Eleven Italian regions have been strongly affected by the wave of bad weather that has hit the peninsula in recent weeks, re-proposing the problem of hydrogeological risk that grips Italy. An 800 million aid plan from the European Investment Bank to prevent this risk was already ready at the end of the last legislature, but it is recent news that the current sovereign government says it does not need it and that Italy can do it alone, despite the cost of this choice. But the problems and difficulties of our Pease, which the bad weather emergency has once again laid bare, are upstream. FIRSTonline talked about it with Marcello Messori, a leading economist at the Luiss University of Rome and a citizen who loves and frequents the Asiago plateau. Here is his point of view.
Professor Messori, what is your impression of the environmental disaster that has recently struck the Asiago plateau and a large part of the Belluno area?
“I am not an expert on climate change or environmental disasters, but as a citizen and economist I am mainly struck by two facts. On the one hand the problem of pollution which has a significant impact on the climate and on the other the great urgency of seeing investments made in the sector of environmental rebalancing. It is not possible to deal with economic development and economic growth without introducing the crucial variable of environmental impact. In this sense, a distinction known in the history of economic theory that economists of the past had well in mind and that has increasingly blurred in the evolution of the discipline, namely the distinction between economic growth and economic development, returns to the fore. A positive growth rate creates a necessary condition for allowing the economic and social development of a country, but it is not sufficient. For growth to be compatible with development today, it is at least necessary that it be sustainable growth.”
Even in these days and also in the face of the bad weather emergency, controversies have not been spared on Europe in this circumstance, accused of lack of solidarity with Italy. How do you think things are?
“I think it is a misrepresentation of European rules in the face of episodes of this kind. The European rule consists in not calculating all one-off expenses in the structural deficit, especially those expenses due to exceptional phenomena. All the appropriations made to cover the expenses for earthquakes for example and the consequences of the environmental disasters that have hit our country will not be counted in the structural deficit for 2018, so the achievement of a country's medium-term objective is not conditioned by one-off expenses paid to deal with environmental disasters. Indeed, it is possible to use many European funds to plan a strengthening and restoration of the hydrogeological balance and to build what can become the medium-long term technical support for this rebalancing, i.e. investments in infrastructure."
How do you judge the position of the Government in office which does not seem to have the intention of activating a ready loan of 800 million?
“In relation to Europe, I see no relevant reason to refuse European funding bearing in mind that it does not interfere with the rules we have mentioned. Furthermore, Italy does not have so much a problem in finding resources for investments, but rather an inability to spend on investments and this is an issue that we accumulate over time. We were among the countries with the worst performance in the use of resources for infrastructure investments even when, by exploiting European flexibility, we obtained that co-financing was not included in the structural deficit. The apparent rigidity of the legislation lies in the fact that Europe wants to avoid granting loans that are not appropriate to the objectives for which they are earmarked. On the other hand, it would be different to launch a multi-year and costly environmental rebalancing plan which would be an intervention by the individual member state and for this reason affects its budget and for which there is no longer talk of a one-off expense. But it is up to the individual state to choose the composition of its investments. ”
Could the need to mobilize aid for the peninsula and to deal with disasters of this magnitude be an opportunity to boost growth and create new jobs in the area?
“That depends on how efficiently these interventions are implemented. A one-off expense has a limited impact over time, but a positive one if it is an investment expense. If it serves to restore devastated areas, it is not only a necessary act to rebalance an environmental disaster, but it can also have limited but positive effects on economic dynamics. The point is to make them efficiently. In Italy it is difficult to invest available resources quickly, but it is even more difficult once the investments have been made to do so with efficient allocations. ”
Nature has not been kind, but what are man's responsibilities in the face of environmental disasters these days?
“As a citizen, it seems to me that Italy is characterized by an excess of rules and by their very poor observance. I think there should maybe be less rules, but more oversight. It is necessary to combine rules and sanctions, to avoid consequences for the community."
