Salvatore Magra
(Catania, Italy)

Environmental law and sustainable development

*

The paradigm of the environment is likely to be studied starting from different perspective paradigms, according to the adoption of the anthropocentric perspective, in which the Renaissance vision, in rebellion to the Middle Ages, of man as the driving force of everything is reaffirmed, in a context in which natural resources are functional to his well-being and the ecocentric paradigm, in which the environment is autonomously given dignity as a good or as a patchwork of goods to protect. Whens  the Republican Constitution (1948) comes into force, there is a scarce propensity to protect the environment, which has matured afterward.

INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Environmental responsibility presupposes the notion of the environment. The Italian national legislator has not coined an unambiguous definition of this concept, not even with the attribution to the environment of its own constitutional importance with the reform of Title V of the Constitution (law cost. 3-2001), which gave the State exclusive legislative competence in terms of "protection of the environment, the ecosystem and cultural heritage" [art. 117, para. 2 letter s)]. The question of definition has not even been addressed by the Union legislature. It was preferred to enucleate the principles of protection for the protection of the environment, with an approach oriented towards prevention, before remedying environmental damage. The omission of the definition of "environment" confirms the the thesis sustained by Massimo Severo Giannini according to which (1) < The idea at the base of the renunciation to find a definition of environment comes from the circumstance that, although a wide notion is formulated, there is still the risk of marginalizing some aspects of the problem worthy of protection. One can think of the progressive inclusion of cultural heritage within the notion of the environment, first not taken for granted and then endorsed.

The environment can hardly be adequately substantiated through the use of traditional and pre-existing legal categories. The fragmentary nature of environmental legislation has been shown to be inadequate in relation to the ever-increasing need for protection also expressed at international level. In the resolution of the question of definition, two distinct orientations have in fact been opposed: the "pluralist" one, which enunciates the notion of the environment through the reference to a plurality of concepts. There was, in fact, an attempt to introduce a pluralist notion of "environment", for the first time enunciated by Massimo Severo Giannini(2) which considers landscape, soil, water and air protection, and urban planning regulations. This Giannini’s tripartition is opposed to a bipartition between the regulation of the landscape and that inferable from the rules on the protection of water, air and soil, all aimed at the protection of health under Article 32 of the Italian Civil Code, 5 c., or a bipartition based on health management and territorial-urban management, linked respectively to the regulation of the right to a healthy environment and to that relating to the forms and layout of the territory.

The presence of such pluralist theories links a set of interests framed in a number of sectoral laws, from which it is possible to derive an initial data on legally relevant constituent elements of the environment, such as air, water, soil, flora and fauna, human health and their interaction. These may be complemented by climate, landscape, monuments and cultural heritage, social and economic conditions. On the opposite theoretical side, the supporters of the so called monist conception have promoted the acceptance of a unitary notion of environment, supported, in two judgements of the Constitutional Court, nos. 21015 and 64116 of 1987, in which the existence of an environmental juridical asset is theorized, in relation to the institution of the Ministry of the Environment, of the terrestrial and marine genetic heritages, of all animal and vegetable species, 25-1-1989, n. 440, in Riv. giur. amb., 1989, 97 and Cass. 3-2-1998, n. 1087, in Riv. giur. amb., 1998, 711 and in Urb. e app., 1998, 721 and Cass. s.u. 21-2-2002), which propose a notion of a unitary environment, simultaneously defining its components (the territory, natural resources, the aesthetic and cultural value of the landscape, as well as the environment as a healthy living condition). The inclusion in the concept of the environment of cultural heritage represents the overcoming of the definitions related only to the biological sphere, according to which the environment is linked only to issues of healthiness of the eco-system and of man. In reality, the legislation introduced by the Ministry of the Environment has been interpreted in an ambiguous way, in the sense that for some exegetes it was an argument in favour of the unity of the definition of the concept, for others of plurality.

The environment has been qualified as a legal asset in the unitary sense that coexists with legal assets having as their object components of the environmental asset (C. Cost. 378/2007); in this way a synthesis between unitary and non unitary definition is achieved. The right to the environment can be defined as a "super-individual" right, which transcends the legal sphere of the individual.

We have seen the abandonment of monist reconstructions to achieve more nuanced solutions, expressions of a hybrid legislation, which pursues wide-ranging interests. which conceives the protection of the environment in order to achieve further ends and other interests. The dichotomy between pluralism and environmental monism does not exhaust the pretension of definition: the pluralist thesis grasps the traits of unity, which characterize the environment, on the other hand, the monistic one, is excessively rigid and does not fully grasp the relationships between the environmental components and between them and man.

The defining problem appears to the writer to be not decisive: therefore, it must be overcome and it is necessary to go to the juridical categories. This aspect is undoubtedly influenced by the distinction between an anthropocentric vision and an ecocentric vision of the environment. On the one hand, the anthropocentric vision exalts the centrality of man with respect to nature, considered only an instrument for the satisfaction of human needs, and on the other, the ecocentric conception, which considers the environment, or rather the biosphere, as an autonomous value, endowed with an intrinsic importance, independently of its finalisation to human well-being. Daughter of the anthropocentric conception is the affirmation of a right to environmental healthiness due to every individual, unavailable and actionable towards private and public authorities or a right to the environment as a right of personality and essential aspect of it or as a right on the environmental good The biosphere, to be understood as "the space occupied by all the living beings of our planet", is, therefore, the combination of all ecosystems. Expression of the ecocentric conception, according to which the environment must be considered as an unavailable good to be preserved and protected, is the qualification of the latter as a value or as an object of social duty. Starting from the premise of the "adespota" nature of the environment tout court considered, jurisprudence has originally qualified the protection of environmental resources as a widespread interest of an undifferentiated generality of subjects, highlighting their compliance with a public purpose. The co-ownership of this situation of interest by a plurality of unidentified subjects has strongly impeded the safeguard of the environment: in this regard, part of the administrative jurisprudence has clarified that in matters of the protection of the goods and properties of the natural environment, legitimate interests that can be protected in the jurisdictional seat are configurable for single citizens or associations only in the case in which the safeguard of the landscape and of the values of the environment is inherent to the concrete enjoyment of such goods and properties, being necessary an objective connection between the subjects bearing the interest and the specific environmental goods and properties that form the object. The overcoming of this rigid approach has been carried out by other administrative jurisprudence which, by implementing a not indifferent hermeneutical effort, has emancipated the legitimate interest from the distinctly individual character and has framed it in a collective context, (cf. 19-10-1979, n. 24, in Giust. Civ., 1980, 1743 and in Cons. Stato, 1979, 1289; Cons. St. 22-2-1980, n.114, in Foro amm. CDS, 1980, 51 and Cons. St. 29-3-1996, n.507, in Foro amm. CDS, 1996, 976. 32 Cons. St., ad. plen., 19-10-1979, n. 24, cit. and TAR Lazio 13-1-1984, n. 21. 33 In this respect, Cons. St. 9-6-1970, No 523, in Giur. it., 1970, 193).

A further hermeneutical step was necessary, consisting in the transformation of widespread interest into collective interest, to be ascribed to a circumscribed plurality of individuals who can take legal action as holders of a differentiated position, and therefore of an autonomous legitimation, with respect to the generality of the individual users of the collective good. Two criteria have been traditionally used by jurisprudence and doctrine in order to legalize, and thus recognize, the interest in protecting the environment expressed by social formations. The first criterion is based on the so-called vicinitas, that is, on the location of the subject, who assumes himself to be the bearer of the super-individual interest, in the territory on which the administrative measure affects. Hence the recognition of the existence of a legitimate interest and the consequent possibility for the plurality of individuals residing in a given geographical area to access judicial protection, against a measure detrimental to the environment, since it is suitable to affect a differentiated and qualified position. The second criterion adopted by jurisprudence to open the judicial protection to subjects with widespread interests is represented by the recognition of judicial protection to those who are admitted to participate in the trial.                                                      

Law 349/1986 implements the model of protection of diffuse interests based on the identification of the exponential body, while dictating strict conditions for the recognition of the legitimacy of environmental associations, with the obvious aim of circumscribing the power of the judge, otherwise the sole arbiter of the qualification of interests and the selection of their stakeholders. The problem of the justifiability of super-individual legal positions relating to environmental protection has also emerged before the ordinary judge. The latter, as well as the administrative judge, subordinates the review of legitimacy of manifestations of power of the Public Administration to the identification of a "subjective" position of interest for the plaintiff, and admits the feasibility of the widespread interest in the integrity of the environment only as a result of the recognition of a real subjective right for the plaintiff, i.e. the so-called "right to a healthy environment". This affirmation of the justifiability of super-individual interests certainly has a considerable historical importance and an appreciable current relevance. Unlike what happened before the administrative judge, where the diffused interest had to "turn" into a legitimate interest, through the identification of exponential bodies, ordinary jurisprudence makes the diffused interest protectable only to the extent that it involves fundamental and inviolable rights of the individual. In this way, protection is granted, by definition, to exceptional cases and is never direct, but always mediated by the necessary link with a subjective juridical situation common to the generality of citizens (hence the "super-individuality"), even if it is likely to be represented by a body that assumes it to be the bearer. The Union’s policy on the environment is based on the precautionary principle, the principle that preventive action should be taken, the principle that environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at source and the principle that the polluter should pay.

The differences between the various countries of the Union must be taken into account as a criterion for the preparation of a satisfactory environmental policy. Therefore, these principles must be designed in a harmonised way, but at the same time the Union must take into account the inevitable differences (synthesis between globalisation and glocalisation), According to Article 191 TFEU, account must be taken of the environmental conditions in the various regions of Europe, the scientific and technical data available, and the advantages and burdens which may result from action or lack of action.

The ’polluter pays’ principle must be interpreted, according to the Court of Justice, as meaning that environmental damage must be compensated by those who have caused it, without falling back on the community. To this end, the person who has caused the damage must pay in a situation of malice or guilt and a causal link between the conduct and the harmful event occurred is required.

Article 16 of Directive 2004/35 (’Relationship with national law’) provides that the directive allows Member States to maintain or adopt more stringent provisions on the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, including the identification of other activities to be made subject to the prevention and remediation obligations under the directive and the identification of other responsible parties.

The identification by Member States of other responsible parties (other than those who caused the damage) is merely an option and not an obligation.  With regard to the "polluter pays" principle, a very recent case should be mentioned: According to Council of State Decision No. 2301-2020, Edison will be required to pay for the remediation of polluted land in the Abruzzo region, which it covered with mercury. According to the Council of State, there is a presumption that Montedison (now Edison) has a decisive influence over Ausimont’s decisions, including for the tort related to pollution after 1981, the responsibility, due to the economic unity of the group, lies with the holding company. As a result, there is a partially new declination of the "polluter pays" principle: whoever is responsible for pollution or deterioration of the environment must bear the costs necessary to avoid or repair the pollution or environmental damage caused.

The Council of State’s judgment no. 2301/2020 on environmental liability is important in several respects: in fact, it states that environmental damage is  ab origine ingiusto, as can be inferred from our Constitution, well before the special legislation of the 1980s and later (on landfills and reclamation). Is there a health value of the contamination events? The answer is positive and is precisely linked to the reference made to our Fundamental Charter, where there is a rule, Article 32, which protects health as a fundamental human and collective right. This provision, since the 1970s, has been at the heart of a case law developing protection from environmental damage: but in today’s decision of the Council of State there is a clear link to the issue of historical and "dated" pollution.

Protecting the environment from the aggression of all forms of pollution is tantamount to protecting human health. All forms of aggression, even those dating back far back in time, (carried out in the 1960s), are illegal and productive in terms of the right to compensation.

The "polluter pays" principle is applied in a substantial way and in such a way as to make it effective: it is not enough to sell the company or a branch of it to free oneself from responsibility.

The recent ruling of the Administrative Judge contains statements that can be used in many other situations of illicit contaminations dating back in time and the real responsible parties who, in the correct application of the "polluter pays" principle, are obliged to restore the status quo ante and to compensate the population and the territory for having been deprived of a healthy environment. It is necessary to concretely understand the importance, in situations such as that of Val Pescara in Abruzzo, and many others in Italy (still open wounds of our territory and the health of citizens), to carry out epidemiological investigations with scientific criteria to establish the link between certain phenomena of contamination and certain diseases and how much the presence of a polluting source affects the well-being of people and the ecosystem, especially if this happens for a long time and in the absence of adequate information.

According to art. art. 240 et seq., Legislative Decree 152/2006, the administrative authority cannot impose on the blameless owner of the area to be reclaimed works of prevention or reparation of the damage (except within the limits and according to the conditions provided by art. 253 of the same decree).

 There is no doubt that the "polluter pays" principle is a general rule directly applicable within the Member States, without the need, therefore, that it must be transposed into the internal systems of the countries of the Union through the mediation of national legislators.

The further principles set out in the Community framework ("precautionary principle", "preventive action", "priority must be given to rectifying damage caused to the environment at source") aim at anticipating intervention at an earlier stage, with respect to the harmful event: the Community legislator favours a Community policy not only of repairing the damage, but also of identifying the mere exposure of the environmental good to risk. These principles are directly contemplated by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and, therefore, are automatically transposed by the laws of the member countries.

The national environmental law can be divided into two phases: a first one begins with the United Nations Conference in Stockholm in 1972, with the stipulation of numerous Treaties of a sectorial nature, based on the criterion of damage prevention. The second phase opened with the Rio de Janeiro Conference in 1992, which coincided with the assimilation of a concept of environmental globalism, due to the consolidation of the conviction that we can no longer proceed by sector, but we need to implement a cosmopolitan perspective. This right has gradually acquired a global connotation, in order to solve problems that affect the entire international community. The perspective changes, but it is linked to the fact that, in the past, the concept of "sustainable development" already existed, perhaps under a different name, through the management of natural resources, so as to preserve the possibility of life for man. But it was not until the middle of the 19th century, however, that a common management of the resources in question, such as international watercourses, began for navigation purposes.

We can cite one of the judgments in this area, not least because it is one of the first judgments in environmental matters for the supranational sphere, namely the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice of 10 September 1929 on the territorial jurisdiction of the International Commission of the Oder, which affirms the existence of a community of interests which forms the basis of a law common to the riparian States applicable to the entire navigable course of the river, regardless of political borders.

In any case, the birth of international environmental law (which is desirable to become a world environmental law) dates back to the middle of the 19th century, when the repercussions of industrialization processes, with consequent overexploitation of environmental resources, pollution of the biosphere and impoverishment of flora and fauna, were realised. Bilateral conventions were signed with utilitarian purposes (the Convention signed between France and Great Britain in November 1867, aimed at combating overfishing of oysters and, above all, the Convention for the protection of birds useful for agriculture (whose name is, indeed, indicative of its inspiring rationale), signed in Paris in 1902, which can be considered the first multilateral convention to enter into force aimed at the protection of certain animal species).

These are not, therefore, international conventions of an environmentalist nature and therefore, at this stage, there is a pretermism of the problem, with the consequence that the ethical value of such agreements is greatly reduced. We must also think about developing an ethical and metaethical pact to preserve environmental resources.

At the beginning of the 20th century, multilateral treaties were stipulated for the protection of some fauna species and some Conventions for the common management among States of shared resources were implemented. In the period between the two world wars some conventions on environmental matters were concluded, such as the London Convention of 8 November 1933, for the protection of natural fauna and flora in certain parts of the world, especially Africa, considered in danger of extinction, and the Washington Convention of 12 October 1940 on the preservation of fauna, flora and natural beauty in American countries. We are witnessing the creation of considerable problems, due to the unlimited use by states of the right of sovereignty over natural resources. One can cite the arbitration decision of March 11, 1941, on the controversy issued by the polluting rivers of the Canadian Smelter foundry, with harmful consequences in the United States.

In current times (over the last thirty years), environmental issues have become increasingly pressing for the international community. Constitutional protection has proved insufficient. The man-environment relationship must change. This has led to the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral conventions, through a "globalization" of the environmental issue. The 1982 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCLE) in Stockholm affirmed the need to take into account the impact on the environment, resulting in global responsibility on the part of citizens and communities.

Studies on the state of health of the planet, from an environmental point of view, have been developed: the "United Nations Environment Programme", the "United Nations Development Programme", the "International Union for the Conservation of Nature", the Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

During the 1980s, the contradictory application of a concept of development intimately linked to the economic aspect was stressed. It is realised that attention must also be paid to the social issue. Moreover, up to this point, a non-preventive environmental policy is being implemented, while, during the 1990s, a preventive policy is being implemented in relation to ecodisasters: mention should be made of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, where the link between environment and development is highlighted. The global dimension of environmental protection issues is perceived. The conviction that developing countries must provide assistance to the least developed countries in the perspective of sustainable development is consolidated, but then the concrete results of this path prove disappointing. UNCED’s Agenda 21 programme plan contains sustainable development initiatives. The subsequent World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg from 26 August to 4 September 2002, noted the lack of practical implementation of the policies proclaimed on sustainable development.

(1)M.S. Giannini, M.S. Giannini, Environment: an essay on its various legal aspects, in Riv. trim. dir. public, 1973, 15. 5

(2) M.S. Giannini, M.S. Giannini, Environment: essay on its different legal aspects, in Riv. trim. dir., cit., 15. 5.

(3) B. Cavallo, Profili amministrativi della tutela dell’ambiente: il bene ambientale tra tutela del paesaggio e gestione del territorio, in Riv. trim. dir. publ., 1990, 397 s. 7

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The concept of "sustainable development "(1) needs to be explored. The concept can be acquired through exegesis, based on the interpretation of its opposite, i.e. there is a tendency, from an anthropocentric point of view, to the unsustainability of development, with the consequence that the progressive erosion of environmental resources may lead to the annihilation of human life itself. Therefore, from unsustainable development, which can be defined as the unrestricted use of what the ecological system offers, it is necessary to move on to the use of paradigms of sustainable development, according to the indications that are progressively given at world level, surrounding these notions. More definitions of sustainable development can be provided (2).

Human enterprise must change the way it manages environmental resources so as not to annihilate the environment. Otherwise, human rights must be promoted, intersecting them with ecological integrity; otherwise, the same human rights risk not being effectively protected, indeed the most serious damage of a policy that does not conform to the paradigm of sustainable development is to go against the same rights. This implies the need for a change of perspective, based on sustainable development, a concept based on the conscious use of environmental resources, taking into account also and above all the limited nature of most of them.

The term ’sustainable development’ is therefore used to refer to economic development compatible with social equity. The notion of traditional development postulates that nature is a place to be changed, for the well-being of mankind; in this sense, we can talk about its exploitation. Sustainable development is a paradigm devised in the 20th century to overcome environmental problems and the progressive scarcity of natural resources. Precisely in the second half of the 20th century, the concept of traditional development enters into crisis, because of the awareness of the finite nature of natural resources.

Population growth and large-scale production make us understand the exhaustibility of environmental resources, once the process of globalization continues. The Earth has a limited availability of resources. (3)

This approach is also corroborated by links with physics, in particular with entropy theory, which states that it is not possible to recover the entire amount of energy of a closed system. This is a scalar quantity, which describes the propensity of a body to exchange or transform energy in one way rather than another. The concept of entropy must be connected to the first principle of thermodynamics, according to which "nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed" (like water in ice and vice versa), with the consequent (deceptive) inference of the apparent reversibility of feasible transformations.

This erroneous conclusion clashes with the second principle of thermodynamics, according to which over time a closed system tends towards an equilibrium of high entropy, in which available energy is lost. Recycling makes it possible to use the raw materials contained in waste again, but not a recovery of the entire quantity of resources, since part of the material is dispersed. From the above, it emerges that the development cannot be considered infinite. The growth of the economic system sustains itself over time, for example through the exploitation of renewable energy (solar energy) and the recycling of the material already used, but there are limits. Sustainable development is not in antithesis with economic growth, but rather hopes for growth itself together with a non-anthropocentric environmental ethic. Sustainable economic growth may be superior to that based on non-sustainable development and, in any case, is more sustainable over time. In 1987, an attempt was made to define the concept of sustainable development precisely in the report "Our common future", drawn up by the World Commission on Environment and Development (Bruntland Commission) of the United Nations Environment Programme, which states that sustainable development means development that "meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Development, therefore, must be linked to environmental protection activities, in a synergy between developing and developed countries.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, formalized the concept of sustainable development, with the concluding acts of the Summit: the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, the Declaration on the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests. Sustainable development is defined as "meeting the quality of life while maintaining the carrying capacity of the ecosystems that sustain us".

This implies a review of the concept of sustainable development, postulating harmonisation with the ecosystem, the absence of abuse of environmental resources. It emerges the attempt to create a new philosophy, centred on nature, followed by the elaboration of a new code of responsibility, centred not on man, but on animals, plants, ecosystems. The contrast is between anthropocentrism and philosophy focused on nature (ecocentrism).

The anthropocentric perspective places man at the centre of everything. A life project is recognized only to people, not to plants and animals. A social contract between individuals is elaborated, in a context where the expression "ubi homo ibi ius" is valid. There is a reification of animals, plants, as if they were not living beings. A human-centric right of nature is elaborated, with costs that fall on the environment, with the aim of maximizing the benefit for man, precisely through the maximum exploitation of environmental resources. Responsibility for the environment can be assessed by man from a perspective in which he is at the centre of everything. This is the thinking system of environmental organisations and can be considered a form of strong anthropocentrism. There is considerable confidence in technocracy and the market economy. It is postulated that man is the undisputed "lord" of nature. The frightening destructive effectiveness of the anthropocentric paradigm has demonstrated the "field" contestability of these assumptions. It is necessary to revisit man’s way of relating to nature. The result is a new reflection on the existence and the relationship with the ecosystem. Today it has been ascertained that man’s survival depends heavily on how he uses environmental resources, and this decisive observation has led to the creation of more moderate currents of anthropocentrism. The concept of sustainable development is linked to that of weak anthropocentrism. Think of the time when Gifford Pinchot (1865-1946), President Roosvelt’s environmental consultant, suggested stopping the destruction of the wilderness on the principle of conservation. Renewable resources must have time to renew themselves, so that they can benefit the next generation. Resources that do not regenerate (oil) must be used with caution so that they last as long as possible. Conservation is focused on material goods, "protection" is focused on ideal goods (walking in a forest). On the basis of weak anthropocentrism, one can find the convergence of both a moral conception, which perceives environmental conservation as an important point of reference, and a theological conception, which perceives man’s role as the conservative of Creation.

According to an approach (the so-called "Space Shuttle"), capitalist nations must place part of their wealth in favour of people in need, supporting undeveloped countries so that a synergy can take place, since a collapse of developing countries would also have a negative consequence on other states. The second direction, born from the work of Garret Hardin, developed in the volume "The Tragedy of the Commons" called "Lifeboat", criticizes the previous, hypothesized attempt of synergy between developing and developed countries, for the exponential growth of men, which leads to an annihilation of resources.

From this point of view, each developed country acts as a lifeboat and the poor swim in the ocean and are welcomed in each lifeboat. Moreover, it is not possible to welcome all the poor, to remain within this metaphor; one risks going to the bottom.

The synergy between developed and underdeveloped countries, which live in a condition of poverty, can be solved, according to Hardin, by privatising resources. It is repeated (Cohen) that social costs are rarely allocated to the sphere of the private owner.

This is a fallacious reconstruction of reality, since often the policies of rich nations require payments to poor countries, with reference to the interest on the debts of the less developed countries. Often the least developed countries are induced to cultivate products from which the developed countries can benefit. The destruction of biodiversity and soil impoverishment are responsible for the poverty of developing countries. This may be reflected in the position of the writer Murray Bookchin, who focuses on the exploitation of man on man. Social ecology degenerates into the exploitation, more specifically, of man over woman, of one class of power over another, of a more developed country over another, with an opposite tendency to synergy between countries with different degrees of development. Ecological extinction can only be avoided if these forms of exploitation are stopped. For the sake of completeness, it can be affirmed that the social relations between sex, races and peoples must be tackled as a priority, but they are not sufficient to solve the environmental problem. The relationship between man and other living beings must be considered. Even the moderate version of anthropocentrism subordinates the living world to man. This position is contested because the living world is relegated to a subordinate role.

The contestation of this assumption gives space to biocentrism, which can be distinguished in holistic and individualistic. In this second case, the living being even different from man, including the animal, is respected. A "utilitarianism of the sum" (Singer) is applied, with the evaluation of the algebraic consequences of this operation, with the attempt to identify maximum happiness for the subjects involved, but this can lead to very negative consequences for some components. For example, in the presence of a substantial advantage for the majority, it can also lead to the elimination of one or more living beings. Biocentrism argues that nature is a good in itself and should be emancipated from human will. There is also the so-called "utilitarianism of preference", according to which one could not accept the idea of killing a living being, even if this could benefit the majority. From this point of view, superior animals are able to perceive or have preferences and enter the Singer community, not so the inferior animals and plants, which must be equally considered, but have minor rights.

For the philosopher Regan, animals need rights not by human concession, but because they have an intrinsic value, and this must be taken into account. Being the subject of a life is a sufficient condition to have an intrinsic value.

From a biocentric point of view, the primacy of man is mediated by man’s reflection on himself, and therefore has a subjective nature, but it is necessary to take into account the essential ecological elements, without which the system would collapse. There must also be room for other living beings. In one version biocentrism takes on the connotation of biocentric holism (Aldo Leopold), in which attention is focused on the group. This approach allows the culling of certain animals, which are not at risk of extinction. According to the biocentric individualism, the possibility of killing the individual animal is precluded.

A line of thought called "ethics of the earth", developed by Aldo Leopold himself, after a rethinking of his positions, has also been developed. It states that the natural environment is made up of a biotic community and natural selection gives us the elements to understand who the elements of the ecological community are. Man is an integral part of ecological communities and, therefore, must recognize the rights of nature. Nature is a living entity, in accordance with elementary and energetic connections. Ecosystemic processes must be taken into account and nature has a value for itself and not only because it is attributed by human beings.

According to the conception of the philosopher Holmes Roston III, which takes up which takes up Leopold’s conceptions, one wonders why human consciousness must be the paradigm, to deny other forms of life an ethical consideration. It is the group, which determines the future of individuals. The species has a "right to integrity" more important than the right of the individual. Ecosystems have a "systemic" value. Humans are not so important that they destroy ecosystems. The ethics of value is biocentric and holistic. Goodpaster’s "principle of life" and Taylor’s "respect for nature" propose a mediation between holistic biocentrism and individualistic biocentrism, configuring rights for non-human beings and wise land management. We need to enhance the value of assemblies. Animals and plants can achieve ethical respect, through an expansion of ethics, originally reserved for humans. Natural beings must reach their full biological potential. Therefore, the good of nature must be of primary importance, compared to the human good. The maintenance of the group as a coherent system must be promoted.

We must now deal with the mix of anthropocentrism and ecocentrism (so-called "deep ecology"). Nature must not be separated from man and environmental ethics must be put aside. Man must regain his place in nature. Deep ecology was born from an article by Arne Naess, in which an ecosophy is elaborated. It is necessary to acquire an ecological consciousness, focused on an active state of being. An application of deep ecology is bioregionalism and is based on the self-realization of all human and non-human beings with a view to biocentric equality. The self-realization of the individual living being is incorporated into global self-realization, which postulates that life is not only represented by the human being, but by a plurality of living beings. It is stated that animals are sentient beings, capable, within certain limits, of making autonomous evaluations. The integrity of flora and ecosystems must also be respected. It comes to holistic dimensions, with the enhancement of the protection of the biosphere. In this context, there are those who lean towards a humanistic holism, linked to the priority concern for human values, another trend is towards biospheric egalitarianism. Human beings are assimilated to nature. Moreover, egalitarianism between the rights of human beings and non-human beings risks leading to objectively unreasonable situations, treating ontologically differentiated situations equally, with the violation of the constitutional basis of the principle of legal equality, which is universal and not only national in scope.

Conservation and sustainable development represent the main elements of the modern vision on environmental management. Moreover, we must free ourselves from the tendency to use the environment as an instrumental good for human well-being. In the early 1960s, the book "Silent Spring" by the biologist Rachel Carson was published, from which the alarmism was consolidated, the conflict between man and nature was noted, with a critique of capitalism, for which it is used only as a means, for the well-being of man. There is a progressive affirmation of holistic theories. The Animal Welfare Act, the Endangered Species Protection Act (1966), the Endangered Species Conservation Act (1969) have a more modern vision, but are still linked to man’s predominance over nature. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 is characterized by a more nature-focused vision, but still remains the polymorphism of environmental philosophy.One can reflect on environmental philosophical positions not as rigidly separated conceptions, but as a varied path of ideas ranging from a rigid anthropocentrism, which then has various manifestations of different gradations, to an equally radical biocentrism, also with different gradations. Any schematization is limiting in expressing reality. Within a weak anthropocentrism we can then find both secular motivations which see in human morality itself a justification, and theological positions, which see Creation as belonging to the Creator and man as the "wise steward", to whom the Creator himself would have granted the right of fruition.

(1) Bibliography on sustainable development available at the Senate Library

Bourgeois, Simone. Vercelli, Alessandro. The sustainability of global development. Rome: Carocci, 2005. Broswimmer, Franz J. Ecocidio. How and why man is destroying nature. Rome: Carocci, 2005. Environment and growth: the negotiation of sustainable development. Edited by Marida Cevoli, Claudia Falasca, Ludovico Ferrone. Rome: Ediesse, 2004. Dasgupta, Parta. Human wellbeing and the natural environment. Milan: Life and Thought, 2004. Epimeteo e il Golem: reflections on man, nature and technique in the global age. Edited by Daniela Belliti. Pisa: ETS, 2004. Ethics and environment. Comparing disciplines for a sustainable development. Proceedings of the conference [organized by] Fondazione Lombardia per l’Ambiente, Milan, 18 June 2003. Curated by Antonio Ballarin Denti [e] Elio Sindoni. Milan: Fondazione Lombardia per l’Ambiente, 2004. Khor Martin. Intellectual property, biodiversity and sustainable development. Milan: Baldini Castoldi Dalai, 2004. Lomonaco, Raffaele. Sustainable development and defence of human rights. Rome: Armando, 2004. Metropolis, sustainability and environmental governance. Curated by Aurelio Angelini. Rome: Carocci, 2004. Environmental law profiles from Rio de Janeiro to Johannesburg: essays on international, comparative public, criminal and administrative law. Edited by Eduardo Rozo Acuña. Turin: Giappichelli, 2004. Sustainable development of mountain areas: legal perspectives beyond Rio and Johannesburg = Developpement durable des regions de montagne: les perspectives juridiques à partir de Rio et Joahnnesburg. Edited by Tullio Treves, Laura Pineschi, Alessandro Fodella. Milan: Giuffrè, 2004. The 21 local diaries. Rome: Formez, 2003, The environmental and social costs of mobility. By Patrizia Lattarulo. Milan: F. Angeli, 2003. Pietro Greco, Lo sviluppo insostenibile: dal vertice di Rio a quello di Johannesburg. Milan: Bruno Mondadori, 2003. La Camera, Francesco. Sustainable development. Origins, theory and practice. Rome: Editori Riuniti, 2003. The new Emissions Trading Directive. The first European implementation of the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms. Edited by Barbara Pozzo. Milan: A. Giuffrè, 2003. Dalby, Simon. Environmental security. Minneapolis-London: University of Minnesota press, 2002. Economics, ethics, and environmental policy: contested choices. Edited by Daniel W. Bromley and Jouni Paavola. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. A sustainable future for Italy. Report of Istituto Sviluppo Sostenibile Italia [ISSI] 2002. Edited by Edo Ronchi. Rome: Editori Riuniti, 2002. International encyclopedia of environmental politics. Edited by John Barry and E. Gene Frankland. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. The Jo’burg-Memo: the Johannesburg Memorandum for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Ecology: a new colour of justice. [Edited by] Heinrich Böll Foundation. Bologna: Editrice Missionaria Italiana, 2002. Lanza, Alessandro. Sustainable development. Third updated edition. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2002. Panella, Giorgio. Economics and environmental policies. Rome: Carocci, 2002. Sachs, Wolfgang. Environment and Social Justice. The limits of globalization. Presentation and care of Giuseppe Onufrio. Rome: Editori Riuniti, 2002. Senate of the Republic. Studies Service. Research office in the fields of environment and territory. Air pollution and sustainable mobility. Reading cards. Rome, photostatic edition, 2002. Senate of the Republic. Study service. Research office in the fields of environment and territory. A[tto] S[enato] No 1415. Ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Reading sheets. Rome, photostatic edition, 2002. Daly, Herman E. Beyond growth: the economy of sustainable development. Milan: Community editions, 2001. De Marchi, Bruna. The environmental risk. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2001. Ethics environment development: the international community for a new environment ethics. [Final report of the research conducted by the Jacques Maritain International Institute]. Edited by Amedeo Postiglione and Antonio Pavan. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2001. Ministry of the Environment and Territory Protection. Service for sustainable development. Report on the state of the environment. Junior. Rome: Istitituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 2001-.... Moriani, Gianni. Eco-compatibility manual. Venice: Marsilio, 2001. Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (O.C.D.E.). Développement durable: les grands questions. Paris: Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques, 2001. Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (O.C.D.E.). Sustainable development: those policies? Paris: Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques, 2001. Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (O.C.D.E.) Agence Internationale de l’Énergie (A.I.E.). Toward a sustainable energy future. Paris: Organisation de coop. et de développement économiques, 2001. National Academy of the Lynxes. Energy and environment: nuclear energy and renewable energies. Round table [organised by the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei and the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche] within the framework of the Annual Research Conference (Rome, 8-9 March 2000). Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2000. Ecosustainability and competitive resources: environmental compatibility in Italian production processes

By Attilio Celant. Rome: Società Geografica Italiana, 2000. Antonio Fazio. Environmental protection and economic development. Rome: Bank of Italy, 2000. Science for survival and sustainable development. The proceedings of the study-week of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 12-16 march 1999. [Edited by Vladimir I. Keilis-Borok and Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo]. Rome: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum, 2000. Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (O.C.D.E.). Framework to measure sustainable development. Paris: Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques, 2000. Pignatti, Sandro. Assault on the planet: productive activity and collapse of the biosphere. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 2000. Sustainable development: the challenge of transition. Edited by Jurgen Schmandt and C[alvin] H[erbert] Ward. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Rao, P.K. The economics of global climatic change. Armonk-London : M.E. Sharpe, 2000. Ronchi, Edo. A development capable of future: the new environmental policies. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2000.

(2) From the WWF website : Sustainable development has been defined over time in various ways. As the WWF indicates in its "Living Planet Report", it means learning to live within the limits of a single planet. Therefore, sustainable development is the ability of our species to be able to live, in a dignified and fair way for all, without destroying the natural systems from which we draw the resources to live and without exceeding their capacity to absorb the waste and waste due to our productive activities.

In order to achieve a sustainable development of human societies, it is necessary that:

- human intervention is limited within the carrying capacity of natural systems while maintaining their vitality and resilience;

- technological progress in the production of goods and services is directed towards increasing efficiency rather than increasing the flow of energy and raw materials;

- the withdrawal levels of non-renewable resources exceed their regenerative capacities;

- the emission of waste and residues (solid, liquid and gaseous) due to the metabolism of social systems does not exceed the assimilation capacity of natural systems (https://www.wwf.it/il_pianeta/sostenibilita/il_wwf_per_una_cultura_della_sostenibilita/perche_e_importante2/cos_e_lo_sviluppo_sostenibile_/)

3) See https://sostenibilitaequitasolidarieta.it/lo-sviluppo-non-e-sostenibile/, where it reads To face the climate crisis there is no need to parrotfully repeat the formulas of sustainable development, green growth, sustainable growth, to which lately the formula of the circular economy has been added. Like its forerunners, it is based on the conviction that using more efficient and less impacting technologies it is possible to decouple economic growth from the growth of environmental crisis factors. Thought should be given to https://mk0eeborgicuypctuf7e.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunked.pdf, published on 8 July 2019. Decoupling the use of resources from economic growth (green growth) alone is not enough to avoid global environmental collapse. The outcome of this research, which denies the possibility of reducing the environmental crisis by continuing to focus the economy on the growth of goods production, was unexpectedly reported on August 28, 2019, by La Stampa, a mainstream newspaper that, like all the others, had always followed the formula of sustainable development, introduced into the collective imagination by the report Our common future, drawn up in 1987 on behalf of the UN by the Brundtland Commission. A formula that, thirty years later and in denial, is still supported by the Italian Alliance for Sustainable Development. And, with a lower media impact, by the Sustainable Development Foundation.

4) http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/entropia/