Environment, landscape, agriculture, and food in the framework of state and regional legislative powers as per art. 117 of the Italian constitution

Abstract

In the Italian Constitution, subject matters as the environment, agriculture, food, and landscape have always been divided in terms of legislative jurisdiction and, hence, by sector. Even after the constitutional reform of 2001, this compartmentalization remained, indeed it was institutionalized. As a result, the Regions, which have exclusive legislative powers about “agriculture”, can only intervene in a narrow perimeter, due to the presence of other contiguous sectors that interfere with agriculture. Agriculture, indeed, is expressed in activities that, if carried out rationally, produce positive externalities for the environment and, if exercised irrationally, create negative externalities. Moreover, agricultural production is destined for the food market, which demands products that are healthy and genuine. It is clear that agriculture is a sector highly subject, by its very nature, to intervene with other material sectors. So “which” agriculture is attributed exclusively to the Regions by the amended Constitution? The choice of the 2001 reform is symptomatic of a clearly sectoral and distinctly anachronistic view of agriculture. It does not take into account its intrinsic multifunctionality, the links and indivisible ties between agriculture and the environment and between agricultural production and agri-food products. These links broaden and expand the limits of agriculture and its regulation in the direction of “agroecology,” which also appears to be more in tune with the Community framework. From this perspective, the constitutional amendment is incoherent as regards the evolution of agriculture. In practice, rather than seeking to reduce it, it accentuates this hiatus among the various parts of the agri-food-environmental system, thus keeping separated (albeit formally) various equidistant subjects according to legislative competence. Even after the constitutional amendment, the Constitutional Court itself continued to remain close to pre-reform jurisprudence: The basic core of agriculture remained the same, namely the “production of plants and animals for food” (Judgements 12/2004, 116/2006). Yet the presence of this “hard core,” although it provides the subject matter “agriculture” with a relative stability, in order to prevent the risk of its being absorbed in other sectors, also sets up boundaries and greatly limits its potential. Agriculture is indeed much more complex than a mere productive phenomenon.