Abstract
Starting from a reconstruction of the multidimensional concept of “rural development”, this chapter intends to highlight the agroecological importance of an interesting (and still little investigated by the legal doctrine) administrative instrument of scheduling and planning, represented by the Rural Development Programmes (RDPs), also in the light of the new Regulation (EU) 1305/2013. The analysis is articulated in two parts. In the first part, the investigation focusses on the priorities established at EU level as regards rural development policies and the consequent transposition of these priorities into the RDPs, with particular reference to the Programme adopted, in Italy, by Regione Puglia. The second part examines the measures for safeguarding and developing the rural territories contained in the RDP 2007–2013 of Regione Puglia; these measures need to be compared to the protective actions envisaged by the Regional Landscape Plan (“Piano Paesaggistico Territoriale Regionale” or PPTR) recently adopted by Regione Puglia, in order to show the close interrelation between landscape and rural development in view of a new agroecologically oriented administrative planning process.
The chapter represents the result of a joint research common to both authors; with reference to the distinction of the individual contributions, paragraphs 1–4 and 8 have been drawn up by Giuseppina Buia and paragraphs 5–7 by Mariacristina Antonucci.
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.
In this sense, agriculture “designs the landscape; protects the fertility of the soil; contributes to the integrity of the hydrogeological layout, to the management of the water resources and to the control of the flooding through the hydraulic layout. It also maintains biodiversity; ensures the natural recycling of the nutrients; preserves the operation of the natural carbon sink (the earth’s vegetation) and thus contributes to the fight against climate change caused by greenhouse gases; guarantees the safety, heath and quality of food, also regarding typical products; permits the socio-economic survival of the rural communities and enhances the human labour of the farming families with respect to the artificial capital; it educates towards rurality by maintaining the historical roots of the relationship between town and country; guards the cultural identity of the territory; favours the development of agricultural ecotourism and the use of nature for teaching and recreational purposes”: Monteduro (2013), pp. 2–3.
- 2.
Fracchia (2013).
- 3.
Saija (2006), pp. 284–289.
- 4.
Sotte (2003), pp. 18–21 (author’s translation).
- 5.
Saija (2006), p. 287.
- 6.
Hoffmann (2006).
- 7.
The “first pillar”, on the other hand, aims at making agriculture more competitive on the internal and international markets, focussing on the stabilisation of the price level and product quality.
- 8.
The reform was achieved with Regulation (EC) 1782/2003, later replaced by Regulation (EC) 73/2009.
- 9.
The final purpose of decoupling should be that of remunerating the farmers for the positive external effects produced, rather than providing incentives for production. However, some disagree with this interpretation: see, e.g., Pennacchi (2006), pp. 11–16, who asks the provocative question (page 12): “why do the environmental, cultural and social services created through the agricultural activities have to be considered as goods combined with the traditional productive assets and, as such, treated as public goods for which an assessment is not defined by the market? And once again, why should the public resources destined to agricultural holdings and rural enterprises, which are capable of approaching extra-agricultural purposes shared by the whole community, exclusively affect the financial budget of the agricultural policy?” (author’s translation).
- 10.
- 11.
Regulation (EC) 1698/2005 succeeds the Delors I packet (which concerned the period 1988–1992), the Delors II packet (for the period 1993–1999) and Agenda 2000 (for the period 2000–2006).
- 12.
On this subject, Finuola and Pascale (2008).
- 13.
Crialesi (2009), pp. 6–10.
- 14.
Adornato (2011), pp. 567–595.
- 15.
Regulation (EC) 1698/2005 on the support to rural development from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
- 16.
- 17.
For the programming period 2007–2013, the EU strategic guidelines were aimed at determining the sectors that, thanks to the Community aid, could have provided greater added value on an EU level; at guaranteeing adequate attention for the EU priorities published at the European Council of Lisbon (2000) and of Gothenburg (2001); at harmonising the policy for the rural territories with the other EU policies and in particular with the cohesion and environment policy; at simplifying the actuation of the new CAP. See the Decision of the Council 144/2006 regarding the strategic EU guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007–2013).
- 18.
Adornato (2011), pp. 546–547.
- 19.
Magno (2007), pp. 226–230.
- 20.
Before 2005, both the Funds came within the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF); now, however, the “Guarantee” section is absorbed in the EAGF, that of “Guidance” in the EAFRD: Adornato (2011), p. 545.
- 21.
Rampulla (2010), pp. 729–733.
- 22.
Tropea (2014).
- 23.
Reference is made in particular to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), to the European Social Fund (ESF) and to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), whose common and general provisions are now contained in Regulation (EU) 1303/2013: Mantino (2013), pp. 47–52.
- 24.
- 25.
Mantino (2012), pp. 28–31, in particular 30.
- 26.
Sotte (2009), pp. 237–238. The generation change in the agricultural and forestry sector is one of the main objectives of Law 80/2012 of Regione Toscana, which establishes the “Banca della Terra” (“Bank of Land”): it is a public inventory, managed through a web platform, which surveys all the uncultivated or abandoned land and the publicly or privately owned agricultural holdings and rural enterprises available for rent or concession, in order to make them preferentially available to young farmers who request it by promoting a specific development plan. The initiative favours those wanting to work but who do not have the availability of land and, at the same time, imposes as the condition to access the uncultivated land the positive contribution of the farmers to the market and to the territory by safeguarding biodiversity, protecting the landscape, protecting and maintaining the forestry resources, also to prevent hydrogeological imbalance and defend the mountain areas and populations from natural calamities. After the law of Regione Toscana, initiatives aimed at establishing regional “Banks of Land” are multiplying in other Italian Regions: for example, Sicilia, Art. 21, Regional Law 5/2014; Liguria, Regional Law 4/2014; Umbria, Art. 3, Regional Law 3/2014; Veneto, Regional Law 26/2014.
- 27.
Puglia, Rural Development Programme 2007–2013, http://svilupporurale.regione.puglia.it/portal/pls/portal/PSR_PORTALE.DYN_ASSE.show?p_arg_names=asse&p_arg_values=1. Accessed 30 July 2014.
- 28.
- 29.
Sotte (2009), pp. 243–244.
- 30.
- 31.
Monteleone (2010), pp. 45–48. However, even today there are those who are in favour of a clear separation between productivity support policies to the agriculture sector and policies of rural development in terms of territorial cohesion: see Moyano Estrada (2010), pp. 51–52, who asserts “the convenience of separating, on the one hand, the agriculture policies, whose objective must be that of favouring a new phase of modernising European agriculture, from the policies directed at developing and the cohesion of rural territories, on the other […] If, in the backdrop of the current food situation, European agriculture must be once again reactivated in its productive dimension to satisfy the demand for food of the European population and must maintain its position in the world markets, I believe that it is necessary to again implement a guided agriculture policy in the EU territories with greatest productive potential with a logic directed at production and focussed above all on modernisation and competiveness of food systems […] I would be of the opinion that it is necessary to improve an agricultural policy of clear productivistic vocation that revolves around a single axis and at a single base (concentrating the current two pillars of the CAP in a single one) […] If it is not possible, due to the difficulties it involves, nor convenient, due to the characteristics of the new scenario, to integrate the agricultural and territorial visions in the backdrop of a common European policy, wouldn’t it be better to focus on the separation of the agricultural policy and of the development policy of the rural territories, equipping each one with its own funds and its own actuation instruments, and establishing the necessary mechanisms of coordination? On the other side of that integration there is also an absence of necessary political and social support (considering the divergent positions of the agricultural, rural and environmentalist organisations)” (author’s translation).
- 32.
Adornato (2011), p. 549.
- 33.
For the importance of the design of participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) within rural development programmes, see, e.g., Parkinson (2009), pp. 229–237. The “absolute value” of the participation has been underlined in the introduction to the Deliberation of the Regional Government of Puglia 39/2013, with which, for the purposes of preparation of the Puglia RDP 2014–2020, the relevant procedure of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was established, a phase in which the preliminary consultation of the organisms of socio-economic representation, of the stakeholders and of the community assumes great importance.
- 34.
Secco et al. (2011), pp. 104–112.
- 35.
Sotte (2009), p. 242.
- 36.
Camaioni (2009), pp. 51–54, in particular 54.
- 37.
For the transitory provisions, see Regulation (EU) 1310/2013.
- 38.
It is no coincidence that Regulation (EU) 1305/2013, in Art. 55, makes explicit reference to agroecology with reference to one of the essential instruments for rural development: the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for agricultural productivity and sustainability. Art. 55 of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013 establishes the following:
“1. The EIP for agricultural productivity and sustainability shall: (a) promote a resource efficient, economically viable, productive, competitive, low emission, climate friendly and resilient agricultural and forestry sector, working towards agro-ecological production systems and working in harmony with the essential natural resources on which farming and forestry depend; (b) help deliver a steady and sustainable supply of food, feed and biomaterials, including existing and new types; (c) improve processes to preserve the environment, adapt to climate change and mitigate it; (d) build bridges between cutting-edge research knowledge and technology and farmers, forest managers, rural communities, businesses, NGOs and advisory services.
2. The EIP for agricultural productivity and sustainability shall seek to achieve its aims by: (a) creating added value by better linking research and farming practice and encouraging the wider use of available innovation measures; (b) promoting the faster and wider transposition of innovative solutions into practice; and (c) informing the scientific community about the research needs of farming practice.
3. The EAFRD shall contribute to the aims of the EIP for agricultural productivity and sustainability through support, in accordance with Article 35, of the EIP operational groups referred to in Article 56 and the EIP network referred to in Article 53.”
According to the “Whereas” clause 44 of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013, RDPs and EIP are closely connected: “Rural development programmes should provide for innovative actions promoting a resource-efficient, productive and low-emission agricultural sector, with the support of the EIP for agricultural productivity and sustainability. The EIP should aim to promote a faster and wider transposition of innovative solutions into practice. The EIP should create added value by enhancing the uptake and effectiveness of innovation-related instruments and enhancing synergies between them. The EIP should fill gaps by better linking research and practical farming.”
- 39.
Art. 28, Regulation (EU) 1305/2013. The previous Regulation (EC) 1698/2005 simply referred to the “Agri-environmental payments”. The increased attention paid to climate changes has led, in the new Regulation (EU) 1305/2013, to extending the payments to this new specific topic too.
- 40.
Regarding the assessment of the quality of the governance in a rural environment, it has been underlined that, in order to achieve a satisfactory assessment result, respect of the criteria of efficiency and efficacy of the various instruments must be backed up by respect for transparency, for participation, for sharing responsibility, for equity: see Secco et al. (2010), pp. 61–65.
- 41.
Even regional centralism may, indeed, become a problem; it is important to favour an effective administrative decentralisation for the purposes of authentic rural development, as noted by McAreavey and McDonagh (2011), pp. 175–194.
- 42.
- 43.
Art. 1, para. 1, Lett. q), Regulation (EU) 1305/2013, according to which the “cluster” is a “grouping of independent undertakings, including start-ups, small, medium and large undertakings as well as advisory bodies and/or research organisations - designed to stimulate economic/innovative activity by promoting intensive interactions, the sharing of facilities and the exchange of knowledge and expertise, as well as contributing effectively to knowledge transfer, networking and information dissemination among the undertakings in the cluster”.
- 44.
“Whereas” clause 29 of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013: “During the 2007–2013 programming period the only type of co-operation which was explicitly supported under rural development policy was co-operation for the development of new products, processes and technologies in the agriculture and food sector and the forestry sector […] it has become clear that supporting a much broader range of types of co-operation, with a wider range of beneficiaries, from smaller operators to larger ones, can contribute to achieving the objectives of rural development policy by helping operators in rural areas overcome the economic, environmental and other disadvantages of fragmentation. Therefore, that measure should be widened. Support to small operators for organising joint work processes and sharing facilities and resources should help them to be economically viable despite their small scale. Support for horizontal and vertical co-operation among actors in the supply chain, as well as for promotion activities in a local context, should catalyse the economically rational development of short supply chains, local markets and local food chains. Support for joint approaches to environmental projects and practices should help to produce greater and more consistent environmental and climate benefits than those which can be delivered by individual operators acting without reference to others (for example, through practices applied on larger, unbroken areas of land). Support should be provided in various forms. Clusters and networks are particularly relevant to the sharing of expertise as well as the development of new and specialised expertise, services and products. Pilot projects are important tools for testing the commercial applicability of technologies, techniques and practices in different contexts, and adapting them where necessary. Operational groups are a pivotal element of the European Innovation Partnership (“EIP”) for agricultural productivity and sustainability. Another important tool lies in local development strategies operating outside the framework of LEADER local development – between public and private actors from rural and urban areas. Unlike under the LEADER approach, it is possible for such partnerships and strategies to be limited to one sector or to relatively specific development aims, including those mentioned above. Member States have the possibility to give priority to co-operation among entities involving primary producers. Inter-branch organisations should also be eligible for support under this measure. Such support should be limited to a period of seven years except for collective environmental and climate action in duly justified cases.”
- 45.
Contò et al. (2012), pp. 82–94.
- 46.
Zerbi and Fiore (2009), p. 7.
- 47.
Torquati (2007), pp. 41–43.
- 48.
Indeed, Regulation (EC) 1698/2005, in Art. 4, defines the objectives of the EU rural development policies: Axis I) increase competitiveness of the agriculture and forestry sector, supporting restructuring, development and innovation; Axis II) promoting the environment and the rural space, supporting the management of the territory; Axis III) promoting the diversification of the rural economy and improving the quality of life in the rural areas; and, finally, the Leader approach aimed at improving the local governance and promoting the endogenic resources of the rural areas.
- 49.
In this sense, we must point out how Regulation (EEC) 797/85 already established the adoption of economic instruments aimed at the need to preserve the rural landscape. Following the introduction of the agri-environmental measures contained in Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 and of the forestry measures of Regulation (EC) 2080/92, the importance of the landscape problem within environmental conservation and the acknowledgement of the role of the multifunctionality of agriculture have been strengthened. Subsequently, the EC interventions in favour of the rural landscape were concretised after the presentation of Agenda 2000, in Regulation (EC) 1257/99, by establishing agri-environmental measures, to be determined in the Rural Development Programmes that the Member States were called upon to draw up.
- 50.
Torquati (2007), pp. 42–43.
- 51.
Sonsini (2006), pp. 37–38, in particular 38.
- 52.
According to Art. 2 of the Convention, the intangible cultural heritage includes “the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains: (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; (b) performing arts; (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; (e) traditional craftsmanship.”
- 53.
- 54.
The Rome Treaty of 1957 had already configured a diversified definition of agriculture. It is significant that in the texts of EU law, the term agriculture in many cases does not appear in its individuality since it is often replaced by other expressions like “agri-food systems”, “rural development” or, as in the financial framework of the EU programming period 2007/2013, “compatible development”. Starting from the second half of the 1960s, with the crisis of the Fordist model, a renewed interest for agriculture was asserted, so that from the 1980s the rural development policy became the second pillar of the CAP and one of the axes around which a new policy of qualification and differentiation rotates, concerning both the agricultural product and the rural spaces. See Adornato (2007), pp. 54–55, according to whom (author’s translation) “we are in the presence of “the surrender” of the agricultural product, which has been the reference point of all the agricultural standards of the Rome Treaty and, at the same time, of the assertion on the one hand of the “centrality” of the territory compared to that of the enterprise and, on the other, of the plurality of subjective figures (not necessarily business ones and in a not necessarily productive relation with the land) […] it is agriculture that promotes agriculture overall and its new distinctive profiles. Directives, moreover, supported on the constitutional level, by a more updated interpretation of Art. 44 of the Constitution, of which the more attentive readings have made it possible to interpret the formula “rational exploitation of the land” not only in a productive manner, as it would seem from the presence of the (little opportune, but historically comprehensible) noun “exploitation”, but also in the perspective of environmental protection, with an opening in this sense permitted by the presence of the adjective “rational”, until a substantial formulation is reached which upturns the literal meaning and can be interpreted as “optimal use of the territory” in its most complex meaning”; Adornato quotes in this sense Desideri (1985) and Graziani (1985).
- 55.
Fonte (2010), pp. 4–6 (author’s translation).
- 56.
Fonte (2010), p. 5.
- 57.
Cavazzani (2006), p. 61 (author’s translation).
- 58.
See above, paragraph 2 of this chapter.
- 59.
Law 14/2007 of Regione Puglia reconnects the instruments of protecting and exploiting the monumental olive trees, as laid down by Art. 1, with the aim of safeguarding “their productive, ecological and hydrogeological defence functions, as well as particular and characterising elements of the regional history, culture and landscape”.
- 60.
As laid down by Arts. 4 and 5 of the already mentioned Law 14/2007 of Regione Puglia.
- 61.
Fonte (2009), pp. 13–15.
- 62.
Adopted with DGR 1435/2013.
- 63.
Sereni (2006).
- 64.
Ferrucci (2011), pp. 202–215.
- 65.
For this purpose, Law 14/2007 of Regione Puglia expressly requires, in Art. 6, the respect of provisions stated by the Regional Landscape Plan, also acknowledging, in Art. 8, the importance of the promotion aspects “of the Apulian olive grove landscape, particularly the monumental olive groves and their productions, also for tourism purposes”.
- 66.
According to prevailing Italian interpretation, in public law legal jargon the terms plan and programme must be considered interchangeable synonyms: see Giannini (1983), pp. 629 et seqq.; Stipo (1991), pp. 1 et seqq., which offers the following definition of planning: “a technique of each activity whose duration is projected in time and consists of having this activity carried out according to a pre-ordered pattern, within a time span, establishing certain contents and providing for certain financial means in view of the objectives to be achieved” (author’s translation).
- 67.
The “City-Countryside pact” in the PPTR of Regione Puglia is articulated in many directions (see the description on the webpage http://paesaggio.regione.puglia.it/index.php/lo-scenario-strategico/cinqueprogetti/il-patto-citta-campagna.html. Accessed 31 July 2014):
- the “confined countryside”: is an area of agricultural territory around the city which surrounds its peripheral fringes with a greenbelt; in this area the construction of ancient “confines” is envisaged (on the limits of the current outskirts) to promote the re-proposal of an agricultural landscape well related to the city, like the “ristretti” (confines) were like in the past;
- the “multifunctional agricultural parks”: are periurban, agri-urban or agri-environmental territories which are more extensive than the “confine”; they propose proximity agricultural forms which associate the externalities of multifunctional agriculture to agricultural activities producing not only quality agricultural products, hydrogeological safeguarding, landscape quality, ecological complexity and local closure of the cycles, but also good use of the rural space, exploitation of diffused and monumental rural building, activation of local economic systems; the agricultural park thus becomes a bearer of new ecological, social, cultural and symbolic values;
- the “CO2 park”: it is urban forestation of the productive or industrial areas as areas for environmental compensation; the proposal is that of covering the large parking areas and the open spaces on the outskirts of the industrial areas with large wooded areas; to create barriers to the noise and dust to protect the built-up edges; to contribute to energy production from biomass;
- the “urbanised countryside”: to contrast the problems connected to the proliferation of low-density and de-contextualised urban settlements dispersed in the last few decades in the rural space (villas warehouses, shopping centres, etc.), making up the urban sprawl of the scattered city, the Apulian PPTR aims at blocking the further occupation of the agricultural land and at promoting the regeneration of the already existing settlement fabrics in order to integrate them harmoniously in the rural context or alternatively to connect them to the city as long as they become eco-compatible;
- the “lived-in countryside”; unlike the urbanised countryside, it consists of the diffusion of productive and residential fabrics which have maintained a relationship with the agricultural activities and ensure a positive functional link between the city and countryside; for these territories, the strategy of the PPTR aims at maintaining the physical and social manner of constructing the link between the residential community and agricultural-forestry activities, in order to the protect the quality of the scattered agricultural settlement, to improve services and infrastructures for the villages, to support the interventions on rural and drystone building work and provide incentives for farmhouse tourism;
- the “natural coastal park”: the PPTR aims at stopping the mounting process of urbanisation of the Apulian coastal areas, that is a territory of high environmental value; for this purpose, in the delicate landscape of transition between the coast and the sea, the PPTR envisages a project for the coast with nature (pine woods, marshland, and so on) in place of houses; the areas of high natural importance are the landscapes which can be integrated with the coastal environment, from whose materials all the strategies for re-qualifying the coast have to start;
- the “agri-environmental coastal park”: in order to ensure the important function of maintaining open breaches, marking the landscape rhythm of the coastal cities and guaranteeing the continuity of the open spaces between the countryside and the sea, the PPTR promotes agri-environmental activities as an alternative to coastal concrete, also by enhancing the historical landscapes.
- 68.
On the point, see Lucatelli (2006), pp. 8–10.
- 69.
Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies (2014) Tutela giuridica del paesaggio culturale rurale tradizionale (Roma: Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies). http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeAttachment.php/L/IT/D/u%252Fn%252Fi%252FD.2f93de7cfb74f2f38af5/P/BLOB%3AID%3D13591. Accessed 31 July 2014.
- 70.
See above paragraph 2.
- 71.
Fonte (2009), p. 14.
- 72.
Fonte (2009), pp. 13–15.
- 73.
Zerbi and Fiore (2009), p. 6.
References
Adornato F (2007) Oltre l’agricoltura? Osservazioni di un giurista. Agriregionieuropa 3(11):54–55. http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/en/content/article/31/11/oltre-lagricoltura-osservazioni-di-un-giurista. Accessed 5 Apr 2014
Adornato F (2011) La disciplina comunitaria dei piani di sviluppo rurale e la contrattazione in agricoltura con la pubblica amministrazione. In: Costato L, Germanò A, Rook Basile E (eds) Trattato di diritto agrario, vol 1. UTET Giuridica, Torino, pp 545–595
Albisinni F (2010) Distretti e sviluppo rurale: elementi per una lettura delle regole di diritto. Agriregionieuropa 6(20):21–25. http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/20/distretti-e-sviluppo-rurale-elementi-una-lettura-delle-regole-di-diritto. Accessed 5 Apr 2014
Angilieri V (2009) Politica Agricola Comune e protezione del paesaggio. In: Zerbi MC, Fiore F (eds) Sviluppo sostenibile e risorse del territorio. Il ruolo del patrimonio rurale, 1st edn. Giappichelli Editore, Torino, pp 44–46
Camaioni B (2009) Lo stato di attuazione dei PSR. Agriregionieuropa 5(18):51–54. http://www.agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/18/lo-stato-di-attuazione-dei-psr. Accessed 5 Apr 2014
Cavazzani A (2006) Lo sviluppo rurale come superamento della modernizzazione Agricola. Agriregionieuropa 2(7):60–61. http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/7/lo-sviluppo-rurale-come-superamento-della-modernizzazione-agricola. Accessed 5 Apr 2014
Contò F, Fiore M, La Sala P (2012) The metadistrict as the territorial strategy: from set theory and matrix organization model hypothesis. Int J Food Syst Dyn 3(2):82–94
Costato L (2012) La PAC riformata, ovvero la rinuncia a una politica attiva. Rivista di diritto agrario 2:393–404
Crialesi G (2009) L’iniziativa Leader per lo sviluppo delle comunità locali. Finanziamenti su misura news 13(11):6–10
Desideri C (1985) Costituzione economica ed agricoltura. Nuovo Diritto Agrario 12(3):301 et seqq
Ferrucci N (2011) La tutela del paesaggio e il paesaggio agrario. In: Costato L, Germanò A, Rook Basile E (eds) Trattato di diritto agrario, vol 2. Utet Giuridica, Torino, pp 202–215
Finuola R, Pascale A (2008) L’agricoltura sociale nelle politiche pubbliche. Biemmegraf, Macerata
Fonte M (2009) La conoscenza locale, una componente negletta del capitale umano nelle aree rurali. Agriregionieuropa 5(16):13–15. http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/16/la-conoscenza-locale-una-componente-negletta-del-capitale-umano-nelle-aree. Accessed 3 Apr 2014
Fonte M (2010) C’era una volta il mondo rurale. Agriregionieuropa 6(20):4–6. http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/20/cera-una-volta-il-mondo-rurale. Accessed 5 Apr 2014
Fracchia F (2013) Introduzione allo studio del diritto dell’ambiente. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli
Fugaro A, Giuliodori A (2006) Una visione integrata e strategica dei piani di sviluppo rurale 2007–2013. Agriregionieuropa 2(6):22–25. http://www.agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/6/una-visione-integrata-e-strategica-dei-piani-di-sviluppo-rurale-2007-2013. Accessed 3 Apr 2014
Giannini MS (1983) Planning. In: Enciclopedia del Diritto, vol 23. Giuffré, Milano, pp 629 et seqq
Graziani CA (1985) Sull’attualità dell’art. 44 della Costituzione. Nuovo Diritto Agrario 12(3):309 et seqq
Graziani CA (2007) Proprietà della terra e sviluppo rurale. Agricoltura Istituzioni Mercati 4(1):65–94
Graziani CA (2012) Dal diritto alla terra al diritto della terra. Agricoltura Istituzioni Mercati 9(2–3):65–79
Hoffmann A (2006) La nuova politica di sviluppo rurale. FrancoAngeli, Milano
Lucatelli S (2006) Lo sviluppo dei territori rurali nel Documento Strategico Preliminare Nazionale. Continuità, discontinuità, priorità per la politica regionale 2007–2013. Agriregionieuropa 2(4):8–10. http://www.agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/4/lo-sviluppo-dei-territori-rurali-nel-documento-strategico-preliminare-nazionale. Accessed 3 Apr 2014
Magno P (2007) Le linee comunitarie per lo sviluppo dell’agricoltura nel periodo 2007–2013. Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria alimentare e dell’ambiente 2(4):226–230
Mantino F (2012) Alla ricerca dell’integrazione perduta tra aiuti PAC, sviluppo rurale e politiche di coesione nella riforma 2014–2020. Agriregionieuropa 8(29):28–31. http://www.agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/29/alla-ricerca-dellintegrazione-perduta-tra-aiuti-pac-sviluppo-rurale-e. Accessed 3 Apr 2014
Mantino F (2013) La programmazione dello sviluppo rurale 2014–2020: il position paper e l’accordo di partenariato. Agriregionieuropa 9(32):39–41. http://www.agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/32/la-programmazione-dello-sviluppo-rurale-2014-2020-il-position-paper-e-laccordo. Accessed 1 Apr 2014
McAreavey R, McDonagh J (2011) Sustainable rural tourism: lessons for rural development. Sociol Rural 51(2):175–194
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):2–3
Monteleone A (2010) La politica di sviluppo rurale in Italia tra presente e future. Agriregionieuropa 6(20):45–48. http://www.agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/20/la-politica-di-sviluppo-rurale-italia-tra-presente-e-futuro. Accessed 4 Apr 2014
Moyano Estrada E (2010) La Pac e lo sviluppo rurale dopo il 2013. Integrazione o separazione? Agriregionieuropa 6(20):51–52. http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/20/forum-sulla-pac-dopo-il-2013-parte-5. Accessed 3 Apr 2014
Parkinson S (2009) Power and perceptions in participatory monitoring and evaluation. Eval Program Plann 32(3):229–237
Pennacchi F (2006) Il ruolo della politica di sviluppo rurale per la crescita del territorio. Agricoltura e sviluppo rurale: scenario competitivo e modelli di sviluppo. Agriregionieuropa (4):11–16. http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/4/il-ruolo-della-politica-di-sviluppo-rurale-la-crescita-del-territorio. Accessed 4 Apr 2014
Rampulla FC (2010) Lo sviluppo sostenibile: una politica da perseguirsi in via procedimentale ed il caso dell’agricoltura. Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria, alimentare e dell’ambiente 5(12):729–733
Romito G (2012) Gli strumenti di programmazione per la politica di sviluppo rurale 2014–2020. Agriregionieuropa 8(29):39–41. http://www.agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/29/gli-strumenti-diprogrammazione-la-politica-di-sviluppo-rurale-2014-2020. Accessed 1 Apr 2014
Saija R (2006) Sviluppo rurale, governance locali e nuovo regionalismo in agricoltura dopo la riforma del Titolo V della Costituzione. Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria, alimentare e dell’ambiente 15(5):284–289
Secco L, Da Re R, Pettenella D, Cesaro L (2010) La valutazione della qualità della governance partecipativa in ambito rurale. Agriregionieuropa 6(23):61–65. http://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/4523. Accessed 13 May 2014
Secco L, Pettenella D, Gatto P (2011) Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: likelihood or utopia? Forest Policy Econ 13(2):104–112
Sereni E (2006) Storia del paesaggio agrario italiano. Edizioni Laterza, Roma-Bari
Sonsini A (2006) Per una nuova definizione urbanistico-architettonica dei territori rurali. Agriregionieuropa 2(5):37–38. http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/5/una-nuova-definizione-urbanistico-architettonica-dei-territori-rurali. Accessed 4 Apr 2014
Sotte F (2003) Introduzione. In: Arzeni A, Esposti R, Sotte F (eds) Politiche di sviluppo rurale tra programmazione e valutazione, 1st edn. FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp 18–21
Sotte F (2009) Considerazioni conclusive. In: Sotte F (ed) La politica di sviluppo rurale 2007–2013. Un primo bilancio per l’Italia, 1st edn. Edizioni Tellus, Roma, pp 237–238; 243–244
Stipo M (1991) State planning and regional planning. In: Enciclopedia Giuridica, vol 24. Treccani, Rome, pp 1 et seqq
Torquati B (2007) Il paesaggio nel Piano Strategico Nazionale per lo Sviluppo Rurale. Agriregionieuropa (8):41–43. http://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/8/il-paesaggio-nel-piano-strategico-nazionale-lo-sviluppo-rurale. Accessed 4 Apr 2014
Tropea F (2014) First pillar of the cap: II—direct payments to farmers. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.2.5.html. Accessed 11 July 2014
van der Ploeg JD (2006) Oltre la modernizzazione. Processi di sviluppo rurale in Europa. Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, CZ
Varotto M (2005) Nuovi modelli di “governance” dello sviluppo locale: i distretti rurali. Azienditalia 12(5):2–20
Varotto M (2007) La progettazione integrata nelle aree rurali. Azienditalia 14(9):56–59
Zerbi MC, Fiore F (2009) Sviluppo sostenibile risorse del territorio. Il ruolo del patrimonio rurale. Giappichelli Editore, Torino
Zumpano C (2007) L’approccio integrato nelle politiche di sviluppo rurale: strumenti e modalità di attuazione. Agriregionieuropa 3(9):56–59. http://www.agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/content/article/31/9/lapproccio-integrato-nelle-politiche-di-sviluppo-rurale-strumenti-e-modalita-di. Accessed 3 Apr 2014
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
Buia, G., Antonucci, M. (2015). The Rural Development Programme (RDP) as a Strategic Tool for Linking Legal and Agroecological Perspectives. 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_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46617-9_8
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)