Untitled - CNR

Fishery and Sea Resourcesmunity can try and engage a joint strategywhich leads to the creation of shared informalrules, or it can entrust the managementof the natural resource to the publicdecision-maker. This survey will focus onthose decisions taken by the Italian publiclegislator, analyzing the evolution of thespecific fishery law from the Italian unityto present. In particular, we will try andexamine the parliamentary discussions, analyzingthe contents of the legislative actsapproved by the Parliament and contextualizesuch legislative acts based on the maineconomic theories which prevailed in thedifferent historical periods.2 The first fishery law ofItalian UnityIn 1877 Italy was united since a bit morethan ten years. The competence for thefishery sector belonged to the Ministry ofAgriculture, Industry and Trade, in chargeof “determining the bonds and guaranteesfor the preservation and multiplication offish as well as the more profitable exerciseof the fishery industry” ([1]). In anattempt to give more homogeneity to the issueof fishery (ruled by an incredible numberof legislative provisions and enforcements,often conflicting), Minister MajoranaCalatabiano presented - in November1876 – a bill titled “Fishery provisions”.According to the Minister’s intentions “itis necessary to determine to which extentthe general interest for the preservation ofthe animals living in the waters justifies therestrictions to the exercise of a profession,limiting the legal provisions to those whichprove strictly necessary for the preservationand multiplication of the fishes” ([2]).This position was heavily influenced bythe liberal beliefs of the 19th century politicaleconomy, which had inherited fromthe politics of the Enlightenment, an anthropocentricvision of the reality whichfocused on the human needs, rather thanon the environment. Even though first thephysiocratic school, and then the classicalschool came to the conclusion that the lawsof nature and the availability of resourceswere insurmountable limits to the humancapacity to produce wealth, the trust in theprogress overcame any existing fear aboutthe possibility of an unstoppable growth.According to liberal orthodoxy, there wereno considerable problems relevant to theavailability of human capital. Thus, sincethe economic system was held free fromany bond with the external environment, toimpose conditionings on the human activitiesin order to regulate the exploitation ofterritory and resources appeared not justifiable.Although the minister’s positions interpretedthe liberal thought of the time, insidethe Parliamentary Committee a wholedifferent discussion originated. Particularlyemblematic is the introductive reportof the bill, i.e. “provided the sea beds arerespected and the eggs incubation is notdisturbed and the species are not destroyed,the fishermen will always - and in anytime - harvest their abundant production. . . . Yet if men, with their means, destroythe animal species, they nullify the benefitsof nature thus making it sterile: andthis presently occurs in our waters”, andbesides “our fishermen, with unconceivablecarelessness, slaughter little swordfisheswhich are sold for very little money.. . . Anchovies and sardines which travelfrom coast to coast for the most part of theyear, are also cruelly slaughtered by thefishermen who catch the newborns, thuscarelessly destroying the bread and butter2176