The drought that hit Italy will not end with 2023. The phenomenon is linked to climate change and affects a system that has great weaknesses in terms of infrastructure, emergency policies, long-term projects. An estimate of the damages is the one reported in the 2023 White Book "Valore Acqua per l'Italia", edited by the Observatory of the Valore Acqua per l'Italia community of the Studio Ambrosetti. In the fourth edition it is written that the water emergency is putting people at risk 320 billion euros, equal to 18% of GDP. To have some hope of success, the White Paper proposes the model of 5R: Collection, Recovery, Reuse, Recovery and Reduction. For the drought the government has set up a cabin director and is looking for an Extraordinary Commissioner to entrust with the management of the emergency. Are we sure it's the right choice? And how is Italy preparing for the future?
We talked about it with Luca Mercalli, climatologist, science communicator and President of the Italian Meteorological Society.
Professor Mercalli, how useful is the appointment of a Drought Commissioner?
I think it is only useful to manage the emergency from a bureaucratic point of view. To make the various users agree. Unfortunately, when there is little water, everyone claims their right to have it, but in the end they argue.
In which sectors should it intervene?
In large sectors. In first place there is obviously drinking water, then there are agriculture, hydroelectric energy and other industrial uses. The only thing the Extraordinary Commissioner can do is to seat everyone around a table and manage rationing with common sense. It's basically an administrative job.
But the problem will remain
Certain. From a technical point of view, the actions to be performed are much longer. We need to equip ourselves for the drought of the future, which we should have done many years ago and didn't do.
Talk about infrastructure?
Yes. If we have to build a dam, we don't do it in two months, but in ten years.
On another occasion you said that there is a need for a definitive political program to combat drought. Can you explain better?
When you work with water in the area, you need to plan carefully and do it all together. I'll give you an example: if a river starts in the mountains and flows into the sea, everyone must agree on what you want to do. These are not things that a single institution or a municipality can do. Unfortunately, we see these things in the great African countries. All it takes is a country to build a dam – let's put it on the Nile – and a war will break out. Do you think, for water! In our small way we risk doing it even in our house.
We will not go that far, but it is not easy to manage situations like this related to climate change
Real. This is why I say that a concerted effort is needed by all those who have to do with water management. We must respect the environment, the territory, the climatic scenarios of the future, then finally, when one decides what to do, the authorization phase begins. This too, a struggle to overcome which in Italy is no small thing.
What is politics to do, then?
It must prepare programs that go beyond the government of the moment. Does the government change and everything stops? No. We need long-term planning.
They are very demanding projects, evidently. Do you also have an idea of the costs to be incurred?
The costs have been quantified several times and it depends on the sectors. Agriculture, for example, has quantified its own, it is necessary to intervene on the aqueducts to close the leaks and we know that we have old aqueducts that lose an average of 40% of the water. They are important investments, but I don't think it's a money problem.
This is news…..
Yes, because we throw away a lot of money. Let's think about weapons, how many billions we are spending on weapons. Let me say, loud and clear, that I personally prefer to use the billions that exist to build canals or aqueducts, manage droughts. If you use the money to do other things, it ends up missing.
We look forward. To put the country back in order, a recovery plan has been prepared with investments in infrastructure, technologies, ecological and digital transition. What did you think?
Unfortunately, the PNRR made the planning of the works too quickly. Many projects for delivery deadlines don't have those characteristics I was talking about before. Often they are projects that have been sitting in drawers and have been pulled out. Obviously I hope that some of the money from the Plan will address these issues, including drought. However, it could have been done much better.
In principle, do you think the 60 billion euro of the PNRR is adequate for the green revolution and the ecological transition?
No, I think they are crumbs. Let's just think about how much money is needed to modernize the aqueducts…and then all the rest.
In your opinion, why does Italy not update the climate plan? The head of the Energy Department of the Ministry of the Environment admitted the other day that they have just started working on it.
In 2014, Italy drafted the Climate Change Adaptation Plan which has remained simply a programme. It has to be transformed into something actionable. Only today, almost ten years later, has the Ministry put it up for consultation. But the consultation expires on April 14 and is full of bureaucracy. As always happens in these cases, the document will be consulted by those who have interests to defend.
Do you think that these delays are affected by the interests of fossil energy companies?
Certainly there are such interests. It is clear that each lobby brings water or oil (sic!) to its own mill. But that's normal.
And what does the government expect to do?
May it bring everyone together so as not to let biased interests prevail that can harm the community and above all future generations.
Professor Mercalli, within the next eight years we must eliminate half of harmful emissions to reach zero emissions by 2050. Will we make it?
I think there are still chances of success, but it will be an epochal and tiring undertaking, which is why we must start immediately and with conviction, as the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says. It's like a diet and we have years ahead of us to achieve decarbonization. It's not just Italy that has to do it, mind you, that's why I say that the implementation programs are important.
But the Meloni government nn recent weeks it has signed several agreements to import more gas from the countries of the Mediterranean basin. There is a plan to build a European gas hub. What do you think?
With the excuse of the Russian gas emergency we have mortgaged a long future. I don't know the clauses of the agreements, but certainly those agreements will slow down the energy transition.
Excuse me: on the one hand we will import more gas, on the other we must reduce climate-changing emissions. These are two phenomena that overlap in the medium term. Can it come out?
Paradoxically, the best method was to insist on the eco-bonus by removing the distortions that existed and thus promote energy savings in our homes. 40% of European energy is lost in homes. I think we would have achieved almost the same result using less gas through house efficiency.
So do you see any negative effects?
Yes, because with the elimination of bonuses we have sunk the construction sector and the redevelopment of buildings. Those who have been burned by the sudden suppression of the eco-bonus no longer trust the state. I would add that the next time there is a measure on energy saving, the citizen will keep well away. In my opinion it was a dramatic operation for the credibility of the institutions.
But there have also been abuses and scams on bonuses. The government has decided not to completely eliminate gas, which for a certain period is used to accompany the green transition.
For me the decision slows down energy savings and we will continue to be encouraged to use gas. But we will use it badly, because we throw it away in the sieve of our built heritage. It is not for nothing throughout Europe that it is called energy step.
