Remarks on Integrated Production (IP), Different Agricultural Systems and Coordinating Groups

  • Giuseppina Buia
Part of the LITES - Legal Issues in Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies book series (LITES, volume 2)


The balance between environment, profitability and social needs that distinguishes the agricultural system of integrated food production has led Europe to a rethinking of the current parameters of agricultural sustainability. Such a rethinking, which became mandatory with respect to a minimum standard for all producers, may affect the level of food diversity in two different ways: one positive, because integrated production (IP) represents a different way to produce food and feed oneself, so with the setting of the standard it will be protected like any other production system; one negative, because, in representing a “goal to be reached”, it may result in losses in terms of the plurality of types of supply chains, now protected through the application of the principle of coexistence. In another area, and more specifically in Italy, this balance has also imposed changes in the administrative organisation, particularly in the coordinating bodies, assigned by the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policy (MIPAAF) to develop the regulation of IP. Now, the balance is expressed through the strong technicalisation of the aforementioned bodies, made necessary by the nature of the object of the regulation, which requires the presence and collaboration between experts from long-time sectoralised fields, such as the natural sciences and the social sciences.


Integrated production (IP) Coordinating groups Sustainable agriculture Principle of coexistence 


  1. Albisinni F (2013) Prodotti alimentari o agroalimentari? Il TAR Lazio, giudice del mercato e law maker, smentisce il MIPAAF e l’AGCM. Riv dir alim (3):33–47Google Scholar
  2. Altili P (2007) La coesistenza tra colture transgeniche e colture convenzionali nella sentenza della Corte Costituzionale n. 116/2007. Dir giur agr alim, e amb (2):96–100Google Scholar
  3. Assemblée des Régions Européennes Fruitières, Légumières et Horticoles (AREFLH) (2013) Guide des pratiques européennes de production intégrée. Accessed 10 Feb 2016
  4. Boller EF et al (1995) Pflanzenschutz als Teil einer nachhaltigen Produktion. Agrarforschung (2):504–507Google Scholar
  5. Boller EF et al (1998) Integrated production in Europe: 20 years after the declaration of Ovrannaz. Bull IOBC/WPRS 21(1):1–33. Accessed 12 Feb 2016Google Scholar
  6. Canali G (2008a) Verso una strategia europea per i prodotti agroalimentari di qualità: il “Green Paper”. Agriregionieuropa 4(15):7–9Google Scholar
  7. Canali G (2008b) The role of “integrated production” schemes in the new fruit and vegetable CMO: a tool for competitiveness, sustainability or oligopsony by large retail chains. Paper presented at 109th seminary EAAE on “The CAP after the Fischler reform: national implementations, impact assessment and the agenda for future reforms”, Viterbo (Italy), 20–21 novembre 2008Google Scholar
  8. Caporali F (2015) History and development of agroecology and theory of agroecosystems. In: Monteduro M, Buongiorno P, Di Benedetto S, Isoni A (eds) Law and agroecology. A transdisciplinary dialogue, 1st edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  9. Caporali F, Campiglia E, Mancinelli R (2010) Premessa: il primato della cultura e la necessità del suo orientamento ecologico. In: Caporali F, Campiglia E, Mancinelli R (eds) Agroecologia. Teoria e pratica degli agroecosistemi, 1st edn. Città Studi Edizioni, Torino, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  10. Cravedi P (2012) Misure per promuovere un’agricoltura a basso impatto ambientale. In: Cordini G, Alessandro V (eds) Agricoltura e ambiente. XIII Convegno annuale dell’Associazione “Club giuristi dell’ambiente” – Bobbio 10 settembre 2011, 1st edn. Aracne Editrice, Roma, pp 53–61Google Scholar
  11. Deguine JP, Ferron P, Russell D (2008) Bases écologique d’une gestion de population. In: Deguine JP, Ferron P, Russell D (eds) Protection des cultures: de l’agrochimie à l’agroécologie. Edition Quae, Versailles, pp 111–123Google Scholar
  12. Ehler LE, Bottrell DG (2000) L’illusion de la protection intégrée des cultures par Lester E. Ehler et Dale G. Bottrell. Courr. environ. INRA 40:85–88. Accessed 12 Feb 2016
  13. European Commission (C (2003) 2624) Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming. Accessed 9 Feb 2016
  14. European Economic and Social Committee (2014 NAT/596) Integrated Production in the European Union (own-initiative opinion) – Nota d’informazione. Accessed 5 Feb 2016
  15. European Economic and Social Committee (2014/C 214/02) Integrated Production in the European Union (own-initiative opinion). Accessed 5 Feb 2016
  16. Ferron P (1999) Protection intégrée des cultures: évolution du concept et de son application. Cah Agric (8):389–396. Accessed 12 Feb 2016
  17. Francis CA (2004) Education in agroecology and integrated systems. J Crop Improv 11(1–2):21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marini L (2007) OGM, precauzione e coesistenza: verso un approccio (bio)politicamente corretto? Riv. giur. ambiente (1):1–14Google Scholar
  19. Ministero delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali (MIPAAF) (2008) Istituzione del Comitato di produzione integrata ed i relativi gruppi tecnici specialistici di supporto, per la redazione delle linee guida nazionali di produzione integrata file:///C:/Users/utente/Downloads/DM_SR__Istituzione_Comitato_Produzione_Integrata%20(1).pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2018Google Scholar
  20. Monteduro M, Buia G (2014) Minima Curat Praetor? La sfida di una disciplina giuridica delle nanotecnologie. (7):1–60Google Scholar
  21. Noe EB, Alrøe HF (2015) Regulation of agroecosystems: a social systems analysis of agroecology and law. In: Monteduro M, Buongiorno P, Di Benedetto S, Isoni A (eds) Law and agroecology. A transdisciplinary dialogue, 1st edn. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Principi MM (1992) Protezione integrata e produzione integrata delle colture agrarie: realizzazioni e prospettive. Boll. Ist. Ent. “G. Grandi” Univ Bologna 47:79–100. Accessed 12 Feb 2016
  23. Rossi Dal Pozzo F (2014) Profili recenti in tema di organismi geneticamente modificati nel settore agroalimentare fra procedure di Comitato e tutela giurisdizionale. Dir del Comm Internaz (2):339–396Google Scholar
  24. Steiner H et al (1977) Vers la production agricole intégrée par la lutte intégrée. Bull OILB/SROP (4):1–153Google Scholar
  25. Stern VM, Smith RF, Van Der Bosch R (1959) The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29(2):81–101. Accessed 12 Feb 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuseppina Buia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Legal StudiesUniversity of SalentoLecceItaly

Personalised recommendations