objectives and measures.

The measures are adapted to the current needs of the rural world such as support for the development of young businesses, the modernization of investments, access to credit, the inclusion of the concept of the environment in one's business, the protection of the territory, landscape and services.

The axes of intervention are

Axis I

The objective of axis I is to improve the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector through 3 packages "Human potential"(Development of potential through professional training and consultancy and assistance services in the management of agricultural enterprises),"Physical capital"(Restructuring and modernization of farms, innovation and cooperation) and"Quality"(Improvement of the quality of production and agricultural products through compliance with the rules and participation in quality systems).

Axis II

It is dedicated to improving the environment and the countryside through the sustainable use of agricultural land (favored by compensatory allowances for disadvantaged mountain areas, agri-environmental payments and non-productive investments) and the sustainable use of forest areas (afforestation of agricultural and non-agricultural land , forestry-environmental payments, preventive interventions and restoration of forest potential)

Axis III

The interventions are dedicated to diversification towards non-agricultural activities, encouraging tourism, the creation of businesses and the development, renewal and requalification of the rural heritage. Furthermore, professional training programs, promotion and implementation of public-private partnerships are planned.

Axis IV

With Axis IV, local strategies, cooperation and management of the Gal (Local Action Groups) are developed.

The National Strategic Plan (PSN) collects and elaborates all the aforementioned community priorities, defining a general strategic framework that also takes into account the choices adopted by the Regions and Autonomous Provinces which, as is well known, are exclusively competent in the field of agriculture.

The NSP identifies this national strategy in three general objectives:

  1. improve the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector;
  2. enhancing the environment and the countryside through land management;
  3. improve the quality of life in rural areas and promote the diversification of economic activities

Furthermore, the national planning identifies priority objectives for each of the 4 strategic Axes, also providing indications on the importance (including financial) to be attributed to each objective in line with the results of the analyzes developed on a national scale.

Rural Development Programs represent the main tool to support the competitiveness of businesses, the protection of the environment and the economic diversification of rural areas.

An important fundamental factor is represented by the environmental context, of which agriculture is an integral part, since the scenarios of climate change and the recent growth in the frequency of occurrence of extreme events increase the exposure to risk of companies that already, due to their mission and conformation, present greater vulnerability to climate risk than others.

So more exactly

Conditionality makes direct payments to farmers' productive activities subject to compliance by the latter with a whole series of requirements and conditions compatible with the environment and PSR instead, it encourages farmers to make innovative and profitable investments in disadvantaged and mountainous areas with subsidized loans.

We are increasingly moving in the direction of a self-certification of conditionality by checking the state of maintenance of the land regardless of what is produced and by verifying the environmental, agronomic and landscape aspects.

Currently, Cross-compliance is compulsorily linked to the system of subsidies provided with the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) as structured by Reg. (EC) n.73 / 2009 and as implemented in Italy by Ministerial Decree 30125 of 22 December 2009 is based on the division of obligations into two large sets: the Mandatory Management Criteria (CGO), consisting of the transposition into national legislation of the Community directives and regulations, e Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC), whose objectives are described in the regulation, but whose actual adoption is detailed in the national Ministerial Decree and in the regional transposition resolutions. The SMRs are divided into "acts" which are in turn grouped into blocks, dedicated to the environment, public health and animal health and animal identification and registration; plant health, disease reporting and animal welfare. The GAEC are divided into regulations also grouped by objectives, which currently are the protection of the soil from erosion, the maintenance of soil organic matter, the maintenance of the soil structure, ensuring a minimum level of habitat maintenance and avoiding deterioration. , and finally the protection and better management of water resources.

The farmers benefiting from ONE OR MORE of the following SUPPORT SCHEMES are therefore concerned with compliance with cross compliance:

  1. Single support decoupled from other aid relating to production or to the surface or to animal husbandry
  2. Direct support to the surface (durum wheat, rice, arable land, nuts, quality crops and productions (pursuant to art. 69, legumes, etc.);
  3. Direct support for production (seeds, olive oil, tobacco, etc.);
  4. Direct support in the animal husbandry sector.

The constraints on the aforementioned conditionality refer to the acts and standards included in the following conditionality fields:

  1. Environment;
  2. Public health, plant and animal health;
  3. Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions.

The conditionality commitments must be respected on any farm area including that released from aid. In the event of the sale of the company, the obligations relating to conditionality are transferred to the new owner.

All farms in possession of a company file, mandatory from the entry into force of the regulation and company identification, are required to comply with the rules of conditionality, however referring to the individual and peculiar conditions and characteristics of the company; therefore it is not compulsory to comply with all the binding regulations and acts but only those that pertain to the specific business characteristics.

When applying for financial aid from the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), the subscription to the commitment by the agricultural entrepreneur to comply with the conditionality rules provided for their farm must be declared at the same time.

In this way, however, with the application for aid, the direct participation of the entrepreneur in the agri-environmental management of his company becomes at least necessary and indispensable both from the point of view of the environmental constraints to which he is subjected both from the technical and managerial aspects of land use connected to productivity and marketability of its products.

Reduction of soil erosion, maintenance of soil fertility, protection of plant and animal biodiversity are the first positive results obtained by Italian agriculture in the new environmental challenge outlined by the Common Agricultural Policy which allocates an important share of PAC funding to these objectives. The key word of this new strategy is so-called "conditionality".

Ultimately, it is the set of rules that farmers must respect in order to guarantee high standards of environmental and territorial protection, food safety and public health, animal welfare. The income of farmers is about half of the average of the other productive sectors and of this two thirds on average is made up of the payments made under the CAP to ensure the provision of the public benefits mentioned above. Payments under the first pillar are particularly important, as they represent on average almost half of farmers' income in the EU. Financial solidarity with agriculture is necessary to ensure socio-economic cohesion and integration across the EU27 and also a greater balance between rural areas and urban areas.

Dr. Antonella Di Matteo


Agriculture 4.0, only innovation can guarantee sustainable competitiveness. And production costs decrease

BOLOGNA - Between Covid-19, climate change, international competition and the European Green Deal, agricultural companies are called to the double challenge of competitiveness and sustainability, two objectives that often do not agree.

Innovation, from new assisted evolution technologies (TEA) to precision agriculture and 4.0, can help companies to overcome this challenge but the gaps to be bridged to reach a diffusion in the sector are still many (infrastructural, economic, regulatory , cultural).

Not to mention the "distrust" of consumers, even if the Nomisma-Agrifood Monitor survey carried out in partnership with Crif has highlighted how the preconceptions towards innovation in agriculture (and the food produced) derive more from the lack of correct communication / information that gives forms of "food integralism".

For 45% of Italians, agri-food products deriving from "traditional" companies are perceived - regardless of actual consumption - of higher quality than those of the most technologically advanced companies. But in the face of a future conditioned by climate change and the need for more sustainable production activities, there seems to be no history: 54% of consumers believe that a change of course is necessary for Italian farmers, through investments in innovation that allow them to face the double challenge of competitiveness and sustainability.

Of course, there is no shortage of diehards, those willing to pay more in order to continue to have products from farmers less accustomed to technology (18%), just as 13% say they are ready to change their diet by introducing "alternative" foods (such as insects or algae), a 5% willing to consume food created in the laboratory and a remaining 10% indifferent to the territorial origin and inclined to buy foreign products (from the series “France or Spain,….”).

The consumer is sovereign, but the same survey carried out by Nomisma in partnership with Crif and presented this morning during the V Forum Agrifood Monitor in live streaming, highlighted how many convictions - turned out to be wrong - on the part of Italians on innovations in agriculture derive from a lack of knowledge, so much so as to be "overturned" once the functions of these technological improvements have been explained, especially if framed in the evolutionary scenario towards which we are going.

A future scenario characterized by "scarcity"

Of food (by 2050 it will take between 60% and 70% more than that currently produced to meet world food demand), of water and land (again in 2050 every human being will have 0.1 hectares of surface available cultivable compared to 0.4 hectares in 1960) and in a context of “crazy” climate (in the last forty years, the number of natural disasters in the world has more than tripled). It is also from this worrying vision that the European Commission started with the launch of the Green Deal, an action plan that should lead the EU to climate neutrality (zero net greenhouse gas emissions) by 2050 and that, with the underlying strategies "From Farm to Fork" and "Biodiversity" it identifies ambitious objectives that will significantly affect agricultural and food activities.

“The scenarios of food scarcity, natural resources and climate change seem like science fiction to us but in reality they affect us closely, above all for the implications they generate on the agricultural product market and on the regulatory framework of the sector. We must not forget the fact that, for many primary commodities, Italy is not self-sufficient - in the last ten years our agricultural import has grown by 55% - and that the socio-economic stability of our territories is linked to a supply chain, such as the agri-food sector, which in the same years increased its international positioning thanks to an 80% growth in the export of its products "he declared Denis Pantini, Nomisma's Agri-food Manager.

Therefore, if competitiveness and productivity cannot be ignored, at the same time we cannot exempt ourselves from being sustainable. Also because the European Union itself imposes it on us. How to do? By innovating, that is to say by introducing technological innovations capable of responding to the dual objective of “sustainable competitiveness”. And with respect to this joint objective, taking into account the scenario we have to face, tools such as assisted evolution technologies (genetic improvement) or precision farming can undoubtedly make a valid contribution in this direction. Also because, it is worth remembering, if there had not been the genetic improvement brought about by man, we would not eat oranges (deriving from the cross between other citrus fruits), nor clementines, nor seedless grapes, but neither could we obtain corn and wheat. hard to produce pasta with the same results as today. And tomorrow, we could continue growing vines in areas that are now suitable for wine production but which, in the not too distant future due to climate change, could risk disappearing.

Agriculture 4.0 itself, although still not widespread among Italian companies, where applied allows not only to recover efficiency thanks to savings in production costs which, for extensive crops such as common wheat, reach up to 15% per hectare, but also greater productivity that can reach + 10%.

This translates not only into an increase in profitability for the farmer (economic sustainability) but also in a lower environmental impact, thanks to the use of pesticides, fertilizers and water based on the real needs of the cultivated plants (environmental sustainability). Unfortunately, the reduced diffusion of these technological innovations among Italian companies derives from various structural gaps, common to the adoption of this type of technology. A recent study by the European Commission has in fact highlighted how among European companies, the first obstacle to the use of precision agriculture (and 4.0) is the small size of the company (as evidenced by 26% of the companies interviewed), the cost access but also the reduced knowledge of these technologies. It is now superfluous to recall, in this regard, how Italian agriculture has an average farm size of 11 hectares compared to 17 of the EU average, a complete agricultural training that concerns only 6% of the tenants against 9% of the EU and access internet in rural areas which affects 82% of Italian families residing in these areas compared to the European average of 86% (but which reaches 99% in the Netherlands).

“The sustainability objectives set by the Green Deal are ambitious and however shareable they cannot be left to farmers alone without providing specific support tools and interventions. This is why we asked and obtained in Europe that 55% of the funds destined for Rural Development deriving from the Next Generation EU be reserved for investments in innovation in agricultural companies. The same can be said, precisely to achieve the goals of the From Farm to Fork strategy, in a greater openness by the European Union towards the adoption of NBT, genetic improvement techniques ", he stressed Paolo De Castro, President of the Scientific Committee of Nomisma.

"The challenge of innovation or Agritech, so strategic for the future of our agriculture and as highlighted by the Agrifood Monitor research by Nomisma and CRIF, can also be won through the development of start-up entrepreneurial initiatives capable of expanding the offer of technological and digital services and products to support the primary sector. And it is precisely with this spirit that CRIF together with the Golinelli Foundation launched the first edition of I-Tech Innovation 2021, a program that includes investments for over 1.6 million euros aimed at innovative start-ups in strategic sectors at national level between which, in fact, that of FoodTech / Agritech ”- he commented Carlo Gherardi, CEO of CRIF.


EU ENVIRONMENTAL LAW. A VIRTUOUS ATTEMPT OF RESILIENT POLICY BETWEEN EFFECTIVENESS OF FULFILLMENTS, CRITICAL ISSUES AND RESPONSE ACTIONS

of DANILA D’ELISO

Summary. 1. Framework of the theme and methodological premise. 2. Resilience as a legal category of European environmental law. 2.1. It follows. Positivization perspectives: value and opportunity. 3. Concluding remarks.

  1. Framing of the theme and methodological premise.

By 2050, European citizens will live well, respecting the ecological limits of the planet". This is the vision expressed in the seventh action program of the European Union for the environment adopted in November 2013 to guide the European environmental policy until 2020 [1]. This is a particularly indicative document for understanding the value and considerable potential of EU policies in the sector in question: a commitment built on the principles of precaution, preventive action as well as on the "polluter pays" principle. Under the aegis of the aforementioned principles and the adoption of multiannual action programs, the EU has double-linked environmental policies with economic ones in all sectors of intervention, in order to lead the Member States towards a future (objective 2050) in which to live in compliance with ecological limits and in strengthening the resilience and adaptation capacity of Europe and its citizens in the face of environmental problems and their effects. Indeed, the resilient approach seems to increasingly characterize European action with respect to environmental (and social) policies [2] in order to face continuous emerging challenges that allow us to glimpse new scenarios and possible repercussions. Indeed, the community legislator, in the progressive construction of European environmental law, has perhaps resorted before others, through a virtuous system of principles and regulatory interventions, to resilient policy initiatives that currently represent a renewed opportunity for a correct governance sustainable development [3] and for the creation of organizational and management models of territories, ecosystems, waters and urban systems. A resilient political approach which, however, should also be able to have precise legal effects to make an impact de facto on the disciplines of the sector. The concept of resilience, therefore, despite having been developed, at least initially, in contexts not related to scientia iuris[4] reveals, indeed, a disruptive attitude to also act as an instrument of legal reflection to the point of elevating itself to a conceptual category. The phrase resilience, as known, generically expresses the ability of a system to resist a shock, an upset, a crisis with consequent or contextual transformation and change of the status quo in terms of adaptation. This significant complexity calls for the legal deepening of the conceptual category "resilience" with respect to the ability of a regulatory system to evolve and adapt to the effects arising from disturbing elements: the legal system, that is, should elaborate a possible strategy for resolving conflicts through flexibility of the system itself, in terms of restoring its essential organisms and functions, but also rethinking roles, nomenclatures, tools and procedures. In this sense, the construction of resilience as a legal category could allow us to identify the responses to the criticalities and vulnerabilities of a regulatory system which - like the European one - often suffers from the application resistance on the part of internal legal systems. The application resistance and the resulting regulatory non-compliance represent, in fact, the alteration of the regulatory system of the Union in terms of cogency and effectiveness. If we perimeter our reflection, we have the opportunity to point out how, especially for European environmental law, resilience should be used as a category of analysis together with other categories, to fully understand its contents but also to pragmatically contextualise its concretely applicative aspects and executive. In the described perspective, the dynamism of science iuris it would come to create hermeneutic spaces between theory and practice, between knowledge and event, where the various scientific implications relating to environmental matters could find specific conceptual references formally expressed in a resilient sense by positive law [5]. Therefore, resilience, understood in the sense just described and connoted by the precise characterizations conferred on it by Hyogo and Sendai [6], could come not only to represent, for the Union, the very evolution of the concept of sustainability but also an important factor of balance and (regulatory) adaptation between economic growth and environmental protection. Our analysis, therefore, originates from the evaluation, from a legal point of view, of the possible tools to deal with the upcoming scenario defined by the European Environment Agency [7] "ecological deficit of Europe". The environmental situation described in terms of ecological deficit, as a result of demographic increase and the perpetuation of levels of consumption of material services and exploitation of resources, in addition to the satisfaction of primary needs (food, energy and access to water), it cannot exempt the jurist from ascertaining that the paradigm of sustainability can no longer be declined in an ontological prevalence of the result constraint of maintaining or developing resources for present and future generations. It is necessary to take into account that in the face of the possibility of losing or failing to develop these resources, the ability to rebalance and compensate with others is acquired, through the imperatives of learning and adaptation that are the founding elements of resilience. Therefore, on the basis of values ​​and principles shared as much as possible by the Member States, the environmental system must, in essence, demonstrate that it is resilient precisely through the rules that govern it.. It is hardly necessary to point out that our contribution does not intend to linger on the reconstruction and evolution of Community positive law in environmental matters and for which reference is made to more extensive and valuable literature [8], but rather intends to place itself in a prospective vision, in terms of protection de iure condendo, of the tools that the European institutions intend to put in place to protect the environment system through methodologies that are increasingly inclined to the so-called method. resilience thinking[9]not only in the external action addressed to third States [10] but also in that shared by the Member States as solemnly affirmed by the Rome Declaration of 25 March 2017. In fact, the fourth paragraph reads "We will make the European Union stronger and more resilient, through even greater unity and solidarity among us and in compliance with common rules”[11].

  1. Resilience as a legal category of European environmental law.

The concept of resilience, for the EU legal system, therefore seems to add a new gradation to European environmental law and to sustainability, enriching it and making it perhaps more in keeping with the needs and diversities of the Member States and partner countries. It is evident that the copious scientific speculation [12] that affects resilience at this time is gradually allowing a gradual introduction into the system of positive law, called to outline the change to lead to new forms of balance. Our study therefore aims to favor an evolutionist interpretation of the concept of resilience, understood as a dynamic legal process that allows us to cope with disruptive events in order to reach a new state of things, more sustainable than the one that caused it. the crisis. In fact, as already pointed out in the introduction, it is believed that the resilient approach could contribute to the improvement of European environmental law and to the paradigm of sustainable development which - already built on a solid regulatory building - governs environmental matter in a ubiquitous dimension with respect to all. the other EU intervention sectors. A ubiquitous dimension which, over time [13], has achieved assertive recognition former art. 3, par. 3 TEU which shows that the Union works for the sustainable development of Europe, based on a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, a principle reaffirmed by art. 11 TFEU, pursuant to which "the needs connected with the protection of the environment must be integrated in the definition and implementation of policies and actions of the Union, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development"[14]. It is a general clause which, by expanding and extending the principle of sustainability beyond the market and economic activities, through the integration of community policies, can, in environmental matters, generate a virtuous series of hendiadys: sustainable environmental economic development, development sustainable environmental social, sustainable environmental cultural (and touristic) development. In this context, the concept of resilience, if understood as a regulatory evolution of the same idea of ​​sustainability, could incentivize a renewed environmental policy as an "adaptation policy" [15], aimed at moderating, in the various sectors, the possible risk factors and fragility, through new forms of governance and coordination of the subjects appointed to intervene, also by generating (especially through training) new forms of social awareness. The Lisbon Treaty, however, in redefining the areas of competence of the Union (Articles 4 and 5 TEU) confirmed the environmental matter in the context of concurrent legislation policies (Article 4, par. 2, lett. is TFEU) on the substrate of the principles of attribution, subsidiarity and proportionality. This circumstance does not fail to reflect on the technical level, especially for the purpose of identifying the necessary moments of institutional coordination and coordination imposed by the obligations of compliance with European law. In addition, the rules of domestic law, on environmental matters, increasingly outline a very complex institutional framework with respect to which it is not at all easy to identify a sufficiently clear dividing line on the division of internal competences that often move in a context characterized by the complexity of the models and sectors of intervention (such as landscape protection, water resources management, waste management, etc.) [16]. Therefore, although the European environmental policy represents a virtuous and valuable attempt to identify a corpus of shared values ​​and rules, community resilience in this sector, understood in terms of system adaptation, could represent the very evolution of environmental standardization and the concept of sustainability only when the existence of a double order of aspects can be positively verified : the effectiveness of application of European provisions and implementation by the Member States. The analysis of these aspects highlights the topicality and complexity of environmental issues, whose global dimension - albeit such as to lead to a widespread and significant affirmation of environmental protection as a universally shared value and, therefore, deserving of unequivocal legal identification - , leaves wide spaces of persistent disharmony between the regulations of domestic law and the community environmental order. This disharmony does not reconcile both with the environmental protection described by the Treaties, based on the idea of ​​a balanced and sustainable development as a structural element of a perspective of intergenerational well-being (which satisfies today's needs without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy propri) and with the construction of a resilient legal system [17] capable of facing change not only as a reaction to the shock but also through the implementation of cohesion and harmonization policies supported by the fulfillment of environmental obligations regarding the industrial sector , public services, the economy and citizens themselves. What we want to highlight is that the approach to the current situation must necessarily already be understood in a resilient sense.Sustainability must already be declined through resilience that must be made explicit by the rules and by their compliance in terms of application effectiveness. The current environmental situation requires reaction and adaptation initiatives in progress and not only former post, highlighting the need to change the environmental policy shared between States and Europe in a resilient sense: often, the negligent weakness of the mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing compliance and a governance effective at national and local level represent the first impediment to the construction of a more resilient legal system, with naturally negative outcomes in terms of cogency and effectiveness. Furthermore, the definitive affirmation of sustainability, as a fundamental principle of the Union, should be noted through its inclusion in the Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed in Nice in 2000. The paradigm of sustainable development has taken on, precisely through its inclusion in the Charter, not only a renewed political and cultural importance, but also the function of an instrument of interpretation of other norms and values ​​referable to theacquis Community, with respect to which the formulation of a resilient environmental policy must be able to become increasingly incisive [18]. If, in fact, sustainability is based on the balance between the environment, economy and society, resilience can become not only the response to the moments in which this balance is altered but can come to represent, together, reaction and response while it alters, that is the tool for dealing with that present that the European Environment Agency calls, as already noted, "Europe's ecological deficit". Understood in this sense, the resilient regulatory approach can really represent the tool to stubbornly counteract environmental crises by opening up to adaptation that affects the vast audience of European citizens, spectators and actors who are often unaware of the most difficult scenarios of the environmental system (widespread pollution of the water resources poor air quality in urban areas unsatisfactory waste treatment loss of species and habitats environmental crimes etc.). Added to this are the costs of non-application of environmental regulations, estimated at about fifty billion euros per year [19]. Therefore, resilience must legally establish itself in the regulatory network and in its relationship with the social fabric and the organizations that constitute it, to be evaluated in terms of application effectiveness, through decision-making and administrative procedures, in order to achieve a dynamic adaptation declined the institutional activities aimed at overseeing the environmental system.

2.1. It follows. Positivization perspectives: value and opportunity.

The European Union, in the progressive construction of environmental law, perhaps also due to the initial silence of the founding Treaties, has often used and continues to use regulatory instruments extraneous to the classic nomenclatures and legal categories, favoring mechanisms that, although not endowed with force binding ex law, have enabled the achievement of common objectives by ensuring compliance withacquis communautaire. The reference is certainly to action programs, green and white papers, framework directives, communications, declarations, resolutions and much more. The concept of resilience seems to make its way into European positive law precisely through the aforementioned instruments, the vulnus in terms of binding nature it does not prevent the construction of a new legal category with which to face the changes in the current development models in order to implement adaptation strategies to the alterations of the environmental system. In this sense, it is necessary to focus attention not only on the aspects of risk prevention and / or mitigation (as already happens through the generalized application of European principles of environmental law) but above all on those functional to the development of capacities and solutions. organizational in a moment before the event. That is, it is already necessary to identify all possible alternatives to cope with a risk situation, also through an efficient and timely transmission of information, a considerable simplification of administrative procedures and an allocation of adequate financial resources. Furthermore, the implementation ex ante strategies for adapting and strengthening solutions could ensure the sustainability of the environmental system in balance with other social and economic systems in that intergenerational dimension that is the essence of sustainability. With respect to this approach, however, the Union needs the effective collaboration of the Member States which - by developing resilient bottom up - favor the creation of a value fabric favorable to the introduction of new regulatory and organizational structures. The perspective just outlined, however, clashes with the evidence found in the latest Annual Report on the control of the application of EU law [20] which substantially confirms the findings prepared by the Commission in the Report for 2018 [21]: from the document de quo it appears that within the member states serious shortcomings persist in the implementation and application of EU environmental legislation. The Commission has continued to address these gaps by making use of the legal means that the Treaties provide for compliance with Community obligations: infringement procedures, consultations with national authorities and other stakeholders up to the drafting of work programs to support compliance. It should also be noted that in this context, a new tool has been developed, called "Environmental Implementation Review (EIR)[22], aimed both at monitoring progress towards environmental objectives and at carrying out the review of the implementation of related policies. This is a two-year procedure with specific recommendations for each Member State. The general purpose of the review initiative provides for an analysis and propulsion work in support of the objectives set by the policies and legislation in force on the environment, the achievement of which constitutes a set of reference parameters by which to evaluate the progress of implementation . The procedure in question has a precise participatory connotation, such as to induce Member States to involve stakeholders (civil society organizations, different levels of government, citizens and businesses) in order to discuss the main shortcomings in terms of adaptation. However, it is believed that the review tool, while offering national institutions and authorities the tool to analyze the root causes of the low level of implementation of EU legislation, offers, in fact, only the possibility of carrying out a preliminary assessment of these causes. . In order to be able to endorse specific solutions for each country, more detailed information is certainly needed. It should be noted that theEIR originates from the strategy "Better lawmaking"[23] drafted by the Commission precisely in order to address the problem of the uneven application of European legislation by the Member States, in the pragmatic perspective of adopting appropriate solutions that avoid the danger of regulatory violations and infringements of compliance obligations. Therefore, the review tool is to be considered prodromal to the intervention and implementation measures, in order to identify possible structural solutions even before the deadlines for compliance expire and censorship mechanisms are triggered. In this, we could certainly see an effort of regulatory resilience with respect to environmental policy by the European institutions: not only adaptation to the shock but implementation of systemic actions with and towards the Member States, as a tool to ensure effective sustainability of the entire system. socio-economic European. Only through the sharing of knowledge, more effective coordination and collaboration with public administrations, businesses and citizens will it be possible to achieve the environmental protection objectives structured within the community building. Therefore, the preliminary assessments developed through theEIR they can effectively support the implementation of EU environmental policies and legislation only if they are followed by concrete actions. In particular, with respect to reports by country, it is necessary to identify actors and actions in order to be able to cope with the non-compliance of the Member States [24], mainly attributable to the programmatic sectors of environmental protection such as waste management, nature and biodiversity, quality air, quality and water resources management. The country-specific reports on the first review of the implementation of environmental policies obviously highlighted the possibility of improving the feedback provided by the Commission, leading it at the beginning of 2018 to draw up an action plan aimed at increasing compliance with EU environmental legislation and improve the governance in the sector [25]. The document requires the Commission, Member States and professionals (such as inspectors, auditors, police officers and prosecutors) to work closely together to "an intelligent and collaborative culture of compliance with EU environmental standards in relation to activities such as industrial production, waste disposal and agriculture ". The Commission, in highlighting again that the correct application of the rules would bring many benefits, calls on the Member States to comply with environmental standards in practice or in compliance with environmental obligations concerning the activities of the industrial sector, public services, landowners and others "persons in charge". These obligations may take the form of prohibitions, general binding rules, authorizations and other measures put in place in order to protect the environment, public health and the resource needs of society in the long term. The Commission also reiterated that Member States are bound by the obligation to work together in good faith for the achievement of EU objectives and that internal authorities must remedy the unlawful consequences of violations of European law whose application, such as also widely noted by the community judge, it must be "effective, proportional and dissuasive". Therefore, the EU states must prepare every functional mechanism to ensure the "guarantee of environmental compliance"[26]. The action plan indicates nine targeted support measures to address practical needs and deliver results in several priority areas already in the short term. The shares in question are indicated in table no. 2 of the document. The plan will form the basis of an evolving work program for the period 2018-2019 and responds to the demand for concrete support for compliance and governance of the environmental sector. In the opinion of the European Executive "the plan will help collectively define a more coherent EU approach to addressing environmental compliance and governance challenges. The results of the plan should enable practitioners to: better address violations of environmental regulations and unfair competition, as well as the damage they cause, to more effectively help those in charge to fulfill their respective obligations strengthen citizens' confidence in ensuring compliance and, last but not least, to better protect Europe's common heritage". Once the goals have been set, the next step could be to create a framework organizational support to redefine choices, procedures and timing in a resilient sense or as openness and flexibility to a process of redefining the environmental system along the two lines of the correct and punctual application of Community law. Moreover, this interpretation seems functional to the more complex actions of affirmation and protection of sustainability both within the EU and at the international and global level [27]. In fact, the principle of cooperation that informs international relations in terms of environmental sustainability requires the Union to implement politically oriented, solid and consistent actions. Not surprisingly, following the Recommendation of 19 March 2018, the Council of the European Union authorized the Commission to negotiate the future Global Pact for the environment at the UN (Global Pact for the Environment) [28]. The pact, currently available only on the basis of the draft presented in June 2017 at the Sorbonne University in Paris, would consolidate the fundamental principles of international environmental law in a single document, making them binding and applicable before national courts. Furthermore, the document would make universal the main provisions of the legally binding conventions at international level and would add new legal principles including that of resilience: in fact, pursuant to art. 16, entitled Resilience, "The Parties shall take necessary measures to maintain and restore the diversity and capacity of ecosystems and human communities to withstand environmental disruptions and degradation and to recover and adapt". It is evident that the positivization of the resilience principle, in addition to sanctioning its generic legitimacy at the international level, could improve the quality of regulation, legislative and decision-making processes for all ratifying subjects and therefore also for the European Union, which is now increasingly inclined to manage the rules according to adaptive methods functional to the concrete implementation of the environmental policy in the direction of sustainability.

  1. Final considerations.

From this brief and preliminary attempt to read the concept of resilience in a legal key, some aspects of interest certainly emerge for the definition of an environmental policy agenda not only at European but also international level. The main contribution that we want to offer is the introduction of a different methodological approach, from an interpretative point of view, of the legal archetypes and the most common social expectations: addressing issues of resilience in the legal field does not only mean legitimizing its use as a category or principle means first of all encountering a complex cultural change by overcoming stereotyped conceptions of institutional aspects and social roles. The conditions must be created for this awareness to become an opportunity. The change required by the ecological deficit situation affecting the European Union (but also the entire international community) is very important: to achieve the resilience of the environmental system it will be essential to develop innovative tools for policy is governance, within concerted and shared guidelines. In this sense, the efforts undertaken in the most recent international negotiations have allowed not only the affirmation of a leadership European Union but represented the stimulus for adopting internal measures in line with the commitments made. It could then be hypothesized that legal reflection could assume the responsibility of approaching the matter of environmental resilience through the objective and ordering lens of law to identify areas of study shared between national, supranational and extra-juridical solutions determined by political, cultural or originating factors from other knowledge. Legally qualifying new conceptual categories is certainly a complex operation, especially in a multilevel system such as the European one, equipped with rules that, intersecting, overlap principles and procedures. Not surprisingly, European states are often grappling with disputes former art. 258 TFEU, initiated by the Commission above all in order to guarantee the objective of approximating laws in an attempt to bring about a conforming effect to European law. Legal science should, therefore, with regard to similar issues, arrive at new solutions capable of responding to the needs of concrete protection of the environment within complex European relations. Obviously, the legal protection of the environment, passing from the development of positive law norms, could involve a resilient review of institutes and disciplines. However, the law takes shape as a result of the sharing of values, relationships and principles considered fundamental and as such capable of generating a collective and binding respect, that is, legally relevant. Consequently, in an attempt to give the legal category resilience a conceptual content on the basis of which to elaborate a reflection on the new needs of environmental protection revealed by the many implications in which the matter is articulated, we believe that this category represents, both in terms of legislative production , both in procedural terms, a principle of environmental law in progress.

[1] The VII Action Program for the Environment of the Union was approved with Decision no. 1386/2013 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 (available on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf). Action programs are basically tools for guiding the EU's environmental policies. While having mainly political value, the Action Programs constitute the starting point for the adoption of binding instruments and specific interventions. The Community, therefore, over time, has developed a series of action programs, with multi-year effectiveness, aimed at protecting the environment. With particular reference to the issues of our interest, reference should be made to the Paris Summit of 1972, which was followed by the First Environmental Action Program of 1973.

[2] In June 2017, the European Commission published a communication on resilience entitled "A strategic approach to resilience in the EU's external action"(See JOIN (2017) 21 final, available at https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/join_2017_21_f1_communication_from_commission_to_inst_en_v7_p1_916039.pdf). The document in question is characterized by a broad approach systemic which declines the social system and its components towards common purposes, redefining objectives and strategies. As noted by the Commission, external action must address the individual State which must maintain social and political cohesion in support of society and individuals so that they develop the ability to maintain and restore their living conditions altered by circumstances of crisis. of natural origin or caused by anthropogenic actions.

[3] As is known, the phrase "sustainable development" (sustainable development) identifies a set of values ​​and rules introduced by the report "Our Common Future"Approved by the United Nations General Assembly with resolution no. 42/187 of 11 December 1987 (the document is also known as Brundtland Report, named after the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland who chaired the World Commission for the Human Environment and Development established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1983). The report, drawn up by independent experts, shows the definition of “sustainable development”, as development that satisfies the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The concept of sustainable development was later articulated following a paradigm built along three lines: economic prosperity, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. For a broad examination of the principle of sustainable development at the international and European level, see ex multis the contributions Groppi T., Sustainability and Constitutions, in Publication Dir. Comp. Eur., 1, 2016, in particular p. 43 ff. Sachs J. D. The era of sustainable development, Milan, Bocconi Publisher University, 2015 monteduro m., Tommasi s., Legal paradigms for the realization of human well-being in ecological systems with unavailable existence and necessary belonging, in AA.VV., Well-being and rules of civil relations. Development beyond the crisis (Proceedings of the 9th SISDiC National Convention, Naples, 8-9-10 May 2014, in memory of Giovanni Gabrielli), Series of the Italian Society of Civil Law Scholars (SISDiC), ESI, 2015 Montini M., Evolution, principles and sources of international environmental law, in Dell’Anno P., Picozza E. (edited by), Treaty of environmental law, Cedam, 2012 tulumello G., Sustainable development, administrative discretion and judicial review, in fracchia f. ,occhiena m., Climate Change: the answer of the law, Naples, 2010, pp. 133 and ss. Fois P. (edited by), The principle of sustainable development in international law ed European environment, Naples, 2006 The D. F. Chamber, Sustainable Development. Origins, theory and practice, Rome, 2005. With reference to the most recent developments, it should be noted that in September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the related 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (see United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 70/1. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 2015, available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org / post2015 / transformingourworld). A few months later, the Paris Agreement on climate change was concluded, which entered into force on 4 November 2016 (available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/it/policies/climate-change/timeline/ For further information see Voigt C., The Paris Agreement: What is the Standard of Conduct for Parties?, in Questions of International Law, 26, 2016). Both initiatives share the requirements in terms of sustainable development. This circumstance could represent a further stimulus for the preparation and implementation of integrated initiatives on climate change and sustainability. Both documents, in fact, urge the international community to work towards the adoption of specific plans and programs at the national level on the basis of the mutual integration of objectives and actions.

[4] The term resilience spread in the first decades of the twentieth century in various scientific fields such as physics, engineering, ecology, psychology and psychiatry. In particular, for physics the term refers to the technology of materials, according to the Latin etymology resilate, bounce, withstand the impact. In ecology, on the other hand, the term refers more properly to the ability of a system to resist an impact by adapting to it. Among the many contributions relating to the various disciplinary sectors, see Crocco d. Resilience and public economic planning policies. Some brief notations of public economic law in Institutions of economic law, I, 2-2017, p. 5 and ss. Cantoni F., Resilience as a dynamic and strong-willed competence, Giappichelli Editore, 2014 Zhu J., Ruth M., Exploring the resilience of industrial ecosystems, Journal of Environmental Management, 2013 Folke C. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social – ecological systems analyzes, Global Environmental Change, in particular pp. 253-267, 2006. Around the concept de qua a large scientific speculation has therefore developed. The concept, therefore, has entered the reflection of the social sciences with consequent considerable use in the definition of concepts such as eg. "Resilient cities" or "resilient communities" to express the ability of social aggregates to implement adaptation and strengthening strategies in the face of various types of destabilization: economic crises, natural disasters, etc.

[5] Yes v. widely on this point, among the authors who significantly support the elaboration of eco-legal principles and the collaboration between the various scientific sectors involved in environmental protection, the contribution of Monteduro M., Land administrative decisions in the era of ecological recession, in Riv. AIC, 2, 2018 as well as Monteduro M., Tommasi S., Legal paradigms for the realization of human well-being in ecological systems with unavailable existence and necessary belonging, op. cit. Furthermore, in Europe, there are now numerous initiatives by jurists engaged in the elaboration of effective instruments aimed at regulating, both in the public and in the private sector, anthropic actions with harmful effects on the environmental system. Particularly in France, there are valuable initiatives by jurists seriously dedicated to environmental protection. Worthy of note in this regard is the activity promoted by the Environment Commission of Club des juristes which brings together many exponents from different categories of the legal professions with the common goal of rethinking new scenarios for environmental law. As will be noted in the course of our discussion, it is due precisely to Club des juristes the drafting of the draft for the global pact for the environment.

[6] The Hyogo action framework 2005-2015 (Hyogo Framework for Action), born under the pressure of the UN, was conceived with a view to building the resilience of nations and communities to environmental disasters. It is a ten-year plan, adopted by the 168 UN member states, which have voluntarily committed to work on five priorities for action (1. Ensuring that disaster risk reduction is a national and local priority with a solid institutional basis for implementation 2. Identify, assess and control disaster risks and enhance early warning systems 3. Use knowledge, innovations and education to create a culture of safety and resilience at all levels 4. Reduce the underlying risk factors 5. Strengthen disaster preparedness to ensure an effective response). The plan aims to promote effective integration between sustainable development policies, planning and programming for the correct risk assessment, describing a strategic and systematic approach to reduce vulnerabilities and the risk of natural disasters. The Hyogo Framework for Action sought to formulate and specify the actions and tools necessary for resilience. In the Communication from the European Commission, COM (2014) 216 of April 2014 (available at http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/ regdoc / rep / 1/2014 / IT / 1-2014-216-IT-F1- 1.Pdf) relating to the problems related to the implementation of the Hyogo Framework, resilience takes on a fundamental meaning: increasing the EU's ability to anticipate, prepare for and respond to risks, especially cross-border ones. Competitiveness and sustainability depend on effective disaster management that avoids losses and strengthens resilience to shocks and rising threats worldwide. Investments in disaster risk prevention and management also represent a strong driver of innovation, growth and employment for the EU, as well as opening up new markets and business opportunities. In the wake of the Hyogo Framework for Action, the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction was held in Sendai in March 2015. The conference adopted the framework Sendai for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030, with the indication of seven objectives and four priorities for action. This is a non-binding agreement that attributes to the States the primary role of reducing the risk of disasters, also providing for the sharing of this responsibility with other interested parties (local and private administrations), in order to contribute to the ''Substantial reduction of the risk associated with the advent of disasters and the loss of human lives, livelihoods and economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of people, businesses, communities and countries ". The framework Sendai has identified four priorities for action: 1. Measure the degree of risk associated with a catastrophe 2. Strengthen the governance for risk management 3. Investing in the resilience of nations 4. Increase disaster prevention for an effective response fully focused on the recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the affected territory. The document is available at the link https://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework. For further information see AA.VV. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Renewing the Global Commitment to People's Resilience, Health, and Well-being, in IJDRS 2015, V.II si also see the 2016 Dossier Emergencies and prevention: prospects for resilience, 2016 edited by Lepre M. C., Grechi M. in http://static.repubblica.it/repubblica/mondo-solidale/pdf/dossier-international-day.pdf.

[7] The EEC Regulation no. 1210/90 of the Council, of 7 May 1990, established the European Environment Agency and the European information and observation network on environmental matters. The Copenhagen-based agency supports member countries in making decisions about improving the environment by integrating environmental considerations into economic policies. Furthermore, it coordinates the European environmental information and observation network (Eionet). The expression "ecological deficit"Is used by the European Environment Agency in the study,"Ecological Footprint of European Countries ", 2015, available at the link https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ecological-footprint-of-europeancountries/ecological-footprint-of-european-countries-2 / # _ ftn1.

[8] On the policy and on the evolution of European legislation on environmental matters, among the many contributions see. Cordini G., Fois P., Marchisio s., Environmental law. European and comparative international profiles, Giappichelli 2017 and, for the most recent developments, Ferrero E., The main innovations of European environmental law in the two-year period 2016-2017, in DPCE online I-2018 again Rota R., Community environmental law profiles, in Treaty of Environmental Law 2012, edited by Dell’Anno P., E. Picozza E., V.I, in particular pp. 151-225 Giuffrida R., European Environmental Law Giappichelli 2012 Montini M., Alberton M. (edited by) European environmental governance in transition, Milan, Giuffré, 2008 again Montini M., European Union and environment, in Nespor S., De Cesaris A.L., Environmental Code, Giuffrè, 2009.

[9] On the very broad concept of Resilience thinking yes v. Folke C., Carpenter S.R., Walker B., Scheffer M., Chapin T., Rockstrom J. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability, in Ecology and Society, 15, n. 4, p. 20, 2010.

[10] Yes v. in this regard, the communication from the EU Commission "The EU Approach to Resilience: Learning from Food Security Crises ", COM (2012) 586 final, Brussels, 2012, available at the link http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/resilience/com_2012_586_resilience_en.pdf. Further confirmation of what has been stated is certainly the institution, as a result of Regulation no. 2017/1601 of 26 September 2017, of the European Fund for Sustainable Development (EFSD) [10], which aims to "promoting investment and greater access to finance, primarily in Africa and the European neighborhood, through the provision of funding capacity in the form of grants, guarantees and other financial instruments to eligible counterparties, in order to favor sustainable and inclusive economic and social development, and promoting socio-economic resilience of partner countries (…) with particular attention to sustainable and inclusive growth, to creation of decent jobs, gender equality and the empowerment of women and men young people, as well as socio-economic sectors and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises"(Art. 3).

[11] The document represents the outcome of the meeting held on 25 March 2017 in Rome, on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the founding Treaties. On that occasion, i leader of the 27 member countries were asked to sign a text to relaunch European integration and common intentions over the next ten years. The declaration reaffirms the desire to remain united and indivisible but clarifies that the Member States intend to act jointly also "at different rates and intensities and that they wish for a Union"big on big issues and small on small ones". These statements seem to evoke a review of the European institutional framework. For further information see Morviducci C. The Rome Declaration of 25 March 2017: between crisis and resilience, (Proceedings of the conference of 23 March 2017, organized and funded by the Department of Law and the "Giovanni Pugliese" Center of Excellence in European Law of the Roma Tre University) in European integration and supranationality, Series of Studies on European integration, XXII , 17 et seq., Cacucci 2018. The text of the declaration is available http://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/documenti/documenti/Approfondimenti/EU60/RomaDichiarazione_it17.pd

[12] As has been pointed out above (see note n. 4) the concept of resilience can be analyzed and filled with contents in different scientific fields not without assonances in the way it is conceptualized. The use in the legal field is, so to speak, in an embryonic state.

[13] In Union legislation, environmental protection has been the subject of copious production of legislation, the result of a process of osmosis and integration between the European and national legal systems, not only with respect to the plurality of sources but also with respect to political and management choices of the environment system. It is with the Maastricht Treaty that environmental matters are constructed in terms of community policy (see Preamble, Articles 2, 3, Title XVI) for the purposes of "promoting harmonious development and balanced economic activities throughout the Community, a growth sustainable, non-inflationary and respectful of the environment (art. 2). In this regulatory context, through the adoption of the Fifth Action Program (1993-2000 "Towards sustainability"), oriented to the implementation of interventions functional to the coordination of the needs of the economic development of the Common Market, the precautionary principle and the principle of sustainable development. However, it will be necessary to wait for the Treaty signed in Amsterdam on 2 October 1997 for environmental policy to become one of the fundamental political objectives of the Union. In particular, the importance of the Amsterdam Treaty lies in having, for the first time, provided for the integration of environmental protection policies with the other policies of the Union, a circumstance subsequently reaffirmed in the context of the Cardiff Council in June. of 1998. Yes v. extensively on the point Lugaresi N., Environmental law, Cedam, 2008, as well as Garabello R., The novelties of the Treaty of Amsterdam on Community environmental policy, in Riv. Jur. Amb., 1999, p. 151. Further developments will be entrusted, as we will note in the context of our study, to the Charter of Nice and the Treaty of Lisbon.

[14] The Lisbon Treaty introduced Title XX of the TFEU, dedicated specifically to environmental policy. The Title is declined by articles 191, 192 and 193, which respectively replace articles 174, 175 and 176 of the TCE. The rules in question describe the general set-up of EU environmental legislation with ample indication of both the substantive and procedural aspects of law. For a broad examination of the same, please refer to the contribution by Rota R. cit. as well as to Rena M., The principles of environmental protection, in Riv. quadr. dir. amb., 1-2, 2012.

[15] The theme of adaptation concerns the most diverse aspects of European environmental policy. Apparently the interventions of the community legislator may seem sectorial but the capillarity and complexity of the same denotes the affirmation of an adaptation and therefore resilient policy now conducted through generalized action. Among the many instruments adopted by the European legislator in the sense indicated, reference is made to the safety of the territory covered by Directive no. 2007/60 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 23 October 2007, relating to the assessment and management of flood risks or to the rules relating to the fight against climate change (the so-called "2020 climate and energy package"), with particular reference to Directive 2009/28 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009. This was followed by the Sstrategy of adaptation to climate change published in 2013 (see the document of the European Commission COM (2013) 216 final of 16.4.2013. For a more in-depth analysis of the aforementioned contents, see Fini G., Cities and environmental sustainability: European reference framework, in Urban @ it online magazine n. 2/2016.

[16] Just think, by way of example, of the difficulties encountered by the Italian legal system initer of adaptation to the Water Framework Directive, n. 2000/60 / EC, also known as Water Framework Directive (WFD). Difficulties, moreover, not completely overcome in an adjustment procedure that cannot be considered completed. The WFD, implemented with the Legislative Decree 152/2006 (together with the other directives it generates to regulate sectorial aspects), in fact, draws up an extremely complex harmonization legislation, being characterized by very broad and temporally defined finalistic contents so as to allow Member States to take action almost unanimous adjustment in terms of aquis communautaire. Yes v. on the subject D. D’ELISO, The governance of water resources in Italy. The overcoming of the infringement procedure does not exempt from further obligations, in Giustamm.it, Year XII, September 2015 Alberton M., Domorenok E., The challenge of sustainability. The multilevel governance of water resources, Milan, 2011 yes v. also Di Dio F., "The Water Framework Directive: an ecosystem approach to water resource planning and management", In Dir. And jur. agriculture, food and environment, 2006, V, 291-295 as well as Urbani P. "The transposition of the community directive on water (2000/60): institutional profiles of a new water management", In Riv. jur. of the environment, 2004, II, 252-257.

[17] Yes v. on the subject Crocco D., Resilience and public economic planning policies. Some brief notations of public economic law, op.cit ..

[18] The Preamble of which significantly reaffirms the promotion of "a balanced and sustainable development". Furthermore, in art. 37 of the Nice Charter states that "A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of its quality must be integrated into the policies of the Union and guaranteed in accordance with the principle of sustainable development". The law clearly recalls some principles already explicitly enunciated by the Treaty but places them at a culturally and socially higher level: if the legal relevance of the same obtained under the Treaties is undoubted, these principles assume through their inclusion in the Charter a greater political effectiveness as an instrument of interpretation of other norms and values ​​that are part of theacquis Community, as often suggested by the Court of Justice.

[19] The European Commission's report on environmental costs is available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/economics_policy/pdf/report_sept2011.pdf. The cost elements include, among other things, environmental and health costs, unrealized benefits in green industries, market distortions and administrative costs for industry.

[20] See "REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION - Monitoring the application of European Union law Annual report 2018 (COM (2019) 319 final) published on 4.7.2019. The document is available at www.dirittounioneeuropea.eu

[21] Published on 12.07.2018, the document is available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/report-2017-annual-report-monitoring-application-eu-law.pdf . There Annual report for 2017 indicates a slight decrease in open infringement procedures compared to the previous year (see COM (2017) 370 final - "Commission report on monitoring the application of European Union law"- Brussels, 6.7.2017). The environment is among the sectors in which the largest number of infringement cases were opened in 2017. Although, in fact, in 2017 the number of new infringement procedures, due to late transposition, decreased by 34%, the Commission has opened new infringement procedures against most of the Member States for failure to transpose the directives on the use of plastic bags, on waste and on vehicle technical checks.

[22] The EU Commission adopted the second package on 4 April 2019 EIR. The first was published in February 2017 as can be seen from document COM (2017) 63 final, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - "Review of the implementation of EU environmental policies: common challenges and indications on how to combine efforts to achieve better results"- Brussels, 3.2.2017 (available at the link https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:602f44b6-ec53-11e6-ad7c 01aa75ed71a1.0016.02 / DOC_1 & format = PDF). Already in May 2016, the Commission had launched the review of the implementation of environmental policies (see COM (2016) 316 final - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - " Making the most of EU environmental policies by regularly reviewing their implementation ") in order to carry it out hand in hand with the fitness check (Regulatory Fitness and Effectiveness Program" Refit ") of the monitoring and communication obligations under the EU legislation in force. The 2019 package consists of 28 national reports which track progress since 2017 and contain priority actions for each Member State. The priority actions for all EU member states are presented in a Attached. The report on the implementation of the legislation in Italy (see SWD (2019) 123 final) is available at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_it_it.pdf.

[23] The "Better lawmaking" strategy was developed on the occasion of the signing of the interinstitutional agreement of 13.04.2016 which can be consulted at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT. For further information see By Giambattista L. The impact assessment in the Interinstitutional Agreement "Better lawmaking", in DUE, (European observatory) p.1 et seq., 2016.

[24] With express reference to our country, the report highlights (see SWD (2019) 123 final - Italian Review - available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/pdf/report_it_it.pdf) how political developments on the environment in Italy remain mainly driven by regulations and the EU directives. However, the Italian legal system suffers significant delays related to the late transposition of European standards. This has led to several infringements and a high number of complaints by the Commission. The situation is further complicated by two levels of transposition, first national and then regional. Italy therefore has a considerable number of offenses against it, some of which have already been censured and sanctioned by the Community Court of Justice. Particularly relevant in this sense is the very recent ruling issued on 31 May 2018 by Section I of the Luxembourg Court in Case C-251/17, European Commission / Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations - Collection and treatment of urban waste water - Directive 91/271 / EEC - Articles 3, 4 and 10 - Judgment of the Court finding failure to fulfill obligations - Failure to execute - Article 260 (2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Penalty and lump sum). The community judge established that the "... Italian Republic, having not adopted all the necessary measures for the execution of the judgment of 19 July 2012, Commission / Italy (C ‑ 565/10) has failed to fulfill its obligations". In fact, with the aforementioned sentence of 2012, our country had already been condemned for failing to provide 109 agglomerations on its territory with sewer networks for the collection of urban waste water and / or of treatment systems. The Court despite having found a partial decrease of the damage to the environment with respect to the results of the initial non-compliance, referred to in the sentence of 19 July 2012 (non-compliant agglomerations went from 109 to 74), considered the relevance of the same to be persistent, considering its efforts of the Italian State investment not sufficient: this consideration is elaborated by the judges due to the fact that theintegral execution of the 2012 ruling "will take place, according to the indications contained in the defense of the Italian Republic, only during the year 2023 ", or with a delay of 23 years, given that the compliance of the urban waste water collection and secondary treatment systems according to the provisions of Directive 91/271 should have been carried out by 31 December 2000 at the latest ". The seriousness of this non-fulfillment entails for Italy the payment of a penalty of 30 million euros for each semester of delay in the implementation of the measures necessary to comply with the sentence of 19 July 2012 starting from 31 May 2018 e up to full execution of the same. The pronunciation de qua (ref. ECLI: EU: C: 2018: 358), not yet published in the collection, can be found at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=204255&pageIndex=0&doclang=it&mode= lst & dir = occ = first & part = 1 & cid = 932187. From the foregoing, it is clear that the implementation of environmental policies represents a priority objective for Italy together with the improvement of the administrative capacity of the professionals in view of overcoming the implementation gaps. As the Commission itself has suggested one governance effective EU environmental policies and legislation requires having an adequate institutional framework for implementation, built, to a large extent, by central, regional and local administrations, in particular through the adoption of solid legislation implementation supported by coordinated action to achieve environmental objectives.

[25] The document COM (2018) 10 final Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - "EU actions aimed at improving environmental compliance and governance"Is available at https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2018/IT/COM-2018-10-F1-IT-MAIN-PART-1.PDF.

[26] The Commission identifies three major categories of intervention: 1. compliance promotion, which helps those in charge to comply with the rules by means of tools such as guidelines, "frequently asked questions" and assistance services 2. the compliance monitoring, which identifies and characterizes the behavior of the persons in charge, as well as ascertaining and evaluating any violation by means of environmental inspections and other types of controls 3. the follow-up actions and application, which rely on administrative, criminal and civil law to put an end to non-compliant behavior, prevent it, sanction it and obtain redress, also encouraging compliance.

[27] In recent years, the EU has considerably consolidated its position on the international scene despite the very limited rules on external relations contained in the Treaties. In the field of environmental protection, Europe has competing competence not only internally, but also externally.


Sustainability, widespread (and competitive) value of Italian agriculture. The AGRIcoltura 100 Report

Sustainability, widespread (and competitive) value of Italian agriculture. The AGRIcoltura 100 Report

Sustainability, widespread (and competitive) value of Italian agriculture. The AGRIcoltura 100 Report

">

Sustainability, in addition to being an essential ethical value, helps agricultural businesses to grow, making them more innovative, competitive and improving the quality of employment. Sustainability which is one of the pillars of a sector in which, in Italy, more than one million agricultural enterprises operate, which employ 3.5 million workers, and with a turnover of 73 billion euros, with agriculture that it is the basis of the agri-food chain, the main industry of the country, whose turnover constitutes about 15% of the GDP. Well, one in two companies in the sector (48.1%) in Italy is particularly sensitive and committed to the issue. And this attention, again for a good half of companies, is further strengthened by the pandemic, which has given significant changes to the corporate culture and given new meaning to sustainable objectives and policies. The confirmation of a collective and virtuous path comes from the first AGRIcoltura100 Report - promoted by Reale Mutua in collaboration with Confagricoltura and created by the Cerved Group's Innovation Team - which investigated the commitment of Italian farms (1,850) in the various areas of sustainability, in all production sectors and regions of Italy. With absolute excellence, such as the first three companies classified according to the AGRIcoltura100 Index, which takes into account 234 variables and 7 indices grouped into 4 areas: E (Environment - Environmental sustainability) S (Social - Social sustainability) G (Management - Management of risks and relationships) D (Development - Quality of development). Like the Barberani winery, a historic wine company in Orvieto, in Umbria, and the Iori winery in Avezzano, in Abruzzo, and the Cupidi farm in Gallese, in Lazio.
"Our company combines the principles of organic farming with its philosophy of enhancing the best of the territory. Much more has been done than is actually required by the Bio and Vegan specifications - say Niccolò and Bernardo Barberani, oenologist and commercial director of the winery - in decreasing the use of copper and sulfur in vineyards, up to drastically reducing the legally permitted quantities and opting for the use of alternative natural products to increase the strength and durability of the vines. All efforts are focused on ensuring that every single grape grown is totally natural.We work with the utmost respect for the surrounding environment, from pruning and burying waste to the ancient technique of using green manure with cereals, organic fertilizers and plant-based treatments. Since the 1980s, we have chosen to account for the identity of our land by marrying the principles of traditional organic farming. For centuries this land has been self-sufficient and managed in such a way as to replenish itself with its own resources. By adopting an organic approach in all vineyards, olive groves and the estate as a whole, we can preserve the original vitality of our soils. As a result, our wines have an increasingly pronounced identity that arouses great emotions. We continue to believe that wine truly embodies his birthplace and is an essential accompaniment for good food and for the best moments in life that we share with each other ".
But there are many wineries of excellence in the AGRIcoltura100 index, with leading names of Italian wine, from the Umbrian reality Caprai to the Tuscan Ruffino and Barone Ricasoli, from the Trentino Cantina Toblino to the South Tyrolean Cantina Kurtatsch and Abbazia di Novacella, from the Franciacorta Ronco Calino Sardinian Deiana, to name a few.
The study shows that Italian agriculture proves to be a cutting-edge sector in terms of sustainability: in fact, 17.8% of companies have a high level of sustainability and 30.3% medium-high. And there are no major differences between geographical areas and production activities. Furthermore, the commitment to sustainability characterizes all size brackets: 80% of the largest companies have a high or medium-high level of sustainability, but also among the smaller companies, with less than 5 employees, more than one third (34.2%) reaches that level.
Among the various areas of sustainability, that environmental is the one in which the greatest commitment of agricultural enterprises is recorded, with initiatives aimed at improving efficiency in the use of resources (97.9% of active enterprises), guaranteeing the quality of products and food health (88.4 %), up to hydrogeological risk management (56.8%), emission management and reduction (55.9%) and environmental sustainability innovations (30.7%), such as the use of data for management and production processes or precision technologies. Social sustainability also sees a significant commitment: here the enhancement of human capital stands out (67.5%) - including professional and extra-professional training of workers, cooperation with schools for the inclusion of young people and training activities on sustainability - and workplace safety (66.6%), with training, checks and certification initiatives. In the area of risk and relationship management, on the other hand, the most significant initiative rate is that of risk management, which sees 74.9% of companies active with insurance policies against atmospheric events, for the protection of company assets and for civil liability. There is also a strong commitment to local communities (60.9%) and in relations with networks and the supply chain (56.8%). Furthermore, the Covid-19 emergency has also resulted in significant impacts on the corporate culture: a good half of agricultural companies declare that sustainability has increased in importance in all areas, first and foremost the environmental one (52.4%) up to that social (50.5%) and risk and relationship management (48.7%). But AGRIcoltura100 has also measured the quality of farm development - Area D (Development) - defined by the three areas of employment quality, competitiveness and innovation. Well: about one in three agricultural enterprises (32.5%) in Italy has a high or medium-high level of employment quality, and is therefore committed to offering stable and quality employment relationships, facilitating access and the training of young people and supporting the work of women, with initiatives to protect rights and work-life balance. This index is positively correlated to the general level of sustainability expressed by the AGRIcoltura100 Index: companies with high and medium-high employment quality are 15.8% of those with a basic level of sustainability, 28.3% of those with medium level, 36.8% of medium-high level, and 49.1% of companies with a high level of sustainability. Significant data also in terms of innovation, where more than one in three companies (37.2%) has a high or medium-high level, which is also positively correlated with the general standard of sustainability. Putting together the quality of employment, competitiveness and innovation, it emerges that as many as 38.8% of agricultural enterprises in Italy have a high or medium-high development quality index, and also in this case the strong correlation with the 'AGRIcoltura Index 100. Therefore: companies with a high level of sustainability are also more sustainable from an economic point of view: they have a better quality of employment (more continuous work, more women and more young people), they are more competitive and innovative. By investing in sustainability, therefore, agricultural businesses generate a positive impact on the environment and society and together strengthen their business and competitive capacity. "For years, Confagricoltura has paid attention to the environmental and social sustainability of agriculture - explains the president of Confagricoltura, Massimiliano Giansanti in the introduction to the report - always bearing in mind that these objectives must always be included in the context of agricultural development that is able to respond to the needs of society in terms of quality and availability of agricultural products and business profitability.
The agri-food chain is one of the pillars of the bioeconomy, generating more than half of the value of production and employment and playing, in addition to the primary function of nutrition and health protection, a fundamental role for the protection of biodiversity, of the territory and the transmission of cultural identity.
In a world in which the population will increase by 30% in 2050 and in which climate change will affect ecosystems and land use throughout the planet, only the presence of viable and productive farms will be able to respond to challenges on Sustainable Development launched by the United Nations General Assembly with the 2030 Agenda based on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that the UN member countries are committed to achieving by 2030. Above all in a A country like Italy where there is an increasing focus on an inclusive, efficient, sustainable, nutritious and healthy food system, which is able at the same time to supply products at low prices. All of Italian agriculture is involved in this process also in relation to the 2030 objectives launched by the European Commission with the Green New Deal and in particular with the specific strategies concerning agriculture (Farm to fork and Biodiversity) which put the 'circular economy, the protection of soil and water, the reduction of emissions, the reduction of surpluses and food waste. Agriculture must function as an osmosis of techniques and technologies of the different ways of doing sustainability in different agriculture, in this context there are important economic challenges to maintain the competitiveness of the sector.
As president of an organization strongly rooted in the territory and in the history of Italian agriculture, I believe it is essential to work on these issues to raise the awareness of consumers, the administration and public opinion on what has been done so far by companies. agricultural and above all the results achieved in relation to environmental protection and the enhancement of the territories. AGRIcoltura100 is a survey aimed at measuring the degree of sustainability of businesses, in all possible forms, a scientific work that aims to promote the contribution of agriculture to sustainable growth and the relaunch of the country. To speed up the process, I believe it is important to communicate successful agricultural experiences in the field of sustainable development, the agricultural companies in this path can tell their experiences by transmitting them to other companies in the territories, with a view to that osmosis between different ways of doing sustainable agriculture . Research and innovation, technology transfer, information and training, are some of the issues on which we need to work on an overall project on which we will continue to invest, with the conviction that production growth is not necessarily in contradiction with environmental sustainability, with the protection of natural resources and the safeguarding of biodiversity ".

Contacts: [email protected]
Follow us also on Twitter: @WineNewsIt
Follow us also on Facebook: @winenewsit

This article is taken from the WineNews archive - All rights reserved - Copyright © 2000/2021


Appeal for the recognition of Social Agriculture in the Lazio Region

Who knows that the time has not come to invest all possible energy to build a supportive and fairer country”.

This is the hope that the world ofSocial Agriculture recently addressed the Italian government in consideration of the national Covid19 emergency. An appeal that we deeply feel ours and that we want to re-launch also in our region.

The Lazio Region, despite having its own law on agricultural diversification for over 10 years, has not yet recognized social agriculture among the integrated and complementary activities carried out within the agricultural business.

Only with the recent regional law "Provisions for simplification and regional development"(Linked 2018 to the Budget Law), which has partially reorganized the agricultural diversification sector, social agriculture has been included among those activities that the Region promotes and supports through its economic and financial planning.

Yet the "world" ofsocial agriculture is populated by farms, cooperatives, social enterprises, APS, shops where direct sales are carried out, agritourisms and agri-restaurants whose main mission is not exclusively to pursue profit, but to provide services to the community and to the person as in the case of job placement of fragile people.

We are talking about a constantly growing reality, which in 2015 counted 96 officially registered companies, a certainly significant sample but not fully representative of the sector (Guida dell'Agricoltura Sociale - Lazio 2015) and that only a path of full recognition would allow to evaluate in its economic and social scope.

The strong focus on social agriculture is also demonstrated by the web. The search for the keywords "agriculture + social" on Google in 2019 more than doubled compared to four years earlier, resulting greater in the Regions, such as Lazio, where regional lists of social agriculture operators are not yet available. (ISMEA 2019 Report).

The great vitality of these companies, the fact that they are largely managed by young people and in many cases by women, the attention to environmental sustainability together with the ethical one, the dimension of relationship with the communities in which they are located, the recovery of a patrimony often belonging to public, state, state property, common goods and also goods confiscated from the mafias, makes them become places of construction of alternative paradigms that are and will become increasingly necessary for a more balanced relationship with ecosystems.

The pandemic has led, according to the producers of the solidarity economic networks, a greater number of people to recognize the advantage of these production systems, which promote a resilient, agroecological approach, attentive to the climate and the landscape, respectful of legality in employment relationships. . For this reason, we believe that the time has come to recognize the subjects of social agriculture as essential community safeguards, also in consideration of the health emergency and the role that this world can play for the most fragile people in PHASE 2 and more generally in construction. of a fairer and more just world.

Through this appeal we ask the Lazio Region to fill its regulatory vacuum, defining a path to quickly arrive at a regional law that gives dignity and value to Social Agriculture, in line with the Law of 18 August 2015, n.141 "Provisions on the subject of social agriculture ", defining and recognizing the following areas of intervention:

A) social and work integration activities
B) social activities and services for local communities
C) performance and services that support and flank medical, psychological and rehabilitative therapies
D) implementation of projects aimed at environmental and food education and the protection of biodiversity.

The time for a law onSocial Agriculture in Lazio it can no longer be postponed.

Memberships

Salvatore Stingo, Capodarco Agriculture, Grottaferrata

Alessandro Babolin, the Tractor, Rome

Marco Carducci, Solidarity Farms, Viterbo

Salvatore Carbone, The new Ark, Rome

Laura Ciacci, Sabina countryside, Rieti

Maurizio Ferraro , Cooperative Garibaldi, Rome

Mauro Giardini , Selva Grande, Rome

Carlo Patacconi, New Agriculture, Rome

Donatella Scalzi, AAIS Onlus Social Enterprise, Bracciano

Maria Grazia Sgriccia, Parsec, Rome

Andrea Spigoni, Alicenova, Viterbo

AND 301 OTHER PEOPLE, JOIN US!


Ass. Fanelli: "Organic farming, a priority of the Basilicata RDP"


"Organic farming in Basilicata has recorded, in line with the national situation, a phase of adjustment in the sector characterized, in recent years, by a substantial stationary nature of the number of certified companies and the dedicated area, a slight growth in transformers and a stabilization of producers ". This is what was declared by Francesco Fanelli, Councilor for Agricultural and Forestry Policies, on the occasion of the online conference "Reform of agricultural policy and perspectives for organic agriculture", organized by Aiab - Italian Association for Organic Agriculture. "At the same time - added the councilor - organic farming has been of considerable importance, representing one of the strategic priorities of PSR Basilicata 2014-2020 and leading, among other things, to a clear reduction in the use of plant protection products and the adoption of sustainable agricultural techniques with a consequent reduction in environmental risk ".

In the five-year period 2016-2020, the PSR Basilicata used the resources of Measure 11 to support, on the one hand, the conversion to organic farming (Submeasure 11.1 "Payments for conversion into organic farming practices and methods"), on the other hand the maintenance organic farming practices through a premium paid on the basis of the hectares subject to a five-year commitment (Submeasure 11.2 “Payments for the maintenance of organic farming practices and methods”). The resources made available for the entire five-year period amounted to approximately 86 million euros, involving approximately 2300 companies and a "premium" area invested in organic farming of approximately 71,500 hectares per year (on an average of 5 years), of which over 50% destined for cereals and legumes. Measure 11 has undoubtedly contributed, on the one hand to the conservation of biodiversity and on the other, favored the diversification of production systems through the use of local varieties / ecotypes characterized by greater resistance to biotic and climatic adversities.

"The organic production of Basilicata is undoubtedly strongly conditioned by Community aid - said the commissioner - but it is equally true that the support offered to partially cover the higher costs incurred is not sufficient to guarantee the course of organic productions that continue at the regional level. to record the absence of adequate marketing channels capable of remunerating the production itself. The planning of the new call for organic agriculture fits into this regulatory context which, starting from the rules of the measure sheet of the 2014-2020 RDP, and in line with the requirements of art. 7 of the Transition Regulation, provides for the activation of new commitments for the three-year period 2021-2023. In fact, it was decided to launch a new call and not to extend the commitments already made to allow new companies to access the premium for the conversion to organic farming. By regulation, the conversion to organic farming can be financed for a maximum period of three years and then supported as maintenance. However, considering the available resources that are still being defined - concluded Fanelli - the new call will ensure payments for the maintenance of organic farming and will select the companies in conversion, financing, under the same conditions, those with a larger surface. .In this way, the new commitments, referring to the three-year period 2021-2023, will guarantee the continuity of payments to organic farms until the new programming ".


Video: Ημερίδα με θέμα τα ποτάμια