Abstract
Rus, the rural phenomenon understood in its entirety, marks the plurality and the interdependence of different complex systems that are based jointly on the land as a central point of reference. “Rural” expresses a quid pluris as compared to “agricultural”: if agriculture is understood traditionally as an activity aimed at exploiting the land for the production of material goods for use, consumption, and private exchange, rurality marks the reintegration of agriculture into a wider sphere, not only productive but also social and cultural; not only material but also ideal, relational, historic, and symbolic; not only private but also public. The natural and social sciences (scientia ruris), in approaching rus, at first became specialized, multiplied, and compartmentalized in a plurality of “first-order” disciplines; later, above all in recent decades, they have set up a process of integration into agroecology as a “second-order” polyocular, transdisciplinary, and common platform. The law (scientia iuris) seems instead to be frozen at the first stage. Following a reductionistic and hyperspecialized approach, the law has deconstructed and shattered the complex universe of rus into disjointed legal elementary particles, multiplying the planes of analysis and regulation (agricultural law, business law, environmental law, landscape law, town planning law, etc.), without caring to construct linkage platforms among the various legal fields. In this chapter, after examining some important experiences underway internationally, it is asserted that scientia iuris should experiment with the development of an agroecological law, like that which agroecology is today for scientia ruris. Agroecological law should counteract the antinomic interlegalities (among the various legal fields that deal with rural phenomena) through tools of negative coordination and favor instead compatible interlegalities through tools of positive coordination. In the conclusions are proposed by way of example four types of coordination tools: agroecological information collecting and sharing (AICS), agroecological zoning (AZ), agroecological planning (AP), and agroecological impact assessment (AIA).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See, e.g., for a plurality of perspectives, Iacoponi (1998), pp. 51 et seqq.; Albisinni (1998), pp. 139 et seqq.; Albisinni (2000), pp. 421 et seqq.; Gray (2000), pp. 30–52; Esposti and Sotte (2002); Friedland (2002), pp. 350–371; Basile and Romano (2002); Marsden (2003); Buller (2004), pp. 101–119; Brouwer and van der Heide (2009); Martinez (2010), pp. 1–16; Bryden et al. (2011); Agnoletti (2013); Westlund and Kobayashi (2013); Camaioni et al. (2013); Lukić (2013), pp. 356–376; Bosworth and Somerville (2014).
- 2.
Buller (2004); Sturiale (2001), pp. 161–195, 161. As can be read in OECD (2009), “the new rural paradigm should promote the complementarity between agricultural and rural policy, that is there must be common aspects and a dynamic interaction, overcoming both the ‘agrocentric’ paradigm characterized by the complete coincidence between agricultural and rural policy, and that based on the ‘divorce’ between the two types of policy” (author’s translation).
- 3.
Over 70 years ago, Serpieri (1940) declared in his Corso di economia e politica agraria, vol I. G. Barbera, Firenze, p. 42, that “we can succinctly call rurality” a “complex of feelings, customs, ways of life” that “neatly distinguish the agricultural world from the urban-industrial one”. Agriculture, understood in the reductive sense of activity of production of food and fiber through exploitation of the land, can be “seen both as a threat to and a caretaker of cultural heritage,” assuming thus a “double role” with respect to rurality understood in its cultural dimension, as noted by Daugstada et al. (2006), pp. 67–81.
- 4.
Mazzarino and Pagella (2003); Van Huylenbroeck and Durand (2003); Henke (2004); Brouwer (2004); Contò (2005); Wilson (2007); Russo (2007), pp. 231–245; OECD (2008); Carbone (2009), pp. 133–144; Milone (2009); Wilson (2010), pp. 364–381; Potter and Thomson (2011), pp. 213–223; Bonnal et al. (2012); Westhoek et al. (2013), pp. 5–13; Adam (2014).
- 5.
Monteduro (2013), pp. 2–11.
- 6.
Altieri (1983); Altieri (1987); Altieri (1989), pp. 37–46; Altieri (1991); Gliessman (1990); Carroll et al. (1990); Caporali (1991); Flora (2001); Uphoff (2002); Francis et al. (2003), pp. 99–118; Dalgaard et al. (2003), pp. 39–51; Gliessman (2006); Ruiz Rosado (2006), pp. 140–145; Warner (2007); Uphoff (2007), pp. 218–236; Wojtkowski (2008); Snapp and Pounds (2008); Bland and Bell (2008), pp. 280–294; Wezel et al. (2009), pp. 503–515; Bohlen and House (2009); Wezel and Jauneau (2011), pp. 1–25; Wezel and Soldat (2009), pp. 3–18; Caporali et al. (2010); Tomich et al. (2011), pp. 193–222; Caporali (2011), pp. 1–72; Van Dam et al. (2012); Lichtfouse (2013); Martin and Sauerborn (2013); Sevilla Guzmán and Woodgate (2013), pp. 32–44; Gonzalez de Molina (2013), pp. 45–59; Vandermeer and Perfecto (2013), pp. 76–89. See also Cleveland (2013): “Agroecology is defined as a comprehensive perspective of agrifood systems including the relationships between the biophysical and sociocultural components and between agrifood systems and the larger biophysical and sociocultural context in which they are embedded. As such, agroecology includes the internal ecology of agroecosystems, their social and cultural components including nutrition and food sovereignty, crop genotype-by-environment interactions including those of transgenic crop varieties, and the positive (ecosystem services) and negative (ecosystems degradation) effects of agroecosystems on the larger environment, especially climate. This is a broad view of agroecology that does not limit the term to the traditional discipline of ecology applied to agricultural production systems.”
- 7.
Costato (2008a), p. 6 (author’s translation from Italian).
- 8.
Pastorino (2012), p. 55 (author’s translation from Spanish).
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
In this sense, the experience of Italian legal doctrine is emblematic. It boasts a great tradition in agricultural law. Italian scholars, while recognizing the interference between agricultural law and environmental law, have always proclaimed the scientific autonomy of agricultural law. The environment has been understood, for example, as a limit on the exercise of agricultural activities (“polluting” and “polluted” agriculture), as the form of agriculture (environmental constraints on the agro-forestry territory) or as the product shaped by the exercise of agriculture (with reference to the new role that the European CAP has assigned to agricultural undertakings and to the services that they can perform for the care of the environment): see Francario (1993), p. 519. For arguments that agricultural law can neither be fused nor confused with environmental law, see Carrozza (1994), pp. 151–172; Costato (2008b), pp. 15–24; Cristiani (2008), pp. 464–479. The autonomy of agricultural law with respect to environmental law is an issue that has been addressed also in the legal doctrine of other European countries. For example, for France, see Hernandez Zakine (1998), pp. 133–155; Hudault (1987); Doussan (2002); Hudault (2006), pp. 247–260. For Spain, see Martinez De Marigorta Andreu (1987), pp. 19–30; de los Desamparados Llombart Bosch (1999), pp. 217–226; Navarro Fernández (2010). For Germany and Austria, see Winkler (1994), pp. 173–189; Winkler (2002), pp. 5–18; Welan (2002), pp. 48–53. For Hungary, see Szilágyi (2009), pp. 41–55. For the debate in the legal doctrine of the United States of America, see, e.g., Hamilton (1999), pp. 41–58; Schneider (2010), pp. 935–963. For the Latin American experience, see Zeledón Zeledón (2009a), pp. 9–26; Prado de Albuquerque (2007), pp. 69–82 (see particularly 79); Zeledón Zeledón (2009b); Pastorino (2009), pp. 3–14, 39–52, 151–164; González Linares (2011).
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
Of the “industrial law,” it has been said that “it is a special law within the special law (commercial law)” (author’s translation): Caruso (2011), p. 7. The Industrial Property Code approved in Italy by Legislative Decree 30/2005 regulates:
- at Art. 11, Para. 1, the “collective trademark” registered by persons who have “the function of guaranteeing the origin, nature, or quality of specified products or services”; Art. 11, Para. 4, specifies that “notwithstanding Art. 13, Para. 1, a collective trademark can consist of signs or indications that in commerce can be used to designate the geographical provenance of products or services. In that case, moreover, the Italian Office of Patents and Trademarks can refuse, with a reasoned decision, the registration when the trademarks requested could create situations of unjustified privilege or anyway prejudice the development of other analogous initiatives in the region. The Italian Office of Patents and Trademarks can request the opinion of the public administrations, categories and interested or qualified bodies. The successful registration of the collective trademark constituted by geographical name does not authorize the owner to prohibit third parties from using the same name in commerce, provided that this use complies with the principles of professional propriety”;
- at Arts. 29 and 30, “the use of geographical labels and denominations of origin that identify a town, region, or locality, when they are adopted to designate a product which originates from and whose quality, reputation, or characteristics are owed exclusively or essentially to the geographic area of origin, including natural, human, and traditional factors […] is prohibited, when it is likely to deceive the public or when it entails an undue exploitation of the protected denomination, the use of geographic labels and denominations of origin, as well as the use of any means in the designation or presentation of a product that indicate or suggest that the product itself comes from a locality that is different from its true place of origin, or else that the product presents the qualities that belong to the products that come from a locality designated by a geographic label.”
On the protection of trademarks (collective, territorial, of quality), of protected geographic labels, and of protected denominations of origin, see Giacomini et al. (2007); Ubertazzi and Muñiz Espada (2009); Angelicchio (2014), pp. 345–386; Caforio (2014).
- 15.
- 16.
Gargani (2013), pp. 273 et seqq.
- 17.
Cingari (2008), particularly pp. 139 et seqq.; Mazzanti (2013), pp. 561–582. Art. 4, Paras. 49 and 49-bis, of Law 350/2003 establishes that “the importation and exportation for commercial ends, i.e. commercialization, or the commission of acts directed in an unequivocal way at commercialization of products bearing false or misleading indications of origin or source constitutes a crime and is punishable within the meaning of Art. 517 of the Penal Code. A false indication is constituted by stamping “made in Italy” on products and goods that do not originate in Italy within the meaning of the European regulation on origin; a false indication is also constituted, even when foreign origin and provenance of products or goods are indicated, by the use of signs, figures, or other things that might induce a consumer to believe that the product or good is of Italian origin including the false or misleading use of business trademarks within the meaning of the regulation of deceptive trade practices […] The offenses are committed with the presentation of the products or goods in customs for release for consumption or in free circulation or in retail sales. The false labeling of goods can be remedied on the administrative level with the removal by and at the expense of the offender of the signs or figures of whatever else might create a belief that it is a product of Italian origin. The false labeling of origin or provenance of products or goods can be remedied on the administrative level through the correct indication of the origin or the removal of the “made in Italy” printing. A false labeling is constituted by the use of a brand, by the owner or the licensee, in such a way as to lead a consumer to believe that the product or good is of Italian origin within the meaning of European regulation on origin, without the same being accompanied by precise and evident indications of the foreign origin or provenance or in any event sufficient to avoid any misunderstanding by the consumer on the real origin of the product, or without being accompanied by the attestation, made by the owner or licensee of the brand, about the information, that by him, will be made during commercialization on the real foreign origin of the product. For food products, for real origin is meant the place of cultivation or breeding of the agricultural raw materials used in the production and preparation of the products and the place in which substantial transformation took place […] Subject to the provisions of Para. 49-ter and subject to the sanctions referred to in Art. 16, Para. 4, of Legislative Decree 135/2009, amended, with modifications, by Law 166/2009, false labeling in the use of brand, referred to in Para. 49-bis, is punishable, as regarding virgin olive oil, within the meaning of Art. 517 of the Penal Code.”
- 18.
- 19.
See the contributions of Brocca and Buia & Antonucci in this book.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
See the contribution of Troisi in this book.
- 23.
Santagata De Castro (2012), pp. 96 et seqq. and 186–187; Righi (2013), pp. 129 et seqq.; Busti (2013), 198 et seqq.; La Torre (2013), 271 et seqq. The Code of Tourism (The Italian Tourism Act, Legislative Decree 79/2011) regulates:
- at Art. 12, Para. 9, and Art. 9, Para. 1, “the lodgings within the area of agro-tourist activities,” which “are local sites in rural buildings managed by agricultural entrepreneurs,” and “agro-tourism” referring to Art. 3 of Legislative Decree 228/2001 and to Law 228/2006 (which establish in detail the regulation of agro-tourism);
- at Art. 12, Para. 9, “accommodations in rural residences or country houses,” which “are facilities located in country villas or rural buildings to be used for sports or recreation entertainment composed of rooms with kitchenette possible, that have food service open to the public”;
- at Art. 13, “camping” in general and “camping within the area of agro-tourist activities” in particular;
- at Art. 23, “local tourist systems,” which are homogenous or integrated tourist contexts, including territorial areas belonging even to different regions, characterized by the integrated offering of cultural heritage, environmental resources, and tourist attractions, “including typical products of agriculture” and local crafts, or by the widespread presence of individual or associated tourist enterprises;
- at Art. 29, Para 2, “nature tourism,” which includes hospitality, recreational, didactic, and cultural activities and services aimed at the proper use and enhancement of natural resources, of wildlife and aquatic heritage, and of routes of recovery of the “bridleways” (horse trails) and of the “ancient rural roads.”
“Family rural hospitality” is instead regulated by Art. 23 of Law 122/2001, according to which “the Regions, in the area of initiatives aimed at rural development and enhancement of the multifunctionality of the businesses, can regulate the activity providing service of lodging and breakfast in one’s own home. Should said activities have a professional and continuing character and be undertaken by agricultural entrepreneurs, they become part of agro-tourist activities. The Regions […] determine, with their own laws, the characteristics of real estate that can be used […] as well as the characteristics of professionality and continuity of the activity. No physical person can be the owner of more than one authorization for the exercise of this activity. The requirement of the prevalence of one’s own products and of products of agricultural businesses of the area in the meals provided in the agro-tourist activities is applicable also for rural hospitality activities.”
- 24.
Recently, some legal scholarship is exploring the possibility of building a “new law” based on systematic, integrated, and comprehensive understanding of social-ecological systems, by rethinking the idea of rule of law, which could evolve into “ecological rule of law” or “rule of law for nature,” and introducing a legal concept of “ecological public order.” For some references, see Monteduro (2014), pp. 1–44.
- 25.
Approved 14 April 2011 and published in the Gaceta n. 124 of 5 July 2011.
- 26.
Art. 3, Para. 1, Law 765/2011: “Agroecosistemas: Sistema ecológico que cuenta con una o más poblaciones de utilidad agrícola y el ambiente con el cual interactúa, cuyos componentes principales son los subsistemas de cultivos o de producción animal, identificados con las parcelas o áreas de la finca donde se tienen cultivos y sus asociaciones o las unidades de producción pecuarias.”
- 27.
Art. 3, Para. 2, Law 765/2011: “Bienes naturales: Bienes comunes y servicios que proporciona la naturaleza sin alteración por parte del ser humano que contribuyen al bienestar y desarrollo de la vida en la tierra.”
- 28.
Art. 3, Para. 7, Law 765/2011: “Sistema sucesional: Sistemas agroforestales que consiste en el asocio masivo de cultivos anuales y perennes con especies arbóreas de diferentes hábitos de crecimiento, usos y beneficios, que imitan la estructura y dinámica sucesional del bosque natural.”
- 29.
Art. 3, Para. 4, Law 765/2011: “Producción Agroecológica: Proceso productivo donde se aprovechan al máximo los recursos locales y la sinergia de los procesos a nivel del agroecosistema, utiliza prácticas que favorecen su complejidad, adoptando el control biológico y la nutrición orgánica de manera óptima en el manejo del sistema de producción o la finca.”
- 30.
Art. 3, Para. 5, Law 765/2011: “Producción Orgánica: Sistema de producción holístico, que emplea al máximo los recursos de la finca mediante prácticas de gestión interna, aplicando métodos biológicos y descartando el empleo de productos sintéticos.”
- 31.
Art. 4, Law 765/2011.
- 32.
Art. 5, Law 765/2011.
- 33.
Art. 6, Law 765/2011.
- 34.
Art. 22, Paras. 2 and 3, Law 765/2011.
- 35.
Art. 8, Law 765/2011.
- 36.
Arts. 9–11, Law 765/2011.
- 37.
Art. 22, Paras. 4 and 5, Law 765/2011: “promover […] la declaratoria de zonas de producción agroecológica u orgánica, garantizando que se establezcan en correspondencia al tipo y vocación de suelo, según el uso en la producción de que se trate; y promover el ordenamiento territorial de las zonas de producción agroecológica u orgánica en el territorio nacional.”
- 38.
“Reglamento General de la Ley n° 765, Ley de Fomento a la Producción Agroecológica u Orgánica, Decreto no. 02-2012”, approved 23 January 2012, published in the Gaceta no. 15 of 25 January 2012.
- 39.
“Norma Técnica Obligatoria Nicaragüense NTON 11 037 – 12 Caracterización, Regulación y Certificación de Unidades de Producción Agroecológica”, approved 30 April 2013 and published in the Gaceta n. 123 of 3 July 2013. http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/normaweb.nsf/b92aaea87dac762406257265005d21f7/32d6ad99d191b0fe06257bc200799142?OpenDocument. See Salazar-Centeno (2013), pp. 58–65.
- 40.
“Decreto n° 6.129, con Rango, Valor y Fuerza de Ley de Salud Agrícola Integral” (n. 5.890 Extraordinary of the Gaceta Oficial de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, 31 July 2008).
- 41.
Art. 1, Law Decree 6129/2008.
- 42.
“Exposicion de motivos”, Law Decree 6129/2008: “los principios de la agricultura lo más sana posible por medio de las prácticas agroecológicas […] no pueden transformarse en normas jurídicas puras, que como tales implican coerción, obligatoriedad y sanción, pero que como principios metas y objetivos deben quedar insertas en la nueva ley, a fin de impregnar esta nueva cultura agraria a las normativas, procedimientos y actos del propuesto Instituto Nacional de Salud Agrícola Integral […] el Titulo III, referido a la Agroecología, establece políticas, definiciones y objetivos, pero no normas coercitivas.”
- 43.
Art. 2, Para. 1, Law Decree 6129/2008.
- 44.
Art. 2, Para. 7, Law Decree 6129/2008.
- 45.
Art. 48, Law Decree 6129/2008.
- 46.
Art. 49, Law Decree 6129/2008.
- 47.
Arts. 49 and 50, Law Decree 6129/2008.
- 48.
Art. 52, Law Decree 6129/2008.
- 49.
Art. 56, Para. 7, Law Decree 6129/2008.
- 50.
Art. 63, Law Decree 6129/2008.
- 51.
Decreto Presidencial n. 6961 of 17 September 2009. https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/decreto/d6961.htm. See Almeida (2012), also for explanations on the position of the Federal Decrees (normative acts of the Executive) within the hierarchy of the sources of Brazilian law.
- 52.
The pedo-climatic suitability gives rise to the classification of the soils in classes that are assigned certain letters: P, areas with high agricultural potential; R, areas with medium agricultural potential; MS, areas with low agricultural potential; ISC, areas not suitable because of the combination of soil and climate; IC, areas not suitable because of the climate, for thermal deficits or high risk of freezing; ID, areas not suitable because of the climate, by reason of unavoidable necessity of intensive irrigation; IE, areas not suitable because of the climate by reason of excess of water with prejudice to maturation and harvest; ICIS, areas not suitable both because of the climate and of the soil; IS, areas not suitable solely because of the soil.
- 53.
The legend of the uses in the territory is articulated in the abbreviations Ap (cultivated pastures), Ag (lands for agropastoral uses), and Ac (lands for agricultural use).
- 54.
See Almeida (2012), p. 33: “ZAE Cana is implemented through the Federal Decree 6.961 of 2009, which specifies the areas where sugarcane can be cropped and allows subsidised public and private financing only to existing or new sugarcane producers who expand within this zone. This financing is controlled by the National Monetary Council, which formulates policies for the Central Bank of Brazil. In November 2009, the National Monetary Council made the Rule 3.814, which prohibits public and private financing to sugarcane companies that produce sugar and/or ethanol and plan to expand outside ZAE Cana. ZAE Cana may also be implemented in the future by rules set up in the Resource Consent Bill 6.077 of 2009. This bill still needs to be approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and finally receive the presidential assent, to take legal effect. According to this bill, resource consents and the possibility to impose administrative, civil, and criminal penalties for illegal sugarcane expansions could become additional tools in the implementation of ZAE Cana.” See also Oliveira Jr and Silva (2010), pp. 6343–6351. http://www.conpedi.org.br/manaus/arquivos/anais/fortaleza/3225.pdf; Strapasson et al. (2012), pp. 48–65.
- 55.
Decreto Presidencial 7.172/2010. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2010/Decreto/D7172.htm.
- 56.
Art. 3, Law 06-045/2006: “La politique de développement agricole a pour but de promouvoir une agriculture durable, moderne et compétitive reposant, prioritairement sur les exploitations familiales agricoles reconnues, sécurisées, à travers la valorisation maximale du potentiel agro-écologique et des savoir-faire agricoles du pays.”
- 57.
Art. 4, Law 06-045/2006: “La politique de développement agricole prend en compte les objectifs de la décentralisation et intègre les diversités agro-écologiques et la situation spécifique de chaque région du pays afin de déterminer les moyens à mettre en œuvre pour réaliser les objectifs visés. Elle intègre les stratégies et objectifs nationaux de lutte contre la pauvreté fixés dans le Cadre Stratégique de Lutte contre la Pauvreté.”
- 58.
Art. 67, Law 06-045/2006: “La stratégie d’aménagement du territoire privilégie la gestion durable des ressources naturelles en conformité avec les engagements internationaux et la réduction des disparités inter et intra régionales. Elle tient compte des réalités des différentes zones agro-écologiques du pays dans le sens d’une responsabilisation effective des Collectivités territoriales, des exploitants agricoles et de leurs organisations. La stratégie d’aménagement du territoire intègre les contraintes majeures liées à l’aridité du pays périodiquement aggravée par les aléas climatiques.”
- 59.
Art. 70, Law 06-045/2006: “Les Collectivités territoriales élaborent les schémas et programmes d’aménagement de leur ressort territorial qui sont soumis à l’approbation préalable de la tutelle après avis consultatif du Comité Exécutif Régional prévu à l’Article 190. Ces schémas précisent les vocations des terres et orientent les exploitants Agricoles vers les types de productions les plus conformes aux potentialités de chaque zone agro-écologique.”
- 60.
Art. 70, Law 06-045/2006.
- 61.
Art. 74, Law 06-045/2006: “Les Collectivités territoriales peuvent prélever des redevances et taxes sur les aménagements et les infrastructures réalisés de leur ressort en vue d’assurer leur durabilité. L’assiette, le taux et les modalités de recouvrement des redevances et taxes sont déterminés par la législation, en tenant compte des spécificités régionales et agro-écologiques.”
- 62.
Assemblée nationale, n. 1892, “Projet de Loi modifié par le Sénat, d’avenir pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et la forêt”, registered by the Présidence de l’Assemblée nationale 17 April 2014.
- 63.
“Projet de Loi modifié par le Sénat, d’avenir pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et la forêt”, Art. 1: “ I. – Avant le livre Ier du Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime, il est inséré un Livre Préliminaire ainsi rédigé: Livre Préliminaire. Objectifs de la politique en faveur de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et de la pêche maritime. Art. L.1. – I. – La politique en faveur de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, dans sa triple dimension européenne, nationale et territoriale, a pour finalités: 1° Dans le cadre de la politique de l’alimentation définie par le Gouvernement, d’assurer à la population, dans des conditions économiquement et socialement acceptables par tous et en quantité suffisante, l’accès à une alimentation sûre et saine, diversifiée et de bonne qualité, produite dans des conditions favorisant l’emploi, le respect des normes sociales, la protection de l’environnement et des paysages et contribuant à l’atténuation et à l’adaptation aux effets du changement climatique; 1° bis De répondre à l’accroissement démographique, en rééquilibrant les termes des échanges en matière de denrées alimentaires entre pays, dans un cadre européen et de coopérations internationales fondées sur le respect des principes de la souveraineté alimentaire permettant un développement durable et équitable; 2° De soutenir le revenu et de développer l’emploi des agriculteurs et des salariés, notamment par un meilleur partage de la valeur ajoutée et en renforçant la compétitivité et l’innovation des différentes filières de production, de transformation et de commercialisation. Elle préserve le caractère familial de l’agriculture et d’autonomie et de responsabilité individuelle de l’exploitant. Elle vise à améliorer la qualité de vie des agriculteurs; 3° De contribuer à la protection de la santé publique, de veiller au bien-être et à la santé des animaux, à la santé des végétaux et à la prévention des zoonoses; 3° bis De promouvoir l’information des consommateurs quant aux lieux et modes de production et de transformation des produits agricoles et agroalimentaires; 4° De participer au développement des territoires de façon équilibrée, diversifiée et durable; 4° bis De prendre en compte les situations spécifiques à chaque région. Elle valorise en particulier les services écosystémiques; 4° ter De rechercher des équilibres sociaux justes et équitables; 5° De développer la valeur ajoutée dans chacune des filières agricoles et alimentaires et de renforcer la capacité exportatrice de la France; 5° bis D’encourager la diversité des produits, le développement des productions sous signes de qualité et d’origine, la transformation sur zone ainsi que les circuits courts; 5° bis De promouvoir la conversion et le développement de l’agriculture et des filières biologiques au sens de l’article L. 641-13; 6° De concourir à la transition énergétique, en contribuant aux économies d’énergie dans le secteur agricole, au développement des énergies renouvelables et à l’indépendance énergétique de la Nation, notamment par une valorisation optimale et durable des sous-produits d’origine agricole et agroalimentaire dans une perspective d’économie circulaire; 7° De développer l’aide alimentaire; 8° De lutter contre la faim dans le monde, dans le respect des agricultures et des économies des pays en développement et en cohérence avec les politiques de développement et de solidarité internationale française et communautaire. La politique d’aménagement rural définie à l’article L. 111-2 et les dispositions particulières aux professions agricoles en matière de protection sociale et de droit du travail prévues au livre VII contribuent à ces finalités.”
- 64.
“Projet de Loi modifié par le Sénat, d’avenir pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et la forêt”, Art. 1: “ […] Art. L.1. […] II. – Afin d’atteindre les objectifs mentionnés au I du présent article, la politique conduite par l’État favorise: 1° L’ancrage territorial de la production et de la transformation agricoles ainsi que de la commercialisation des produits agricoles y compris par la promotion de circuits courts; 2° Le développement de filières de production et de transformation alliant performance économique, haut niveau de protection sociale, performance sanitaire et performance environnementale, capables de relever le double défi de la compétition internationale et de la transition écologique, en mettant sur le marché une production innovante et de qualité, en soutenant le développement des filières des énergies renouvelables, des produits biosourcés et de la chimie végétale; 3° La recherche, l’innovation et le développement; 4° L’organisation collective des acteurs; 5° Le développement des dispositifs de prévention et de gestion des risques; 6° Les actions contributives réalisées par l’agriculture et la sylviculture en faveur de l’atténuation et de l’adaptation au changement climatique; 7° L’équilibre des relations commerciales; 8° La protection des terres agricoles. Les politiques publiques visent à promouvoir et à pérenniser les systèmes de production agricole et les pratiques agronomiques permettant d’associer la performance économique, la performance sociale et la performance environnementale. Elles privilégient les démarches collectives et s’appuient sur les pratiques de l’agro-écologie, dont le mode de production biologique fait partie. Les systèmes de production agro-écologiques privilégient l’autonomie des exploitations agricoles et l’amélioration de leur compétitivité en maintenant ou en augmentant la rentabilité économique, en améliorant la valeur ajoutée des productions, et en économisant la consommation d’énergie, d’eau, d’engrais, de produits phytopharmaceutiques et de médicaments vétérinaires, en particulier les antibiotiques. Ils sont fondés sur les interactions biologiques et l’utilisation des potentiels offerts par les ressources naturelles, en particulier les ressources en eau, la biodiversité, la photosynthèse, les sols et l’air, en maintenant leur capacité de renouvellement du point de vue qualitatif et quantitatif. Ils contribuent à l’atténuation et à l’adaptation aux effets du changement climatique. L’État veille aussi à faciliter le recours par les agriculteurs à des pratiques et à des systèmes de cultures innovants dans une démarche agro-écologique. À ce titre, il soutient les acteurs professionnels dans le développement des solutions de biocontrôle et veille à ce que les processus d’évaluation et d’autorisation de mise sur le marché de ces produits soient accélérés. L’État veille à faciliter les interactions entre sciences sociales et sciences agronomiques pour faciliter la production et le transfert de connaissances nécessaire à la transition vers des modèles agro-écologiques. Les politiques publiques visent à promouvoir et à pérenniser les systèmes de production agricole et les pratiques agronomiques permettant d’associer la performance économique, la performance sociale et la performance environnementale. Elles privilégient les démarches collectives et s’appuient sur les pratiques de l’agro-écologie, dont le mode de production biologique fait partie. Les systèmes de production agro-écologiques privilégient l’autonomie des exploitations agricoles et l’amélioration de leur compétitivité en maintenant ou en augmentant la rentabilité économique, en améliorant la valeur ajoutée des productions, et en économisant la consommation d’énergie, d’eau, d’engrais, de produits phytopharmaceutiques et de médicaments vétérinaires, en particulier les antibiotiques. Ils sont fondés sur les interactions biologiques et l’utilisation des potentiels offerts par les ressources naturelles, en particulier les ressources en eau, la biodiversité, la photosynthèse, les sols et l’air, en maintenant leur capacité de renouvellement du point de vue qualitatif et quantitatif. Ils contribuent à l’atténuation et à l’adaptation aux effets du changement climatique. L’État veille aussi à faciliter le recours par les agriculteurs à des pratiques et à des systèmes de cultures innovants dans une démarche agro-écologique. À ce titre, il soutient les acteurs professionnels dans le développement des solutions de biocontrôle et veille à ce que les processus d’évaluation et d’autorisation de mise sur le marché de ces produits soient accélérés. L’État veille à faciliter les interactions entre sciences sociales et sciences agronomiques pour faciliter la production et le transfert de connaissances nécessaire à la transition vers des modèles agro-écologiques […] IV. – La politique d’installation et de transmission en agriculture a pour objectifs: 1° De favoriser la création, l’adaptation et la transmission des exploitations agricoles dans un cadre familial et hors cadre familial; 2° De promouvoir la diversité des systèmes de production sur les territoires, en particulier ceux générateurs d’emplois et de valeur ajoutée et ceux permettant d’associer performance économique, haut niveau de protection sociale, performance sanitaire et performance environnementale, notamment ceux relevant de l’agro-écologie […].”
- 65.
“Projet de Loi modifié par le Sénat, d’avenir pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et la forêt”, Art. 3: “Le Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime est ainsi modifié. 1° Le chapitre Ier du titre Ier du livre III est complété par des articles L. 311-4 à L. 311-5-1, L. 311-6 et L. 311-7 ainsi rédigés. Art. L. 311-4. – Peut être reconnue comme groupement d’intérêt économique et environnemental toute personne morale dont les membres portent collectivement un projet pluriannuel de modification ou de consolidation de leurs systèmes ou modes de production agricole et de leurs pratiques agronomiques en visant une performance à la fois économique, sociale et environnementale. Le projet pluriannuel contribue à renforcer la performance sociale en mettant en œuvre des mesures de nature à améliorer les conditions de travail des membres du groupement et de leurs salariés, à favoriser l’emploi ou à lutter contre l’isolement en milieu rural. Cette personne morale doit comprendre plusieurs exploitants agricoles et peut comporter d’autres personnes physiques ou morales, privées ou publiques. Les exploitants agricoles doivent détenir ensemble la majorité des voix au sein des instances du groupement. La reconnaissance de la qualité de groupement d’intérêt économique et environnemental est accordée par le représentant de l’État dans la région à l’issue d’une sélection. Le suivi, la diffusion des innovations ou l’accompagnement des groupements d’intérêt économique et environnemental relèvent de l’article L. 820-2. La qualité de groupement d’intérêt économique et environnemental est reconnue pour la durée du projet pluriannuel. Art. L. 311-5. – Pour permettre la reconnaissance d’un groupement comme groupement d’intérêt économique et environnemental, le projet pluriannuel mentionné à l’article L. 311-4 doit: 1° Associer plusieurs exploitations agricoles sur un territoire cohérent leur permettant de favoriser des synergies; 2° Proposer des actions relevant de l’agro-écologie permettant d’améliorer les performances économique, sociale et environnementale de ces exploitations, notamment en favorisant l’innovation technique, organisationnelle ou sociale et l’expérimentation agricoles; 3° Répondre aux enjeux économiques, sociaux et environnementaux du territoire où sont situées les exploitations agricoles concernées, notamment ceux identifiés dans le plan régional de l’agriculture durable mentionné à l’article L. 111-2-1 et en cohérence avec les projets territoriaux de développement local existants; 4° Prévoir les modalités de regroupement, de diffusion et de réutilisation des résultats obtenus sur les plans économique, environnemental et social. L’accompagnement, le suivi, la capitalisation et la diffusion des innovations des groupements d’intérêt économique et environnemental sont assurés par les organismes de développement agricole, dont les têtes de réseau ont conclu avec l’État un contrat d’objectifs ou un programme pluriannuel de développement agricole et rural dans des conditions définies par décret.”
- 66.
“Projet de Loi modifié par le Sénat, d’avenir pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et la forêt”, Art. 26 and Art. 27.
- 67.
Art. 9, “Règlement 910.21.1 sur l’Agroécologie (RAgrEco)” of 15 December 2010.
- 68.
Chapter III, RAgrEco.
- 69.
Art. 18, RAgrEco.
- 70.
Art. 19, RAgrEco.
- 71.
Chapter VI, RAgrEco.
- 72.
Arts. 26–33, RAgrEco: “Le service, en collaboration avec le service en charge de la protection de la nature, détermine les exigences d’appréciation en matière de qualité biologique particulière et de mise en réseau des surfaces de compensation écologique (ci-après: réseau), conformément aux exigences minimales fixées par l’ordonnance fédérale sur la qualité écologique (ci-après: OQE) et par les instructions de la Confédération. Il requiert l’approbation de la Confédération. Ces exigences sont régulièrement mises à jour en fonction de l’évolution des connaissances […] Le réseau doit permettre le développement de la flore et de la faune spécifiques de la région concernée. Il doit être constitué de surfaces de compensation écologique, au sens de l’ordonnance fédérale sur les paiements directs, en relation avec d’autres milieux naturels, tels que biotopes, forêts ou cours d’eau. Il doit tenir compte des inventaires nationaux, régionaux ou locaux, de documents scientifiques ou de plans directeurs publiés, et respecter d’autres projets de préservation des écosystèmes existants dans le périmètre […] Le projet de réseau doit notamment indiquer: a. le promoteur et les partenaires du projet; b. le professionnel qualifié qui conseille les exploitants bénéficiaires du projet; c. le périmètre concerné; d. un descriptif de l'état initial des milieux naturels; e. la liste des inventaires et données de base prises en compte; f. les objectifs et les synergies avec d'autres projets; g. les types de mesures mises en place sur le terrain; h. les dispositions d'évaluation et de suivi du projet; i. le financement du projet […] Le réseau doit couvrir au minimum 100 hectares de surface agricole utile ou impliquer, en tout ou partie, au moins 5 exploitations agricoles. Le service en charge de la protection de la nature peut demander une extension du périmètre d’un projet lorsque les objectifs en matière de biodiversité et de liaisons biologiques l’imposent ou lorsque la complémentarité est nécessaire avec un autre projet […].”
- 73.
Lin (2010), pp. 1261–1265; Jin-hua et al. (2010), pp. 19465–19467; Legislation based on agro-ecological and environmental protection (June 10, 2014). http://www.nt20.com/index.php/archives/4859. Accessed 30 Sept 2014.
- 74.
Lin (2010), p. 1261: “The existing problems of agro-eco-environment legislation. First, poor match coordination. As a system, the internal structure of agro-eco-environment law composed of law and regulations are not piled up together with disorder, but a systemized, interdependent organic whole classified according to definite standard. Up to now, there exist in the frame system conflict and confusion at the level of legal validity […] the intercross between different agricultural environmental laws and regulations, combined with the immature legislative techniques, leads to contradiction and conflict phenomenon among these laws and regulations and there is still some gap to fill.”
- 75.
Lin (2010), pp. 1262–1263: “To improve further the path choice of ecological agricultural environmental legislation […] Ecological interest supremacy. Ecological interest should be put the supreme place when enacting agro-eco-environmental legislation, because as a part of the ecosphere, human development can’t surpass the ecological allowed limit. With ecological interest supremacy principle, the enactors are required to ensure economic growth on the basis of ecology while enacting laws. The sustainable agricultural development guided and achieved by ecology standard demands to abide by ecological law, like biodiversity rule, ecosystem cycle and regeneration law and ecological balance rule and so on. Soil and water loss, desertification, violent sandstorm in recent years in some districts of our country, they are all punishment nature return to human for violating ecological rule. In fact, the basic theory of ecology is the basic principle that we must obey today while dealing with the environmental problems and is the theoretical basis enacting environment and natural resources law.”
- 76.
Legislation based on agro-ecological and environmental protection (June 10, 2014). http://www.nt20.com/index.php/archives/4859. Accessed 30 Sept 2014.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
The “rural districts” are defined Italy by Art. 13 of Legislative Decree 228/2001 as “the local production systems […] characterised by a homogeneous historical and territorial identity deriving from the integration between agricultural activity and other local activities, as well as by the production of goods or services of particular specificity, coherent with the natural and territorial traditions and vocations.”
References
Adam E (2014) Multifunctionality of agriculture and international trade. In: Eckinger J, Kaplan DM (eds) Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics. Springer, Dordrecht
Agnoletti M (ed) (2013) Italian historical rural landscapes: cultural values for the environment and rural development. Springer, Dordrecht
Albisinni F (1998) Lo spazio rurale come elemento d’impresa – Note per un diritto rurale. In: Various Authors, Agricoltura e Ruralità. Quaderni dell’Accademia dei Georgofili, vol 7. Studio editoriale fiorentino, Firenze, p 139
Albisinni F (2000) Ruralità come regola di diritto per uno sviluppo sostenibile. In: Various Authors, Agricoltura e diritto. Scritti in onore di Emilio Romagnoli, vol I. Giuffrè, Milano, p 421
Almeida M (2012) Analysing the Brazilian sugarcane agroecological zoning: is this government policy capable of avoiding adverse effects from land-use change? MSc dissertation, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington. http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/2418/thesis.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 30 Sept 2014
Alpa G, Bessone M, Fusaro A (2001) Poteri dei privati e statuto della proprietà, vol 1. Nozione e rilevanza costituzionale. SEAM, Roma, p 412
Altieri MA (1983) Agroecology. University of California Press, Berkeley
Altieri MA (1987) Agroecology: the scientific basis of alternative agriculture, 2nd edn. Westview Press, Boulder
Altieri MA (1989) Agroecology: a new research and development paradigm for world agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 27(1–4):37–46
Altieri MA (1991) Agroecologia: prospettive scientifiche per una nuova agricoltura (trans: Angelini P). Muzzio, Padova
Angelicchio G (2014) Indicazioni geografiche e denominazioni di origine. In: Scuffi M, Franzosi M (eds) Diritto industriale italiano. Tomo I: Diritto sostanziale. Cedam, Padova, pp 345–386
Basile E, Romano D (eds) (2002) Sviluppo rurale: società, territorio, impresa. Franco Angeli, Milano
Battista Ferri G (2005) La “nuova” impresa agricola. Diritto e giurisprudenza 120(1):1–15
Bland WL, Bell MM (2008) A Holon approach to agroecology. Int J Agric Sustain 5(4):280–294
Bobbio L (1996) La democrazia non abita a Gordio: studio sui processi decisionali politico-amministrativi. Franco Angeli, Milano
Bohlen PJ, House G (eds) (2009) Sustainable agroecosystem management. Integrating ecology, economics and society. CRC, Boca Raton
Bonnal P, Bonin M, Aznar O (2012) Les évolutions inversées de la multifonctionnalité de l’agriculture et des services environnementaux. VertigO – La revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement 12(3). doi:10.4000/vertigo.12882
Bosworth G, Somerville P (eds) (2014) Interpreting rurality: multidisciplinary approaches. Routledge, London
Brouwer F (ed) (2004) Sustaining agriculture and the rural environment: governance, policy and multifunctionality. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Brouwer F, van der Heide CM (eds) (2009) Multifunctional rural land management: economics and policies. Earthscan, London
Bryden JM et al (eds) (2011) Towards sustainable rural regions in Europe: exploring inter-relationships between rural policies, farming, environment, demographics, regional economies and quality of life using system dynamics. Routledge, New York
Buller H (2004) The ‘espace productif’, the ‘théâtre de la nature’ and the ‘territoires de développement local’: the opposing rationales of contemporary French rural development policy. Int Plan Stud 9(2–3):101–119
Busti S (2013) L'agriturismo. In: Franceschelli V, Morandi F (eds) Manuale del diritto del turismo, 5th edn. Giappichelli, Torino, p 198
Caforio G (2014) La tutela delle tipicità appartenenti alla pubblica amministrazione. Aedon 17(1). http://www.aedon.mulino.it/archivio/2014/1/caforio.htm. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
Camaioni B et al (2013) Quanto è “rurale” la Politica di sviluppo rurale? Agriregionieuropa 9(34). http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/34/quanto-e-rurale-la-politica-di-sviluppo-rurale. Accessed 30 July 2014
Caporali F (1991) Ecologia per l’agricoltura. Teoria e Pratica. Utet, Torino
Caporali F (2011) Agroecology as a transdisciplinary science for a sustainable agriculture. In: Lichtfouse E (ed) Biodiversity, biofuels, agroforestry and conservation agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht, p 1
Caporali F, Campiglia E, Mancinelli R (2010) Agroecologia: teoria e pratica degli agroecosistemi. Città studi, Grugliasco, IT
Carbone A (2009) Agriculture multifunctionality: the contribution that the European primary sector can give to preserve and possibly to reinforce local cultural identities. Agricoltura Istituzioni Mercati 6(1–2):133–144
Carmignani S (2012) Agricoltura e ambiente. Le reciproche implicazioni. Giappichelli, Torino
Carroll CR, Vandermeer JH, Rosset PM (eds) (1990) Agroecology. McGraw-Hill, New York
Carrozza A (1994) Lineamenti di un diritto agrario ambientale. I materiali possibili. I leganti disponibili. Rivista di diritto agrario 73(2):151–172
Caruso MA (2011) Temi di diritto dei beni immateriali e della concorrenza. Giuffré, Milano
Cingari F (2008) La tutela penale dei marchi e dei segni distintivi. Wolters Kluwer Italia, Milano
Cleveland DA (2013) Agroecology. In: Gibson D (ed) Oxford bibliographies online: ecology. Oxford University Press, New York. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199830060-0117
Contò F (ed) (2005) Olivicoltura e ambiente: un nuovo equilibrio tra marginalità, condizionalità, multifunzionalità e sviluppo del territorio. Franco Angeli, Milano
Cossu M (2003) La “nuova” impresa agricola tra diritto agrario e diritto commerciale. Rivista di diritto civile 49(1):73–100
Costato L (2008a) Corso di diritto agrario italiano e comunitario. Giuffrè, Milano
Costato L (2008b) La lezione di Antonio Carrozza (e qualche possibile fraintendimento). Rivista di diritto agrario 87(1):15–24
Costato L, Rook Basile E, Germanò A (eds) (2011) Trattato di diritto agrario, vol II. Il diritto agroambientale. Utet, Torino
Cristiani E (2008) Le riviste agraristiche italiane e i nuovi contenuti del diritto agrario. Rivista di diritto agrario 87(4):464–479
D’Addezio M (2008) Le attività di servizi agroambientali nell’ordinamento giuridico sopranazionale italiano e comunitario: questioni di qualificazione. Agricoltura Istituzioni Mercati 5(2):9–34
D’Imperio G (2011) Sicurezza sul lavoro e utilizzo dei macchinari in agricoltura. Diritto e pratica del lavoro 28(20):1195–1198
Dalgaard T, Hutchings NJ, Porter JR (2003) Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agr Ecosyst Environ 100(1):39–51
Darian-Smith E (2013) Laws and societies in global contexts: contemporary approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Daugstada K, Rønningena K, Skarb B (2006) Agriculture as an upholder of cultural heritage? Conceptualizations and value judgements – a Norwegian perspective in international context. J Rural Stud 22(1):67–81
De Giorgi Cezzi G (2005) Tutela dell’identità dei luoghi e rilevanza “monumentale” di un ulivo secolare. Foro Amministrativo – TAR 4(9):2955 et seqq
de los Desamparados Llombart Bosch M (1999) Las interrelaciones del Derecho Agrario y el Derecho Ambiental. In: Ballesteros Hernández LM, Oliván del Cacho J (eds) Actas del Congreso español de Derecho Agrario y ordenación rural. Instituto de Derecho Agrario de la Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, p 217
Doussan I (2002) Activité agricole et droit de l’environnement, l’impossible conciliation? L’Harmattan, Paris
Esposti R, Sotte F (eds) (2002) Le dinamiche del rurale: letture del caso italiano. Franco Angeli, Milano
Flora C (ed) (2001) Interactions between agroecosystems and rural communities. CRC, Boca Raton
Francario L (1993) Agricoltura e ambiente: nuovi stimoli per l’approccio giuridico. Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria e dell’ambiente 2(10):517 et seqq
Francis C et al (2003) Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. J Sustain Agric 22(3):99–118
Friedland WH (2002) Agriculture and rurality: beginning the ‘Final Separation’? Rural Sociol 67(3):350–371
Gargani A (2013) Reati contro l’incolumità pubblica. Tomo II: Reati di comune pericolo mediante frode. In: Grosso CF, Padovani T, Pagliaro A (eds) Trattato di diritto penale. Parte speciale, vol IX. Giuffré, Milano, p 273
Giacomini C et al (2007) Lo sviluppo dei marchi geografici collettivi e dei segni distintivi per tutelare e valorizzare i prodotti freschissimi. Franco Angeli, Milano
Giliberti B (2013) Il principio di precauzione nel diritto alimentare e farmaceutico. GiustAmm.it: Rivista di diritto pubblico 10(2):1 et seqq. http://www.giustamm.it/
Gliessman SR (ed) (1990) Agroecology: researching the ecological basis for sustainable agriculture. Springer, New York
Gliessman SR (2006) Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems, 2nd edn. CRC, Boca Raton
Gonzalez de Molina M (2013) Agroecology and politics. How to get sustainability? About the necessity for a political agroecology. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 37(1):45–59
González Linares N (2011) Derecho agrario contemporáneo y derecho civil. San Marcos, Lima
Gray J (2000) The common agricultural policy and the re-invention of the rural in the European community. Sociologia Ruralis 40(1):30–52
Hamilton ND (1999) A changing agricultural law for a changing agriculture. Drake J Agric Law 4(1):41–58
Henke R (ed) (2004) Verso il riconoscimento di una agricoltura multifunzionale: teorie, politiche, strumenti. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli
Hernandez Zakine C (1998) L’influence du droit de l’environnement sur le droit rural. Conservation de la faune sauvage, droit communautaire, droit National. Ruralia, Revue de l’Association des ruralistes français 3:133–155
Hudault J (1987) Droit rural, droit de l’exploitation agricole. Dalloz, Paris
Hudault J (2006) L’evolution et les fondements actuels du droit rural. Rivista di diritto agrario 85(3):247–260
Iacoponi L (1998) La sfida della moderna ruralità: sviluppo rurale, ambiente e territorio. In: Regazzi D (ed) L’agricoltura italiana tra prospettiva mediterranea e continentale. Atti del 33° Convegno di studi della Società Italiana di Economia Agraria – SIDEA, Napoli, 26–28 September 1996. SIDEA-Officine grafiche Grafitalia, Cercola, Napoli, p 51
Istituto Nazionale di Economia Agraria (2001) Beni culturali: una risorsa per lo sviluppo rurale. INEA Working Paper, Roma. http://inea.it/reteleader/pubblica/working/cultura.PDF, Accessed 20 Oct 2014
Jannarelli A (2004) Concessione edilizia tra destinazione “agricola” della zona e qualificazione “agricola” dell’attività: un rapporto da chiarire. Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria e dell’ambiente 13(9):592 et seqq
Jannarelli A, Vecchione A (2008) L’impresa agricola. In: Buonocore V (ed) Trattato di diritto commerciale, Sezione I, vol 2.2. Giappichelli, Torino
Jin-hua et al (2010) Legal safeguard of agro-ecological environment. China J Anhui Agric Sci 34:19465–19467
La Torre M (2013) I contratti di ospitalità. In: Franceschelli V, Morandi F (eds) Manuale del diritto del turismo, 5th edn. Giappichelli, Torino, p 271
Lichtfouse E (ed) (2013) Agroecology and strategies for climate change. Springer, Dordrecht
Lin H (2010) The path choice of legislation on agro-eco-environment in China. Adv Mater Res 113–116:1261–1265
Lukić A (2013) Tourism, farm diversification and plurality of rurality: case study of Croatia. Eur Countryside 5(4):356–376
Marsden T (2003) The condition of rural sustainability. Royal Van Gorcum, Assen
Martin K, Sauerborn J (eds) (2013) Agroecology. Springer, Dordrecht
Martinez MJ (2010) Nueva ruralidad, la remake del término pluriactividad. Nómadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas 26(2):1–16
Martinez De Marigorta Andreu J (1987) El problema del medio ambiente en el marco del Derecho agrario español. Revista de derecho agrario y alimentario 3(8):19–30
Massart A, Sánchez Hernández A (eds) (2001) Manual de instituciones de derecho agroambiental euro-latinoamericano. ETS, Pisa
Mazzanti E (2013) Nuove disposizioni penali in materia di olio d’oliva: uso fallace di marchi, responsabilità dell’ente per frodi alimentari, sanzioni accessorie (L. 14.1.2013 n. 9 “Norme sulla qualità e la trasparenza della filiera degli oli di oliva vergini”). La Legislazione Penale 33(3):561–582
Mazzarino S, Pagella M (2003) Agricoltura e mondo rurale tra competitività e multifunzionalità. Franco Angeli, Milano
Mengoli P (2009) Manuale di diritto urbanistico, 6th edn. Giuffré, Milano
Merusi F (2007) Il diritto ambientale. Rivista di diritto agrario 86(4):495–501
Milone P (2009) Agricoltura in transizione. Donzelli, Roma
Monteduro M (2013) Environmental law and agroecology: a transdisciplinary approach to public ecosystem services as a new challenge for environmental legal doctrine. Eur Energy Environ Law Rev 22(1):2–11
Monteduro M (2014) Per una “nuova alleanza” tra diritto ed ecologia: attraverso e oltre le “aree naturali protette”. GiustAmm.it: Rivista di diritto pubblico 11(6):1–44. http://www.giustamm.it/
Moscarini LV (2009) Proprietà terriera, autonomia privata e impresa nella questione dei “patti agrari”. In: Moscarini LV (ed) Diritto privato e interessi pubblici. Saggi di diritto civile (2001–2008). Cedam, Padova, p 177
Navarro Fernández JA (ed) (2010) Introducción al Derecho agrario. La organización jurídica de las explotaciones agrarias. Supuestos prácticos y materiales. Tirant Lo Blanch, Valencia
OECD (2008) Multifunctionality in agriculture: evaluating the degree of jointness, policy implications. OECD Publishing, Paris
OECD (2009) Summary of the conference “Policy Forum on Agriculture and Rural Development”, Paris. Rete Rurale Nazionale italiana. http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/2414
Oliveira CB Jr, Silva CSG (2010) Zoneamento Agroecológico da Cana-de-açúcar como Mecanismo de Efetivação do Princípio Constitucional do Desenvolvimento Sustentável. In: Anais do XIX Encontro Nacional do Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Direito (Conpedi). Fundação Boiteux, Fortaleza, p 6343
Pastorino LF (2009) Derecho agrario argentino. Abeledo-Perrot, Buenos Aires
Pastorino LF (2012) Objeto y extensión del derecho agrario. Anales de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata 9(42):50–59. http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/26993. Accessed 28 July 2014
Pelliccia L (2011) Lavoro e legislazione sociale in agricoltura. Maggioli, Santarcangelo di Romagna (RN)
Perfetti LR (2014) Principi della disciplina pubblicistica dell’alimentazione: premesse ad un diritto amministrativo dell’alimentazione. Rivista di diritto agrario 93(1):3–20
Portaluri PL (2011) L’ambiente e i piani urbanistici. In: Rossi G (ed) Diritto dell’ambiente, 2nd edn. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 241–255
Potter C, Thomson K (2011) Agricultural multifunctionality and Europe’s new land debate. In: Oskam A, Meester G, Silvis H (eds) EU policy for agriculture, food and rural areas, 2nd edn. Wageningen Academic, Wageningen, p 213
Prado de Albuquerque M (2007) O conteúdo do Direito Agrário Brasileiro na doutrina jusagrarista. Revista Amazônia Legal de estudos sócio-jurídico-ambientais 1(1):69–82
Righi L (2013) Le strutture ricettive. In: Franceschelli V, Morandi F (eds) Manuale del diritto del turismo, 5th edn. Giappichelli, Torino, p 129
Ruiz Rosado O (2006) Agroecología: una disciplina que tiende a la transdisciplina. Interciencia 31(2):140–145. http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/339/33911311.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2014
Russo L (2007) La condizionalità da condizione a fine. Rivista di diritto agrario 86(2):231–245
Russo L (2012) Agricultural law and food law. In: Costato L, Albisinni F (eds) European food law. Cedam, Padova, p 141
Russo L (2013) Il consumo di suolo agricolo all’attenzione del legislatore. Aestimum 63:163–174
Salazar-Centeno DJ (2013) Nicaragua: potencial faro regional para el diseño y evaluación de agroecosistemas agroecológicos. La Calera 13(20):58–65
Santagata De Castro R (2012) Diritto del turismo, 2nd edn. Utet, Torino
Santos B de Sousa (1987) Law: a map of misreading. Toward a postmodern conception of law. J Law Soc 14(3):279–302
Santos B de Sousa (2002) Toward a new legal common sense: law, globalization, and emancipation, 2nd edn. Butterworths LexisNexis, London
Scharpf FP (1994) Games real actors could play: positive and negative coordination in embedded negotiations. J Theor Polit 6(1):27–53
Schneider SA (2010) A reconsideration of agricultural law: a call for the law of food, farming, and sustainability. William Mary Environ Law Policy Rev 34(3):935–963
Serpieri A (1940) Corso di economia e politica agraria, vol I. G. Barbera, Firenze
Sevilla Guzmán E, Woodgate G (2013) Agroecology: foundations in agrarian social thought and sociological theory. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 37(1):32–44
Snapp SS, Pounds B (eds) (2008) Agricultural systems: agroecology and rural innovation for development. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam
Strapasson AB et al (2012) Agro-ecological zoning and biofuels: the Brazilian experience and the potential application in Africa. In: Johnson FX, Seebaluck V (eds) Bioenergy for sustainable development and international competitiveness: the role of sugar cane in Africa. Routledge, London, p 48
Sturiale L (2001) Possibili modelli di valutazione della compatibilità tra sviluppo e tutela con particolare attenzione alle aree protette. In: Bove E, Gajo P (eds) Gestione delle risorse naturali nei territori rurali e nelle aree protette: aspetti economici, giuridici ed estimativi. XXX Incontro di studio del Centro Studi di Estimo e di Economia Territoriale – Ce.S.E.T, Potenza, 5–6 ottobre 2000. Ce.S.E.T., Firenze, p 161
Szilágyi JE (2009) The dogmatics of agricultural law in Hungary from an aspect of EC law. Eur Integration Stud (University of Miskolc) 7(1):41–55
Tomich TP et al (2011) Agroecology: a review from a global-change perspective. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36(2011):193–222
Tuory K (2014) Transnational law: on legal hybrids and legal perspectivism. In: Maduro M, Tuori K, Sankari S (eds) Transnational law. Rethinking European law and legal thinking. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 41
Ubertazzi B, Muñiz Espada E (eds) (2009) Le indicazioni di qualità degli alimenti: diritto internazionale ed europeo. Giuffré, Milano
Uphoff NT (ed) (2002) Agroecological innovations: increasing food production with participatory development. Earthscan, London, Sterling
Uphoff N (2007) Agroecological alternatives: capitalising on existing genetic potentials. J Dev Stud 43(1):218–236
Urbani P (2011) La disciplina urbanistica delle aree agricole. In: Costato L, Rook Basile E, Germanò A (eds) Trattato di diritto agrario, vol II. Il diritto agroambientale. Utet, Torino, p 597
Van Dam D, Nizet J, Streith M, Stassart P (eds) (2012) Agroécologie: Entre pratiques et sciences sociales. Éducagri Éditions, Dijon
Van Huylenbroeck G, Durand G (2003) Multifunctional agriculture: a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Ashgate, Aldershot
Vandermeer J, Perfecto I (2013) Complex traditions: intersecting theoretical frameworks in agroecological research. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 37(1):76–89
Warner KD (2007) Agroecology in action: extending alternative agriculture through social networks. MIT Press, Boston
Welan M (2002) Agrarrecht versus Umweltrecht. Agrarische Rundschau 56(3):48–53
Westhoek HJ, Overmars KP, van Zeijts H (2013) The provision of public goods by agriculture: critical questions for effective and efficient policy making. Environ Sci Policy 32:5–13
Westlund H, Kobayashi K (eds) (2013) Social capital and rural development in the knowledge society. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Wezel A, Jauneau JC (2011) Agroecology – interpretations, approaches and their links to nature conservation, rural development and ecotourism. In: Campbell WB, López Ortíz S (eds) Integrating agriculture, conservation and ecotourism: examples from the field. Springer, Dordrecht, p 1
Wezel A, Soldat V (2009) A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology. J Agric Sustain 7(1):3–18
Wezel A et al (2009) Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29(4):503–515
Wilson GA (2007) Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory perspective. CABI, Wallingford
Wilson G (2010) Multifunctional ‘Quality’ and rural community resilience. Trans Inst Br Geogr 35(3):364–381
Winkler W (1994) L’impact du droit de l’environnement sur le droit agraire en Allemagne. Rivista di Diritto Agrario 73(32):173–189
Winkler W (2002) Agrarrecht – Umweltrecht: Gegensatz oder Ergänzung? Agrarische Rundschau 56(3):5–18
Wojtkowski P (2008) Agroecological economics. Sustainability and biodiversity. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Zeledón Zeledón R (2009a) Derecho Agrario contemporáneo y Derecho Agrario AAA (agricultura, ambiente y alimentación). Revista Estudios Agrarios (México, Procuraduría Agraria) 15(40):9–26
Zeledón Zeledón R (2009b) Derecho agrario contemporáneo. Juruá Editora, Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Monteduro, M. (2015). From Agroecology and Law to Agroecological Law? Exploring Integration Between Scientia Ruris and Scientia Iuris . In: Monteduro, M., Buongiorno, P., Di Benedetto, S., Isoni, A. (eds) Law and Agroecology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46617-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46617-9_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-46616-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-46617-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)