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

Abstract

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.

PhD student in “Law of private, public and common goods. Tradition and innovation in the models of belonging and fruition” and Teaching Assistant (“Cultore della materia”) of the Environmental Administrative Law Chair at the Faculty of Law—University of Salento (Italy).