In order to make a proper and careful evaluation of the argument that we are dealing with, that is, the RDP 2014 – 2020, it is appropriate to emphasize its strategic value in regard to the political and social system and the agricultural environment.
It would still be wrong to think that the RDP (Rural Development Plan) alone can be an instrument of address, evolution, change in this area.
The RDP (as defined by the European Commission) “is the main tool for planning and funding for interventions in agriculture, forestry and rural development”; but the PSR does not contain elements of political inside these to correct the obvious anomalies and difficulties that characterize the world of agriculture and the food system. So much so that define “main” instrument by the European Commission is in itself an error of assessment of political order.
Just think of the incredible impoverishment that is characterizing this sector (emigration and increase in the average age of the work force, gradual reduction of soil fertility: 6-7 has a day only in Sicily, loss of biodiversity, etc.) For understand the magnitude of the issue. This is why for years I am committed to ensure that this debate becomes fully agenda of the entire Regional Assembly may by virtue of the articles Regional operate autonomously.
Among these we mention two that give us skills:
Article 14: in matters of exclusive legislation on agriculture and forests;
Article 17: Hygiene and Public Health.
This premise seemed a duty not to over-emphasize the role of the RDP without disclaiming still some potential.
This potential should be addressed, however, regulated, aligned to the needs of a sustainability of interventions and investments.
The Regional Federation of Doctors of Agronomy and Doctors of Forestry, coordinating the nine Provincial Orders of Sicily moved for time to indicate the proposals and the necessary corrective measures to the smooth functioning of the RDP 2014-2020. In these documents are addressed in entirety the issues covered by the future PSR; In this contribution I intend instead to emphasize those aspects that I consider fundamental.
2. Parameters of Expenditure and Financial Doping
About the investments should be considered that the use of finance in any human activity goes related to the ability of that activity to regenerate the cash flow that was entered in it. In short, if a farm can generate (in terms of sustainability) eg. an income of 100 we can not enter a cash flow of 110 because in this case opereremmo a real doping.
Such financial doping has not only a negative impact on economic future, but certainly causes an exponential decay of other factors such as soil fertility (because of acceleration imposed on the system) the agony or death financial entrepreneur, etc ..
For this reason it is necessary that the investments to be implemented in the companies are related to cost parameters covering the real ability of the cell to regenerate business (in a time equal to the effects of the investment) the investment itself.
To take another example where the implementation of an olive grove costs 8,000 euro per hectare, will be useful to introduce this parameter spending, as a ceiling, which will also allow, in reporting phase of the work, greatly streamlining bureaucratic procedures and to decrease drastically the bureaucratic cost (it is estimated that on average a preliminary bureaucratic costs from 10,000 to 15,000 euro, among other costs related to the whole process of approval of the RDP to the preparation of Bandi).
3. Scores of PSR and VAS
During preparation of the PSR there has been concern of environmental sustainability, this procedure is regulated by Directive 2001/42 / EC imposing the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).
Without going into the merits of the application of this procedure seems to me to be emphasized as well as the scores to be established should align these modes going to give preference to those activities and investments that go in the direction of sustainability of the interventions and investments.
In this regard I think priority recovery of biodiversity (think that in 100 years have disappeared 75% of the cultivated varieties) and in the recovery of certain ecosystems, which in the past had microecosistemi a fundamental role in biological balances business; with the advent of modern agriculture about 10,000 years of experience were torn and thrown in the trash, with the consequences that we see.
Ultimately the PSR must recognize additional value to those investments that go towards the restoration of naturalness, as I consider it appropriate they are given additional points to those agricultural models that are to be based on characterizations of the production process and product processing (eg. stone mills, safeguarding techniques of soil, increase of internal biodiversity of the companies, and so on).
4. Safe Deposit
Need to introduce the temporary deposit in all Notices of the RDP 2007-2013. Commisurando this deposit to a parameter proportional to the investment or aid.
In public procurement is applied, pursuant to Article 75 of the Decree. April 12, 2006 n. 163, in the transposition of European directives of 2004 on the procedures of the Public Procurement, the Safe Deposit.
That security is a form of guarantee Ente contracting to ensure the reliability and consistency of the project.
The introduction of the deposit would give the benefits of considerable scope of which, to name but one among others, the goodness of projects in the ranking and the ease of sliding of the same.
To conclude this discussion on small improvements or adjustments of the RDP and the real role of the same, I did not mention deliberately scores for closures chains (which are obvious), but even there we have to pay close attention to the parameterisation of the same. Otherwise we only do harm to the Sicilian companies to the extent that just to have recognized the score close spinnerets with unsustainable costs (which is why the parameters are essential).
Instead I want here, and with greater emphasis, to clarify how the RDP is a programming tool and funding for interventions in agriculture, forestry and rural development but not a tool of Agricultural Policy, this can only be addressed by rules that place the right corrective to the dangerous frenzy of markets and finance, allowing not only a safeguard and a lot of the industry but most of the citizens slaves of a food system at the mercy of the big trade groups.
Every day more are increasing the cost of the state (and the quality of life) for the unintended consequences of a quality food spilling from the tracks of naturalness.
The Parliament of the Sicilian Region, by virtue of its Statute can and must think about the rules of protection and preservation, which then would also simple to implement.
Unfortunately we are witnessing a debate on the PSR that is doing mislead the political question on agriculture and this is a very serious responsibility of the Sicilian Regional Parliament.
I believe that we need to get out from misunderstanding that farming and related sections can be performed outside of the rhythms of nature and social requirements.
The theorems aberrant that the economy is driven by markets or finance are conducting this history at the end of its chapters, and since I am a man of hope are convinced that we have to re-write a new history.
A history where over every aspect of finance or the markets is the place man, that is the policy.
Politics must reappropriate the rules knowing that only these that we must obey and not to the laws of markets or finance. Do you know why?
Because the first obedience makes us free, the second makes us slaves.