Untitled - CNR

Marine research at CNRof their families” (Parliamentary CommitteeActs – 14th February 1877, page 2).The strong contents of the introductive reportgenerated a lively debate, whose contents,one century later, are still particularlyup-to-date. MP Di Rudinì, for instance,underlined how fishery had to bemeant not only as industry but also as anactivity aimed at the management and futurepreservation of fish resources. “Sincethe actions of the single individuals developconsequences which affect everyone,it is common interest to protect renewableyet unlimited resources such as forest andfish resources ” (Parliamentary CommitteeActs – 14th February 1877, page 1272).This modern vision which looked into thelong term period collided, during the discussionof the law project, with a short termvision which underlined even the necessityof thick mesh trawling, justified by the insufficiencyof the fish resource. The useof trawling was considered the only optionto poverty for the fishermen families who,without the use of such tools, could not fishwith other means obtaining the same results.According to MP De Saint Bon, “weshould know to which extent we can limitthe fishermen’s freedom as well as disputetheir bread and butter in favour of a theoreticvision to perpetuate some or all fishspecies” (Parliamentary Committee Acts –15th February 1877, page 1316). Furthermore,MP Randaccio’s remarks added thatthe reason for the lack of fish was due to thesame fishes and “in this great organisationof productive and destructive forces, constantlystruggling, a struggle which is commendablyand appropriately ruled by nature,mankind with its nets matters very little”(Parliamentary Committee Acts – 16thFebruary 1877, page 1332).Analyzing the Parliamentary Committeediscussion, emerges the opposition betweenthe two tendencies: one aimed atpreserving the community’s interests withan eye to the future, while the other aimsat the short term protection of the fishermen’sclass, even at the expense of the totaldepletion of the marine resources. This oppositionreflects two different visions of nature:anthropocentric and bio centric. Theformer considers nature as a res thus as anasset which mankind dominates in termsof propriety rights; whereas the latter visionregards it no longer as a simple wayto satisfy the human needs but rather as ameans (together with mankind) to ensurethe mankind survival as well as the improvementof the quality of life [3]. In aholistic vision of the relationship betweenmankind and nature, the mutual respectrepresents the necessary condition for thesurvival of all the living beings on earth.The broad discussion generated in the ParliamentaryCommittee produced (on 4thMarch 1877) the first Italian law on fishresources, i.e. law n. 3706. Althoughthe law was in line with the liberal spiritof the time, it introduced bonds of times,places, means and species which could befished and sold. Furthermore, the law had awide recourse to decentralisation, entrustingperipheral administrations the task toestablish the contents of the prohibitionsas well as their regulation and settlement.These choices collected practices whichwere consolidated in many Italian maritimecommunities and, for some aspects, underlinedthe worries for the capacity of theregeneration of the marine environment tothe extent of compensating the growing humanconsumptions ([4]). A concern wecould define as “modern”, since it did notbelong to the heritage shared by the economicculture of the time nor to the theseswhich were largely spread by natural sciences.2177