Il Regolamento (UE) 2023/1115, noto come “EUDR”, è entrato in vigore il 29 giugno 2023 e sarà applicabile dal 30 dicembre 2025 per la maggior parte degli operatori, mentre le micro e piccole imprese avranno tempo fino al 30 giugno 2026. 

La normativa mira a ridurre al minimo la deforestazione e il degrado forestale a livello globale, contenere le emissioni di gas a effetto serra e proteggere la biodiversità. Oltre agli obiettivi ambientali, l’EUDR integra considerazioni sociali, imponendo il rispetto della legislazione del Paese di produzione, inclusa quella ambientale, agricola, forestale, e in materia di diritti umani e dei popoli indigeni.

E’ opportuno segnalare che si tratta di una normativa speciale rispetto a quella, “orizzontale”, prevista in materia di due diligence con la Direttiva 2024/1760 relativa al dovere di diligenza delle imprese ai fini della sostenibilità (c.d. “CSDDD”); pertanto, in caso di contrasto, l’EUDR prevale sulla CSDDD.

Di recente, la Commissione Europea ha pubblicato (in G.U.U.E. C del 12 agosto 2025) un nuovo documento di orientamento (C/2025/4524), volto a chiarire le previsioni dell’EUDR (nel proseguo, la “Comunicazione”). La Comunicazione – peraltro giuridicamente non vincolante – fornisce infatti indicazioni operative su aspetti chiave come le differenze tra gli obblighi in capo ai diversi operatori, la due diligence, la presentazione della dichiarazione di dovuta diligenza (“DDS”), il ruolo delle certificazioni e le tempistiche di entrata in vigore dell’EUDR.

Il campo di applicazione dell’EUDR comprende sette materie prime considerate a rischio: bovini, cacao, caffè, olio di palma, soia, legno e gomma naturale, oltre a numerosi prodotti derivati elencati nell’Allegato I, tra cui cuoio, cioccolato, carta, mobili e pneumatici. 

La disciplina interessa, in particolare, operatori e commercianti, distinguendo tra PMI e non-PMI. In sintesi, l’operatore è chi immette per primo un prodotto rilevante sul mercato UE o lo esporta, mentre il commerciante è chi lo mette a disposizione sul mercato dopo l’immissione iniziale. 

Gli operatori non-PMI devono implementare un processo di due diligence strutturato in tre fasi: raccolta di informazioni dettagliate sul prodotto (descrizione, quantità, Paese di produzione, geolocalizzazione degli appezzamenti, dati di fornitori e acquirenti, prove di conformità); valutazione del rischio di non conformità, considerando elementi quali il rischio Paese, la presenza di deforestazione o degrado forestale, i diritti delle popolazioni locali, la complessità della filiera e il rischio di mescolamento con prodotti di origine sconosciuta; e, se necessario, adozione di misure di mitigazione per ridurre il rischio a un livello nullo o trascurabile, come richieste di informazioni aggiuntive, audit indipendenti o controlli in loco.

La conclusione positiva della due diligence è possibile solo se il rischio residuo è nullo o trascurabile. In caso contrario, il prodotto non può essere immesso sul mercato o esportato. 

L’operatore deve presentare, attraverso il Sistema Informativo previsto dall’articolo 33, la DDS e conservare la relativa documentazione per almeno cinque anni. 

È inoltre tenuto a dotarsi di un sistema interno di due diligence, con procedure e controlli formalizzati, nonché revisione periodica almeno annuale.

La legislazione pertinente ai sensi dell’EUDR include le norme del Paese di produzione relative all’uso del suolo, alla tutela ambientale, alla gestione forestale, ai diritti di terzi e dei lavoratori, ai diritti umani e indigeni, nonché alle disposizioni fiscali, anticorruzione, commerciali e doganali.

La normativa prevede una classificazione dei Paesi di origine in base al livello di rischio: basso, standard o alto. Per i Paesi a basso rischio, gli operatori possono applicare una due diligence semplificata, limitandosi alla raccolta delle informazioni di base e alla presentazione della DDS, senza analisi e mitigazione approfondite. Nei Paesi ad alto rischio, invece, le verifiche e i controlli sono più rigorosi e frequenti.

Le autorità competenti effettuano controlli documentali e fisici, anche in dogana. In caso di non conformità possono essere adottate misure correttive come il ritiro o il richiamo immediato dei prodotti, la sospensione della loro immissione sul mercato, la donazione per fini caritatevoli o lo smaltimento. Le sanzioni possono arrivare ad almeno il 4% del fatturato annuo realizzato nell’UE, oltre alla confisca dei prodotti o dei proventi, all’esclusione temporanea da appalti e fondi pubblici e, nei casi più gravi o in caso di recidiva, al divieto di immissione o esportazione di prodotti rilevanti.

La Comunicazione riconosce l’utilità di schemi volontari di certificazione ambientale e tracciabilità; tuttavia, essi possono integrare – e non sostituire – la due diligence obbligatoria. In particolare, certificazioni basate su modelli di equilibrio di massa o su percentuali miste di prodotto non garantiscono di per sé la conformità all’EUDR. Solo prodotti completamente conformi ai criteri di legalità e deforestazione zero in tutti i loro componenti possono essere immessi sul mercato UE. L’operatore deve dunque verificare la conformità della certificazione all’EUDR.

Per prepararsi alla scadenza del 30 dicembre 2025, le aziende dovrebbero mettere in atto quanto prima una serie di azioni: mappare le proprie filiere, identificando fornitori e aree a rischio; istituire un database centralizzato per la gestione delle informazioni; nonché adeguare i contratti di fornitura con clausole specifiche sulla conformità alla normativa. 

È altresì essenziale formare il personale coinvolto, in particolare negli uffici acquisti, qualità e sostenibilità, e implementare un sistema di due diligence interno strutturato, eventualmente integrato nel Modello 231. 

È infine imprescindibile mantenere un monitoraggio costante dell’evoluzione normativa e delle best practices, per garantire un adeguamento tempestivo e prevenire rischi legali e reputazionali.

***

Il contenuto di questo elaborato ha valore meramente informativo e non costituisce, né può essere interpretato, quale parere professionale sugli argomenti in oggetto. Per ulteriori informazioni, si prega di contattare Valentina Cavanna all’indirizzovalentina.cavanna@advant-nctm.com.

Resta aggiornato!

Il Decreto Legislativo 9 aprile 2008, n. 81 (“D. Lgs. 81/2008” o “Testo Unico Sicurezza”) prevede che il datore di lavoro garantisca a ciascun lavoratore un’adeguata formazione in materia di salute e sicurezza (art. 37, c. 1). Inoltre, lo stesso D. Lgs. 81/2008 stabilisce che la durata, i contenuti minimi e le modalità della formazione siano definiti mediante accordo in sede di Conferenza permanente per i rapporti tra lo Stato, le Regioni e le Province autonome, previa consultazione delle parti sociali (art. 37, c. 2).

Nella seduta del 17 aprile 2025, la Conferenza permanente per i rapporti tra Stato, Regioni e Province autonome, ha sancito – dopo una lunga attesa – il nuovo “Accordo, ai sensi dell’articolo 37, comma 2, del decreto legislativo 9 aprile 2008, n.81, tra il Governo, le regioni e le Province autonome di Trento e Bolzano, finalizzato alla individuazione della durata e dei contenuti minimi dei percorsi formativi in materia di salute e sicurezza, di cui al medesimo decreto legislativo, n. 81 del 2008” – Repertorio atti 59/CSR (nel proseguo, “ASR”).

L’ASR abroga gli accordi precedenti[1] e ridefinisce – questa volta in un unico testo – durata, contenuti minimi e modalità della formazione in materia di salute e sicurezza sul lavoro, con alcune importanti novità. 

2. NOVITA' INTRODOTTE DALL'ASR

Le principali novità dell’ASR, che verranno illustrate infra, riguardano i seguenti temi: 

• Requisiti dei soggetti formatori;
• Modalità di erogazione dei corsi;
• Nuovi percorsi formativi;
• Verifica dell’apprendimento obbligatoria;
• Valutazione dell’efficacia della formazione.

3. REQUISITI DEI SOGGETTI FORMATORI

L’ASR individua i soggetti adibiti ai corsi di formazione e di aggiornamento (“Soggetti Formatori”), suddividendoli in diverse categorie: 

• Istituzionali: tra di essi si annoverano le amministrazioni pubbliche tra cui, a titolo esemplificativo e non esaustivo, Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali; Ministero della difesa; Ministero della salute; Ministero dell’ambiente e della sicurezza energetica; Ministero dell’interno; Università; INAIL; Ordini e i collegi professionali.
• Accreditati: si fa riferimento ai soggetti formatori che si sono accreditati secondo il modello definito in ogni Regione e Provincia autonoma, ai sensi dell'Intesa del 20 marzo 2008.
• Altri soggetti, tra i quali si annoverano Fondi Interprofessionali di settore; Organismi Paritetici e Associazione sindacali di datori di lavoro o lavoratori. Gli organismi paritetici e le associazioni sindacali dei datori di lavoro o dei lavoratori possono effettuare le attività formative e di aggiornamento direttamente o avvalendosi di strutture formative o di servizio di loro diretta emanazione. Inoltre, viene introdotto, il principio per cui “per diretta emanazione si intende una struttura che deve essere di proprietà esclusiva o almeno partecipata in modo prevalente dell’associazione sindacale dei datori di lavoro o dei lavoratori”. 

I docenti devono possedere specifiche competenze e, in particolare, essere in possesso dei requisiti di cui al Decreto Ministeriale 6 marzo 2013 ss.mm.ii. (fatto salvo quanto previsto dall’ASR per specifici percorsi formativi).

4. MODALITA' DI EROGAZIONE DEI CORSI 

L’ASR definisce quattro modalità di erogazione dei corsi di formazione: 

• presenza fisica;
• e-learning;
• video conferenza sincrona;
• modalità mista.

Si ammette l’utilizzo della video conferenza sincrona e dell’e-learning, ma con alcune limitazioni e a determinate condizioni (ad esempio, la piattaforma deve poter monitorare e certificare la partecipazione attiva del discente). Si evidenzia che la modalità e-learning non è consentita, in particolare, per la formazione dei preposti.

In tutti i corsi di formazione e aggiornamento devono essere redatti i verbali delle verifiche finali, con elementi minimi indicati dall’ASR.

Il Soggetto Formatore, inoltre, dovrà conservare per almeno 10 anni la documentazione attraverso il “Fascicolo del corso”, il quale è costituito da: (i) progetto formativo e programma del corso; (ii) dai anagrafici dei partecipanti; (iii) registro presenze dei partecipanti, con firme; (iv) elenco dei docenti, con firme; (v) verbale della verifica finale.

5. NUOVI PERCORSI FORMATIVI 

L’ASR definisce i percorsi formativi in parte confermando quanto già previsto dagli accordi precedenti, in parte apportando talune novità. Esso, infatti:

a) definisce le ore obbligatorie di formazione e i corsi di aggiornamento destinati a datori di lavoro, dirigenti e preposti, nonché a Responsabili del Servizio Prevenzione e Protezione (“RSPP”) e lavoratori;

b) definisce il percorso formativo destinato a coordinatori per la progettazione (“CSP”) e coordinatori per l’esecuzione (“CSE”) nei cantieri temporanei e mobili, aggiornando l’allegato XIV del Testo Unico Sicurezza;

c) definisce la formazione per datori di lavoro e dirigenti delle imprese affidatarie;

d) introduce nuovi obblighi formativi per l’uso di attrezzature di lavoro per cui è prevista una specifica abilitazione di cui all’art. 73, c. 5 del Testo Unico Sicurezza (es. conduzione di carrelli elevatori semoventi con conducente a bordo, conduzione di gru mobili e conduzione di escavatori);

e) istituisce percorsi formativi mirati per chi opera in ambienti sospetti di inquinamento o confinati di cui al D.P.R. 177/2011.

In particolare, per quanto riguarda i datori di lavoro, i preposti e i dirigenti, si segnala quanto segue: 

• Per i datori di lavoro, si prevede un corso di formazione della durata minima di 16 ore, a cui si aggiunge un modulo “cantieri” di minimo 6 ore per i datori di lavoro delle imprese affidatarie nei cantieri temporanei e mobili. Il corso ha lo scopo di fornire “competenze organizzative, gestionali e giuridiche per gestire il processo della salute e sicurezza sul posto di lavoro nell’ottica del superamento di una visione formale della materia a favore di una visione sostanziale orientata alla prevenzione e alla protezione della salute dei lavoratori, anche alla luce della continua evoluzione del mondo del lavoro”. 

  L’aggiornamento deve essere effettuato con cadenza quinquennale e con durata minima di 6 ore;

• Per i datori di lavoro che, dopo aver frequentato il nuovo corso specifico per datori, intendano anche ricoprire il ruolo di RSPP, è previsto un modulo comune di 8 ore valido per tutti i settori, e ulteriori moduli specifici a seconda del settore (es. chimico: 16 ore). In questo caso, l’aggiornamento deve essere effettuato con cadenza quinquennale con durata minima di 8 ore;
• Per i preposti, invece, la durata del corso passa da 8 a 12 ore. L’aggiornamento, invece, dovrà avvenire con cadenza biennale e dovrà avere una durata minima di 6 ore;
• Per i dirigenti, infine, la durata del corso si riduce da 16 a 12 ore, ma viene previsto un modulo aggiuntivo "cantieri" da 6 ore (per dirigenti delle imprese affidatarie nei cantieri temporanei e mobili). L’aggiornamento dovrà essere effettuato con cadenza quinquennale, con durata minima di 6 ore.

6. VERIFICA DELL'APPRENDIMENTO OBBLIGATORIA 

Una novità significativa concerne l’introduzione delle modalità della verifica finale di apprendimento da svolgersi al termine di ogni corso di formazione, senza eccezioni. Tale verifica consente di valutare con precisione l’apprendimento e le competenze acquisite dai partecipanti durante il corso.

Al termine di ciascun corso, qualora il partecipante abbia frequentato almeno il 90% delle ore totali previste e abbia superato con successo la verifica finale di apprendimento, il soggetto formatore provvederà al rilascio di un attestato di partecipazione. 

7. VALUTAZIONE DELL’EFFICACIA DELLA FORMAZIONE

Infine, un’altra novità di rilievo è l’obbligo, per il datore di lavoro, di valutare se la formazione impartita al lavoratore sia efficace. Tale valutazione viene effettuata durante lo svolgimento della prestazione di lavoro, a una certa distanza di tempo dal termine del corso, e costituisce parte integrante del processo formativo.

Le modalità che possono essere utilizzate sono le seguenti: analisi infortunistica aziendale; questionari da somministrare al personale; check list di valutazione.

L’ASR prevede poi che, nell’ambito della riunione periodica, deve essere verificato il raggiungimento dei risultati attesi e rilevata l’efficacia formativa attraverso gli indicatori, i criteri e gli strumenti stabiliti in sede di progettazione del corso.

8. DISPOSIZIONI TRANSITORIE 

L’ASR entrerà in vigore il giorno della sua pubblicazione in Gazzetta Ufficiale.

In fase di prima applicazione e comunque non oltre 12 mesi dall’entrata in vigore dell’ASR, potranno essere avviati i corsi secondo quanto previsto dai precedenti accordi, nonché dell’allegato XIV del Testo Unico Sicurezza vigente prima dell’entrata in vigore dell’ASR.

L’ASR prevede infine che “i datori di lavoro sono tenuti a frequentare il corso di formazione di cui alla parte II, punto 3, del presente accordo in modo che lo stesso venga concluso entro e non oltre il termine di 24 mesi dall’entrata in vigore del presente accordo. I corsi di formazione per datore di lavoro, già erogati alla data di entrata in vigore del presente accordo, i cui contenuti siano conformi al presente accordo sono riconosciuti. L’aggiornamento dei suddetti corsi parte dalla data di fine corso riportata nell’attestato”.

L’ASR disciplina altresì le modalità di riconoscimento della formazione pregressa per le altre categorie di soggetti.

***

Il contenuto di questo elaborato ha valore meramente informativo e non costituisce, né può essere interpretato, quale parere professionale sugli argomenti in oggetto.

Per ulteriori informazioni, si prega di contattare i seguenti professionisti: Paolo Gallarati, all’indirizzo paolo.gallarati@advant-nctm.com, o Valentina Cavanna, all’indirizzo valentina.cavanna@advant-nctm.com. 

[1] Ovvero: l’accordo del 21 dicembre 2011 (repertorio atti 221/CSR); l’accordo del 21 dicembre 2011 (repertorio atti 223/CSR); l’accordo del 22 febbraio 2012; l’accordo del 7 luglio 2016; l’accordo del 25 luglio 2012 contenente le “Linee applicative” degli Accordi del 21 dicembre 2011.

Gli appuntamenti a cui prenderà parte:

-28 e 29 aprile come relatrice al training “Transforming ESIA into action: more effective follow-up for sustainable development”

-4 maggio in qualità di chair della sessione “Implementation of HIA from a comparative perspective: common grounds, differences, and the future with AI”

Un’occasione di confronto internazionale su tematiche sempre più centrali per lo sviluppo sostenibile e l’innovazione nei processi decisionali.

Scopri di più sul sito ufficiale. 

Con il Decreto Legge 17 marzo 2020 n. 18 (il “Decreto cura – Italia”), pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale in data 17 marzo 2020 (e non ancora convertito in legge), sono state disposte, tra gli altri interventi, nuove misure in materia di giustizia amministrativa, di procedimenti amministrativi e di adempimenti in materia ambientale. Esse consentono di superare le precedenti disposizioni dettate dal D.L. n. 11 pubblicato in data 8 marzo 2020 che facevano riferimento solo alle misure in materia di giustizia amministrativa e non anche alla sospensione dei procedimenti amministrativi. Il Decreto Legge 8 aprile 2020, n. 23 ("D.L. 23/2020"), pubblicato in Gazzetta Ufficiale in data 8 aprile 2020, ha da ultimo disposto la proroga di alcune di queste misure.

• i termini per la presentazione dei ricorsi di primo e di secondo grado, del ricorso incidentale, dei motivi aggiunti, di altri ricorsi aventi natura impugnatori (ad es. il ricorso per revocazione o il ricorso per opposizione di terzo) sono sospesi dall'8 marzo 2020 al 3 maggio 2020;
• i termini per gli altri atti (es. memorie, repliche) o per gli adempimenti processuali (deposito del ricorso, dei motivi aggiunti, etc.) restano sospesi dall'8 marzo al 15 aprile 2020;
• la sospensione non si applica ai termini relativi ai procedimenti cautelari.

2. Rinvio delle udienze pubbliche e camerali fissate tra il 17 marzo e il 15 aprile 2020; il rito speciale per i procedimenti cautelari – articolo 84, comma 1 del Decreto Cura ItaliaTutte le udienze pubbliche e camerali relative a procedimenti già pendenti e fissate in tale arco temporale saranno rinviate d’ufficio a data successiva.I procedimenti cautelari promossi o pendenti nel periodo suindicato:

1.  sono decisi con decreto monocratico del Presidente o del magistrato da lui delegato nel rispetto dei termini a difesa   (previsti dall’art. 55, comma 5 c.p.a.) e previa verifica della corretta instaurazione del contraddittorio;
2. il decreto monocratico fissa la camera di consiglio, in data immediatamente successiva al 15 aprile 2020, per la discussione in contraddittorio della domanda cautelare;
3. il decreto monocratico è efficace fino alla camera di consiglio fissata per la discussione della domanda cautelare, ed è revocabile o modificabile su istanza di parte.

Nel caso di estrema gravità ed urgenza tale da non consentire neppure la dilazione della decisione cautelare nel rispetto degli ordinari termini a difesa, può essere sempre richiesta la pronuncia di decreto monocratico, che sarà emanato seguendo il suo regime ordinario di cui all’articolo 56 c.p.a..3. Il rito speciale delle udienze pubbliche e camerali fissate in data tra il 6 aprile e il 15 aprile 2020 – articolo 84, comma 2 del Decreto Cura ItaliaPer tali udienze è previsto un rito speciale in deroga alla disciplina descritta nel precedente paragrafo 2.Il rito speciale si applica solo se richiesto da tutte le parti con istanza congiunta da depositare entro il termine perentorio di due giorni liberi prima dell’udienza:

1. la controversia passa in decisione senza discussione orale sulla base degli atti depositati;
2. le parti hanno facoltà di depositare brevi note fino a due giorni liberi prima dell’udienza;
3. nei procedimenti cautelari nei quali sia stato emanato decreto monocratico di accoglimento, totale o parziale, della domanda cautelare la trattazione collegiale in camera di consiglio è fissata, ove possibile, nella prima camera di consiglio utile successiva al 6 aprile 2020;
4. il collegio definisce la fase cautelare secondo quanto previsto dal presente comma, salvo che entro il termine di due giorni liberi prima della camera di consiglio una delle parti su cui incide la misura cautelare depositi un’istanza di rinvio; in tal caso la trattazione collegiale è rinviata a data immediatamente successiva al 15 aprile 2020.

4. Udienze pubbliche e camerali fissate in data tra il 16 aprile e il 30 giugno 2020 – articolo 84, comma 5 del Decreto Cura ItaliaLe controversie passano in decisione senza discussione orale e sulla base degli atti depositati.Resta ferma la possibilità di definizione del giudizio con sentenza in forma semplificata ai sensi dell’articolo 60 c.p.a.; non essendovi discussione orale, non si applica l’obbligo di dare avviso alle parti in tal senso.Per le udienze pubbliche in ordine alle quali i termini di scadenza per la produzione di documenti e memorie ricadano nel periodo di sospensione dei termini (8 marzo – 15 arile 2020) le parti:

1. hanno la facoltà di presentare brevi note entro il termine di due giorni liberi prima dell’udienza, oppure
2. entro lo stesso termine di due giorni liberi prima dell’udienza, possono chiedere la rimessione in termini per il deposito di documenti e memorie.

In tal caso, il giudice adotta i provvedimenti per l’ulteriore e più sollecito svolgimento del processo, fissando eventualmente nuova udienza, in relazione alla quale i termini per produzione di documenti, memorie e repliche (art. 73, co. 1, c.p.a.) sono ridotti alla metà.5. Misure organizzative per contenere eventuali effetti negativi dell’emergenza sanitaria – articolo 84, commi 3 e 4 del Decreto Cura ItaliaGli organi della giustizia amministrativa e, in particolare, i presidenti titolari delle sezioni del Consiglio di Stato, il presidente del Consiglio di giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana e i presidenti dei tribunali amministrativi regionali e delle relative sezioni distaccate, sentiti l’autorità sanitaria regionale e il Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati della città ove ha sede l’Ufficio, possono adottare le misure organizzative, anche incidenti sulla trattazione degli affari giudiziari e consultivi, necessarie per consentire il rispetto delle indicazioni igienico-sanitarie fornite dal Ministero della salute al fine di evitare assembramenti all’interno degli uffici giudiziari e contatti ravvicinati tra le persone.Tra queste, potrebbero essere adottate anche le misure di rinvio delle udienze a data successiva al 30 giugno 2020, assicurandone comunque la trattazione con priorità, anche mediante una ricalendarizzazione delle udienze, fatta eccezione per le udienze e camere di consiglio cautelari, elettorali, e per le cause rispetto alle quali la ritardata trattazione potrebbe produrre grave pregiudizio alle parti.Per queste ultime cause, la dichiarazione di urgenza è fatta con decreto non impugnabile dai soggetti che adottano le misure suindicate.Laddove l’adozione delle misure organizzative suindicate possa determinare la decadenza delle parti da facoltà processuali, opera di diritto la rimessione in termini delle parti stesse.E’ inoltre prevista la possibilità per il collegio giudicante di riunire la camera di consiglio per la decisione dei giudizi (di merito e cautelari) avvalendosi di collegamenti da remoto.6. Procedimenti amministrativi – articolo 103 del Decreto Cura Italia; articolo 37 del D.L. 23/2020Secondo l'art. 103 del Decreto Cura Italia, modificato dall'art. 37 del D.L. 23/2020, ai fini del computo dei termini ordinatori o perentori, propedeutici, endoprocedimentali, finali ed esecutivi, relativi allo svolgimento di procedimenti amministrativi su istanza di parte o d’ufficio, pendenti alla data del 23 febbraio 2020 o iniziati successivamente a tale data, non si tiene conto del periodo compreso tra la medesima data e quella del 15 maggio 2020, al fine di evitare che la Pubblica Amministrazione incorra in eventuali ritardi o nel formarsi del silenzio significativo.Sono altresì prorogati o differiti, per il tempo corrispondente, i termini di formazione della volontà conclusiva dell’amministrazione nelle forme del silenzio significativo previste dall’ordinamento.In ogni caso, è richiesto alle pubbliche amministrazioni di adottare "ogni misura organizzativa idonea ad assicurare comunque la ragionevole durata e la celere conclusione dei procedimenti, con priorità per quelli da considerare urgenti, anche sulla base di motivate istanze degli interessati".Inoltre, tutte le autorizzazioni, i permessi ed i provvedimenti abilitativi, comunque denominati, in scadenza nel periodo compreso tra il 31 gennaio 2020 e il 15 aprile 2020 conservano validità ed efficacia fino al 15 giugno 2020.La sospensione dei termini procedimentali non si applica, per espressa previsione di cui al comma 4, ai pagamenti da disporsi da parte delle pubbliche amministrazioni.È infine sospesa fino al 30 giugno 2020 l’esecuzione dei provvedimenti di rilascio di immobili, compresi quelli ad uso non abitativo.7. Adempimenti in materia di rifiuti – articolo 113 del Decreto Cura ItaliaSono prorogate al 30 giugno 2020 le scadenze di alcuni adempimenti relativi ai rifiuti, ossia:a) presentazione del modello unico di dichiarazione ambientale (MUD) di cui all’articolo 6, comma 2, della legge 25 gennaio 1994, n. 70;b) presentazione della comunicazione annuale dei dati relativi alle pile e accumulatori immessi sul mercato nazionale nell'anno precedente, di cui all’articolo 15, comma 3, del decreto legislativo 20 novembre 2008, n. 188, nonché trasmissione dei dati relativi alla raccolta ed al riciclaggio dei rifiuti di pile ed accumulatori portatili, industriali e per veicoli ai sensi dell’articolo 17, comma 2, lettera c), del decreto legislativo 20 novembre 2008, n. 188;c) presentazione al Centro di Coordinamento della comunicazione di cui all’articolo 33, comma 2, del decreto legislativo n. 14 marzo 2014, n. 49 (in materia di Rifiuti da Apparecchiature Elettriche ed Elettroniche – “RAEE”);d) versamento del diritto annuale di iscrizione all’Albo nazionale gestori ambientali di cui all’articolo 24, comma 4, del decreto 3 giugno 2014, n. 120. Il contenuto di questo elaborato ha valore meramente informativo e non costituisce, né può essere interpretato, quale parere professionale sugli argomenti in oggetto. Per ulteriori informazioni contattare Giuliano Berruti, Marco Monaco, Francesca Bonino, Rosemarie Serrato, Carmine Morrone, Valentina Cavanna o Annapaola Prezioso.

1. Introduction

The Renewable Energy Directive[1] has set ambitious renewable energy sources (RES) targets and in order to reach these binding targets most Member States grant support to RES generation. This might qualify as State aid to the producers of renewable energy sources. Such support is often financed through a levy on the electricity bills, meaning that the cost of the levies to finance such support is ultimately borne by the energy users ("final consumers"). Some of these final consumers can however be partially exempted from these levies. Also this can be qualified as State aid if the waiving of charges is in favour of consumer-undertakings and the other conditions set out in Article 107 TFEU are fulfilled. However, this aid can be qualified as compatible with the internal market. In fact under the 2014 Energy and Environment State Aid Guidelines (EEAG)^[2], the Commission can authorise Member States to partially compensate energy-intensive users (EIUs) for the cost they bear to finance RES support that are passed on in the electricity price^[3]. The present contribution will only deal with the second aid measure.EIUs may be particularly affected by the costs borne because of the levy to finance RES support, due to their high electricity consumption and exposure to competition from non-EU undertakings which are not subject to these costs. The EEAG accordingly allows Member States to partially compensate for these costs to avoid that they are put at a significant competitive disadvantage and that the financing of renewable support may be unsustainable.On the one hand, the major environmental concern seems to rest on the fact that a possible relocation of such EIUs outside the concerned Member State would entail a transfer of emissions to countries where there are no environmental protection standards, or where these standards are less stringent then in the EU, thus contributing to growing emissions and increased overall environmental pollution. On the other hand, the other underlying reason for allowing this type of aid is based on economic grounds. It is argued that, in the absence of such support, the affected undertakings are likely to become less competitive and will be forced to cease trading with adverse effects especially in terms of reduction in output and environmental charges, which finance environmental and climate change policies in the concerned Member States.Against this framework, the Commission has already approved, under the new EEAG, the partial compensation schemes laid down by several Member States, including Germany^[4], Romania^[5], Denmark^[6] and the UK^[7]. The planned compensation schemes in other Member States are currently under assessment^[8]. As we will describe in the next chapter, in the past the Commission adopted a different approach when assessing similar, albeit non-identical, support measures.2. Past case practice: is 2011 the dividing line?The reduction of the charges levied by Member States in order to finance RES support schemes normally constitute operating aid for large energy-intensive companies. According to the case-law, operating aid does not fall within the scope of art 107(3) TFEU, as the effect of such aid is in principle to distort competition in the sector in which it is granted, whilst nevertheless being unable to achieve any of the objectives listed in article 107(3) TFEU.^[9]. In the past the Commission authorised operating aid only in very specific situations, where the particular distortive effect of operating aid was balanced by particularly important benefits for the common interest.Since the Alcan decision in 1986 the Commission has taken the view that operating aid for energy-intensive companies cannot be declared compatible with the internal market^[10]. Along the same lines, the Commission decided that operating aid in the form of reduced electricity tariffs for aluminium production in Italy (Sardinia) and Greece were not compatible with the internal market^[11]. In policy terms, these cases (confirmed by the case-law) are important because they regard the Commission's refusal to authorize operating aid given under the form of electricity price subsidies in favour of certain energy-intensive industries based on the alleged "imperfect state of liberalization" of the EU electricity market or the threat of relocation outside the European Union. State aid control aims generally at preventing this type of aid liable to generate subsidy races between Member States.With reference to reductions of parafiscal levies having the specific purpose of financing support for RES, in 2011 the Commission decided that a partial exemption from the obligation to purchase green electricity for energy-intensive businesses given by Austria^[12] constituted operating aid and resulted in the imposition of a higher burden on other electricity consumers without providing any environmental benefit. According to the Commission, such forms of exemption “may even harm the environment by lowering the incentives for energy saving”. Therefore, at that time, Austria was forbidden to go ahead with the implementation of such measure under the 2008 Environmental State Aid Guidelines.3. The EEAG and new case practiceIn 2013/2014, in view of reviewing the 2008 Environmental State Aid Guidelines, the Commission conducted an extensive open consultation. In this context it was raised that mechanisms to support national industries against the increasing costs linked to electricity were needed[13]. EIUs in fact play a major role in terms of national employment and GDP and their relocation might affect greatly the economy of a Member State. Indeed, some Member States adopted some kind of supporting measures already before the adoption of the revised EEAG.^[14]The Commission in April 2014 released the new EEAG which includes a chapter on State aid to partially relieve certain undertakings from financing RES support schemes^[15]. The Commission in setting out on which conditions financial compensation for EIUs can be granted aims at ensuring that State aid rules are correctly applied and respected by all Member States^[16]. By doing so the Commission provides a framework within which Member States can grant compensation while at the same time maintaining a level playing field in the European Union. The Commission has therefore formally recognised that those companies are generally put at a competitive disadvantage globally and deserve a special treatment when it comes to surcharge to fund RES support schemes which became too costly as of 2011.The EEAG entered into force on 1 July 2014, however the rules for EIUs apply retroactively to all ongoing and past cases even to the ones that have not been notified before implementation and which normally under State aid discipline, should be assessed according to the rules applicable at the time of granting the aid^[17].Those aid measures granted in the past without a legal basis for compatibility will have to progressively comply with the requirements set forth in the EEAG from the granting moment (which could well be prior to the entry into force of EEAG) until the end of 2018.^[18]The EEAG indicates that "all aid granted in the form of reductions in funding support for electricity from renewable sources prior to 1/1/2011 can be declared compatible with the internal market". In this context the Commission substitutes its case-by-case assessment working under the assumption that “by 5 December 2010, the Member States had to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the RED, which introduces legally binding targets for consumption of renewable energy. On the other hand, the total costs for the support of the production of electricity from renewable sources remained rather limited until the year 2010, so that the level of charges remained relatively low. Therefore, the amount of aid granted to undertakings in the form of reductions in funding support for electricity from renewable sources remained limited at the level of the individual beneficiary”.The EEAG defines ex ante quite a tight framework for the compatibility of such aid measures in terms of qualifying conditions for the eligible beneficiaries. First of all according to those rules, undertakings can benefit from reductions only on the charges financing RES support. Therefore even in case the surcharge happens to cover the financing of other measures such as research and development, transmission charges, nuclear decommissioning, islands interconnection, the Member State should be able to allocate a certain amount to the RES funding. Secondly, only electro-intensive users can benefit from such reductions in the RES charges. Thirdly, with the aim to reach a level playing field, the EEAG pre-selected the business sectors which qualify ex ante as eligible to this form of aid. The list of these sectors has been annexed to the EEAG^[19]. These are sectors which are exposed to a risk to their competitive position due to the costs resulting from the funding of support to energy from renewable sources as a function of their electro-intensity and their exposure to international trade. That is why the EEAG talks about intensity of their electricity costs and their trade intensity.However, the EEAG also include the possibility for the Member States to add more sectors provided that the trade intensity of these sectors is at least 4% and aid is limited to undertakings with an electro-intensity of at least 20% as required by paragraph (186) of the EEAG (with electro-intensity calculated according to Annex   4 EEAG or in line with paragraph (195) EEAG)^[20].As a consequence once those sectors are authorised by the Commission, they could then also be included by all other Member States wishing to enlarge the list of eligible sectors.In order to cater for some specificities of each Member States, the EEAG leaves to the Member States the possibility to reduce the number of potential beneficiaries imposing additional eligibility criteria provided that within the eligible sectors the choice of beneficiaries is made on the basis of objective, non-discriminatory and transparent criteria and that the aid is granted in the same way for all competitors in the same sector if they are in a similar factual situation. This is often a possibility retained by Member States which do not intend to include all companies or all sectors listed in the Annexes to the EEAG, probably as this would imply enlarging too much the number of beneficiaries and not fitting into the envisaged national budget earmarked to this measure. However, this possibility does not grant Member States an unlimited right to identify the eligible companies as the Commission is entitled to verify whether this selection complies with the mentioned criteria of transparency, objectivity and non-discrimination. In this context the Commission already carefully assessed whether the conditions imposed by Denmark and Romania were de facto discriminatory. Denmark granted aid, inter alia, only (1) to companies which commit to certain energy-efficiency improvements, (2) if the aid amount exceeds approximately 2680 Euro. Romania imposed different conditions on which the Commission raised some observations as to their compatibility with the general principles of objectivity, non-discrimination (and the freedom of establishment) set out in the EEAG. In fact, amongst other limitations, the beneficiaries had to maintain their activities in Romania during the aid scheme and could not lay off more than 25% of the number of the employees at the time of qualification for the measure. After negotiation with the Commission, as reported in the decision, the condition was changed by Romania into an obligation not to relocate outside the EEA. Finally, the aid will be considered proportionate if the beneficiary continues to bear at least 15% of the additional costs without reduction, with an optional cap that Member States can put in place to further reduce the surcharges paid in case certain EIUs have a very high consumption.^[21]. Against this background, if on the one hand the Commission should be welcomed for transparently setting out in advance how it will assess the aid measures benefitting EIUs and indicating the possible sets of beneficiaries which are the ones more endangered by the increasing costs of electricity and more exposed to international trade, on the other hand, a more flexible approach is still necessary, with a view to allowing Member States to perform specific assessments on competition grounds aimed at taking into account the competitive dynamics of the markets at both national and EU level (depending on the geographic scope of the relevant market). This would also permit Member States to showing which sectors and which undertakings are negatively affected by the RES surcharge. This is even more important in the context of an Energy Union not yet completed where there are still many differences in terms of RES support and its related costs. [1] Directive (EC) 2009/28 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives  (EC) 2001/77 and 2003/30 (OJ 2009 L 140, p.16).[2] Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020, [2014] OJ C200/1.[3] Other supports for businesses, including EIUs, related to environmental protection are: (1) a partial compensation for the indirect ETS allowance costs that are passed on in the electricity price. The EU introduced an emission trading scheme as a tool to combat climate change. Member States can partially support EIUs to address the risk of ´carbon leakage´. This serves an environmental objective, since the aid aims to avoid an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions due to shifts of production outside the Union, in the absence of a binding international agreement on reduction of GHG emissions; (2) energy tax reductions or exemptions to facilitate a higher general tax level, and thereby contribute to a higher level of environmental protection. In principle, tax reductions can be granted up to the minimum level set out in the Energy Tax Directive, while for reductions below the minimum level a necessity and proportionality test needs to be carried out.[4] Decision of 23 July 2014 SA.38632 (2014/N) – Germany EEG 2014 – Reform of the Renewable energy law. As to the previous scheme implemented by Germany before the entry into force of EEAG, Germany appealed before the General Court, in case T-47/15, the decision of the Commission (Decision of 25 November 2014 SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users) largely approving the reductions to the surcharge granted to energy-intensive companies, but asking also Germany to recover a small portion of the aid granted in 2013 and 2014. The court case is ongoing.[5] Decision of 15 October 2014, State aid SA.39042 (2014/N) – Romania - RES support reduction for energy-intensive users.[6] Decision of 31 August 2015, State aid SA.42424 (2015/N) – Denmark – Reduced contribution to financing of RES support for energy-intensive users.[7] Decision of 14 December 2015, State aid SA.43657 (2015/N) – United Kingdom – Aid for indirect costs of renewable energy support in the UK.[8] Decision opening the formal investigation procedure of 27 March 2014, SA.36511 (2014/C) (ex 2013/NN) – France Mécanisme de soutien aux énergies renouvelables et plafonnement de la CSPE.[9] The following may be considered to be compatible with the common market: aid to promote the economic development of areas with economic or social problems; aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State; aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions; aid to promote culture and heritage conservation; and such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council.[10] Decision 86/60/EEC of 14 December 1985 on aid which Land Rheinland-Pfalz of the Federal Republic of Germany has provided to an undertaking producing primary aluminium, OJ 1986 L 72, p.30.[11] Decision 2010/460/EC of 19 November 2009 on State aid measures C 38/A/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 36/B/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy for Alcoa Trasformazioni, upheld by the Court in C-177/10, the appeal is now pending in Case C-604/14 P. Likewise, other two similar cases were also ruled by the General Court in T-291/11, T-308/11 (preferential electricity tariffs, Italy). The EU General Court ruled on appeals against two Commission decisions of November 2009 and February 2011, ordering Italy to recover incompatible state aid from certain energy intensive users. Alcoa brought an action for annulment of the 2009 decision and Eurallumina and Portovesme brought actions against the 2011 decision. The General Court dismissed all three appeals and entirely confirmed the Commission's findings. This confirms the findings of the same court in T-62/08 - ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2010:268.[12] Decision C 24/09 (ex N 446/08) of 8 March 2011, confirmed by the General Court in T-251/11.[13] See also the letter to the Commissioner signed by the four ministers of economic affairs from France, UK, Italy and Germany published on Mlex.[14] Decision C 24/09 (ex N 446/08) of 8 March 2011, confirmed by the General Court in T-251/11;decision opening the formal investigation procedure of 27 March 2014, SA.36511 (2014/C) (ex 2013/NN) – France Mécanisme de soutien aux énergies renouvelables et plafonnement de la CSPE; decision of 25 November 2014 SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users. As mentioned Germany appealed before the General Court, in case T-47/15, this decision largely approving the reductions to the surcharge granted to energy-intensive companies, but asking also Germany to recover a small portion of the aid granted in 2013 and 2014. The court case is ongoing.[15] Section 3.7.2 aid in the form of reductions in the funding of support for energy from renewable sources.[16] From the strict legal point of view those type of acts (notice, guidelines, communications) do not have any binding effect on third parties, being soft law instruments, but bind the Commission which, if intends to depart from them, needs to have solid grounds.[17] There is at least one ongoing case (SA.36511 (2014/C) (ex 2013/NN) – France Mécanisme de soutien aux énergies renouvelables et plafonnement de la CSPE) where the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure. See para. 248 of the EEAG which set forth that "Unlawful environmental aid or energy aid will be assessed in accordance with the rules in force on the date on which the aid was granted in accordance with the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid with the following exception: Unlawful aid in the form of reductions in funding support for energy from renewable sources will be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3. As from 1 January 2011, the adjustment plan foreseen in paragraph (194) shall also foresee a progressive application of the criteria of section 3.7.2 and of the own contribution foreseen in paragraph (197). Prior to that date, the Commission considers that all aid granted in the form of reductions in funding support for electricity from renewable sources can be declared compatible with the internal market".[18] For an example of progressive application of the EEAG rules to EIUs see SA.33995 (2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users._{[19] Annex 3 to the EEAG.[20] Decision of the Commission authorising amendments to EEG 2014 including two other sectors to the list of EIUs benefiting from the reduction in the RES surcharge, SA.41381 2015/N – Germany - Relief from the EEG surcharge for companies in NACE sectors 25.50 and 25.61.}[21] As reported by M. Guenaire, P. Lienhardt, Revue de l’énergie, 2014, v. 65, n. 619, p. 221-226, the French authorities have insisted during negotiations on the EEAG for keeping the cap at 0,5% instead of 1% as put forward by Germany. See also P. Nicolaides, M. Kleis, A critical analysis of environmental tax reductions and generation adequacy provisions in the EEAG 2014-2020, EStal 4, 2014, p.  636-649.

1. Planning and the need for integrated policies

The European Union has approved numerous procedures and measures that require the introduction of policies or good practices relating to many of the aforementioned themes^[1]; however, what is missing is evidence of an overall strategy that underlines how local authorities must go beyond the segmentation of the actions to create a harmony between the various aspects, recognising that unless there are integrated choices that encompass the soil, the water and the air there can be no significant progress as regards the climate and hydrogeological instability.One could begin with an updating of the Covenant of Mayors^[2], launched by the Commission in January 2008.The Covenant, whose goals are the retrofitting of public and private buildings, clean mobility and encouraging new forms of behaviour, should today be integrated with the request for the introduction of urban redevelopment policies, with the reduction of soil consumption and the limitation, mitigation and offsetting of soil sealing and operative decisions to redevelop and ensure the safety of areas at hydrogeological risk.The Mayors of big cities must therefore develop integrated plans that go beyond sustainable energy. There is still time before 2030. The Municipalities that have approved the Action Plan (SEAP) can update it, those that haven’t yet approved it or signed up for it may still do so. The same Covenant, on other hand, provides for integration with urban and territorial development, a useful window for using this tool for policies which, as we have said, are more efficient and effective.

1. Urban regeneration

Territorial and environmental policies must therefore aim at a new urban development model that is less dissipative and more sustainable.The theme of urban regeneration^[3] is a crucial part of this new approach. Regeneration which, on one hand, is “extensive and widespread”, requiring the attention to be focused on places, on their physical and functional dimension, which must strengthen and expand the redevelopment of existing heritage, activating all of the levers of new forms of sustainability, including eco-efficiency, new forms of lighting, heating and air conditioning. On the other, this urban regeneration must be “intensive and concentrated”, closely connected with the major transformation of abandoned areas and those that must be redesigned because of the changing needs of large metropolitan areas (accessible living, greenery, services and work, new infrastructure).In this context, European policies and directives for renewable energies and greater energy efficiency, as well as associated domestic policies providing support (primarily of a physical nature)^[4] for the retrofitting of public and private buildings, are essential elements but once again not enough on their own.Regeneration, particularly with regard to existing heritage, requires the definition of innovative measures. In fact, it is important to come up with relocation measures (considering, for example, all those businesses set up in areas at high risk of flooding), using joint public and private instruments, which make temporary lodgings available to those that live in or use (such as schools or hospitals) the properties that must be redeveloped and regenerated in terms of both reducing energy consumption and the introduction of renewable energy sources for the production of water and heating. It is also essential to introduce and regulate forms of temporary usage (an increasingly common practice in the most modern European cities) which allow properties or parts of the territory to be used in order to prevent their abandonment and degradation, but also to understand, through people’s responses, which are the best functions to plan and implement (in some cases, due to the size factor, also over time and in stages). We must come up with forms of support that make it possible to put the high number of properties that are no longer usable back into circulation in order to meet social housing requirements or to recover accessible and green areas, particularly for those cities that have abused the territory intensively for many years.This does not mean not building but rather learning to build in a sustainable way, responding to real needs and restoring the environmental quality and efficiency of the territories.This may sound like good intentions but in reality the expansion of the metropolitan dimension already enables all big European cities, using the planning tools already provided and those waiting to be introduced, to design and launch projects, also experimental and large-scale in nature, which contain forms of negotiation between the public and private spheres. The latter can develop business, boosting the economy and employment, while the former can have a “positive impact” on the territory in terms of reducing energy consumption and energy savings, and therefore lower emissions, the quality of the environment, green and public spaces, services and, more generally, environmental sustainability. Indeed, regenerating means innovating, developing new constructions to replace those that are obsolete and no longer usable, but also recovering land in the case where a decision has been made to densify a particular area, reducing the occupation of the soil and freeing up the part that is left over^[5]. It is in this context that we must consider the relationship between the city and the countryside and the role that the latter can play as an integral part of the city’s identity and as a new development of a more modern farming approach, with a more urban connotation but equal financial capacity. This is also another form of development and therefore of wealth and work, but again with renewed focus on the territory.2. Decontamination of contaminated sites an integral part of urban regenerationThe decontamination of contaminated sites is a relevant theme in the area of regeneration. The cost of the measures and the complexity of the procedures make recovery processes particularly slow. Alternatively, these measures only become possible with the implementation of high-impact and high-density projects, often unconnected with the planning principles of the territories and their real growth requirements.Over the years, the principle of responsibility that stems from the concept of “the polluter should pay”^[6], a key and immutable principle, has not, however, been adapted to specific cases or the evolution of the local economic situation. Over time there has been no indication of the possible absence of accounting and administrative responsibility for direct measures by the local authorities, also with the exclusive goal of restoring the public accessibility of the territory, using European and national funds; no incentives or guarantees for non-responsible parties that want to carry out the decontamination have ever been established. The latter only now take action if the cost of the decontamination is recouped through the urban development or construction planned for the area.  Things would be different if forms of deduction were envisaged with obligations to make parts of the decontaminated land accessible or with the introduction of forms of territorial compensation.The impact of maintaining vast areas of contaminated land for many years must be evaluated in terms of the cost for the territory and the quality of the environment and health. It must be decided whether a contaminated site should be considered as already-consumed soil and if part of this soil must in any case be restored to its original state.In this area Europe has not moved beyond a 2006 proposal[7]; in fact, the protection of soil has never been associated with a single set of principles or regulations. The absence of uniform and common references between the various Member States negatively impacts on the equality of conditions among operators, limiting free competition.  [1] These numerous procedures include: the 2030 Framework for climate and energy adopted by the EU leaders in October 2014; Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and the European Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, which amends directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and revokes directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC; the European Commission initiative Covenant of Mayors Committed to local sustainable energy of 29 January 2008; Directive 2007/60/EC relating to the assessment and management of flood risks; Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing, European Commission guidelines 2012.[2] See footnote no. 1[3] There is no single definition of “urban regeneration". In any case, regeneration activities are alluded to in European regulations on the promotion of energy efficiency.[4] The most recent of these, in Italy, include the 2016 Stability Law which confirmed and partially extended the tax allowances for the energy redevelopment of buildings established by the 2015 Stability Law (Law no. 190 of 23 December 2014).[5] One interesting example of this method of collaboration between the public and private spheres took place in the Municipality of Milan between 2012 and 2014 and led to the demolition of a large building that was never completed and the recovery of a huge area of land to be used as farming and parkland. A project deemed worthy of attention as part of the “2012-2013 Landscape Award of the Council of Europe” and which won the Legambiente “sterminata bellezza 2014” (“boundless beauty 2014”) award in Italy.[6] Article 191, paragraph 2, subsection 1 of the TFEU states as follows: "Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay”.[7] Commission communication of 22 September 2006: "Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection" COM (2006) 231, Directive proposal of the European Parliament and Council that defines a framework for soil protection and amends directive 2004/35/EC.

• Maximize the impact from technology by investing in smart meters in order to improve the operational performance of the network and tackle both technical and non-technical losses;
• Accelerate the Digital Transformation of the network.

On the other hand, in developing countries, one of the biggest challenges of electric utilities is the distribution losses reduction. Energy losses represent an economic loss for the country: its optimization and improvement on energy efficiency would partially cover the expected demand rise in electrical consumption, without the necessity to increase the installed capacity. On average, electricity utilities in Sub-Saharan Africa lose 25% of all power supplied due to operational inefficiencies[2]. To illustrate the potential of energy efficiency, SE4All partner Accenture has calculated that just 75 of these new pledges by a range of businesses across the developed and developing world represent an estimated total energy saving in 2016-2020 of 62,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) – the equivalent of nine months’ energy use for the whole of Paris.“This is the tip of the iceberg. The potential is vast – but it won’t be realised without a massive scaling up of this kind of action to levels far beyond what we have seen so far,” said Rachel Kyte, incoming Chief Executive Officer of SE4All and Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Sustainable Energy for All.“In the next few years we have a historic window of opportunity to shake up business-as-usual, building on the momentum of the SDGs and COP21 and the goodwill of this growing global movement. But unless we grab that opportunity, the window will quickly close,” added Ms Kyte.A step-change in financing will be crucial. SE4All’s Global Tracking Framework 2015 estimates that investment in sustainable energy will need to triple from current levels, to more than one trillion US dollars a year from now to 2030, to meet the SE4All targets and Sustainable Development Goal 7.Action is coalescing on several fronts to bridge this investment gap. For example, some 140 banks and institutional investors managing close to USD 4 trillion have recently committed to a major increase in energy efficiency lending and investment in their portfolios.[1] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs – The World Population Prospects [2015].[2] Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund — Energy subsidy reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: experiences and lessons [2013].

• The Algerian electricity regulator (CREG) successfully developed feed-in-tariffs (FIT) that guarantee to RES producers purchase tariffs for photovoltaic and wind facilities output.
• Egypt during 20 years started a substantial reform of its energy sector, including the establishment of a regulatory authority for the gas market in addition to its existing electricity regulatory authority (Egyptera) and the introduction of feed-in tariffs to boost electricity production from renewable energies. Recently has been also approved a new electricity law and EgyptERA started a twinning project (financially supported by the European Commission) with regulators of Greece (RAE) and Italy (AEEGSI).
• Morocco has been moving forward in the process for the setting-up of a regulatory authority for electricity and gas and the draft law reforming the energy sector has been presented to the national stakeholders and will be submitted to the Parliament as soon as an agreement is found between the government, the local administrations, the public operator and the main trade unions.
• The mission of the electricity regulator of Jordan was extended to all mineral resources and the Authority became the Electricity and Mineral resources Regulatory Commission (EMRC).

MEDREG considers that the necessary transition towards independent energy regulation should include a set of principles common to the whole region. MEDREG focused on the role these principles should play in the protection of consumers, by ensuring a minimum set of rights about clear information on contracts and bills, the efficient use of energy, the handling of complaint and setting up cooperation with consumer associations and civil society.A coherent regulatory framework allows national regulatory authorities to obtain sufficient legal powers to implement coherent decision-making processes and ensure their governance mission through effective secondary legislation, market monitoring, and stakeholders’ decisions in the interest of the entire community. The term independence entails both the extent and the degree of the discretion and autonomy entrusted to regulatory bodies.Regulators should be able to take autonomous decisions and have the capacity to enforce them, including financial and organizational independence: this autonomy depends on a number of important aspects:

• concrete independence of the regulatory board;
• nomination of the board should be performed by the highest level of political authority and among proved high skilled profiles;
• board members should adhere to a code of conduct aimed at reducing the influence from any private of public entity;
• competences of an independent regulator should also include monitoring the market avoiding any abuse of dominant positions, in particular to the detriment of consumers, as well as predatory and anti-competitive behavior. This competence is essential for the regulator to fulfill its duty as market watchdog. It includes enforcement powers as the ability to investigate and sanction network and market operators for failure to match existing regulation.

In order to proactively engage stakeholders, regulators should ensure that proper standards of transparency and accountability are met. Regulators should release information on the procedures in place, while protecting commercial sensitive data at the same time. Regulators should as well regularly publish information on their own organization, including management and financial indicators, in order to identify the outcomes and results of their action. This practice should encourage national regulatory agencies to adopt an effective organization for non-discriminatory recruitment and increasing internal staff mobility. Sufficient human and financial resources are pivotal to implement the regulator’s mission and are closely linked with the independence of the whole decision making process.  MEDREG has been listing the minimal competences that an independent regulator should have, and started a voluntary peer-review process to assess the compliance of its member regulators to these competences. This exercise aims at providing Mediterranean regulators with a proper evaluation of their effectiveness and with suggestions on how to improve it.Regulation and infrastructuresIn order to provide the vision of Energy Regulators on the situation of Infrastructure investment in the Mediterranean region, MEDREG developed a report that maps current and projected interconnection infrastructures for electricity and gas and discussed the challenges to finance them properly in the absence of an harmonized regulatory framework. This report assesses the main barriers that represent an obstacle to efficiently using existing infrastructure and financing new projects.In the first quarter of 2015, the report underwent a public consultation, which counted 37 responses. MEDREG held a workshop with the respondents in April 2015 in Sharm El-Sheikh and use the outcomes of the consultation and workshop to finalize the report, which is now out on the Association’s website (www.medreg-regulators.org) together with all consultation documents. The recommendations of the report include 8 main points:

1. Establish competitive and reliable energy markets: the majority of existing electricity and gas infrastructures have been built so far for security of supply needs. Today, infrastructure investments are also driven by market forces and face regional competition. Public policy decisions are therefore decisive to foster and secure investments. In some MEDREG countries they are even more relevant than economic factors to develop their internal markets. Policy makers should devote considerable efforts to link investment plans to the progressive opening of their national markets.
2. Promote deeper harmonization of national regulatory frameworks: the absence of a regulatory level playing field between the Northern and Southern shore of the Mediterranean is particularly negative for investments, as different sets of rules exist in the various Mediterranean sub-regions. In the absence of a formal commitment among Mediterranean policy makers, all stakeholders have to voluntarily engage now to establish deeper legal harmonization. Stronger cooperation between EU, Middle East and North African countries is also a precondition to establish a regional energy market with a sound investment climate. The Euro-Mediterranean Platforms on Electricity, Gas and Renewable Energy Sources and Energy Efficiency should strongly promote the establishment of a set of common rules to support a fair and reliable framework for energy investments.
3. Increase the use of existing interconnections in the Southern shore: in spite of the existence of several South-South Mediterranean interconnections, electricity trade among these countries has remained modest. The average level of use is not more than one third of the total capacity. This can be mainly attributed to the political and economic barriers at national and regional levels. In several cases, technical issues also add to the problem. Integrated resource planning is therefore essential at the national as well as at the regional level to review, understand, and provide input to the planning decisions of the interconnection projects. For an integrated resource planning process to be effective, it should include both a meaningful stakeholder process and a proper oversight from an engaged regulator. A proper assessment of the existing situation would help designing a consistent methodology to evaluate energy infrastructure investments and take adequate planning decisions.
4. Evaluate the economic benefits of new cross-border infrastructure projects: the potential increase of investment volumes will create strong needs for political consensus and investment bankability, thus requiring the definition of an appropriate regulatory framework. The case of the European Union clearly shows this is the way ahead to maintain and reinforce investments. Developing sound methodologies for CBA (Cross Border Allocation) will help improving the investment climate in the region. The economic assessment shall also take into account security of supply and social considerations. An effective way to ensure risk-adjusted returns to investors could also be through “priority premiums”, which compensate the additional risk and complexity of new projects.
5. Enhance cooperation between regulators and TSOs: the dialogue and technical coordination between regulators and TSOs, both at national and regional level, is becoming pivotal to build an effective and efficient regional energy market. It contributes to the transparency and stability of the regulatory and economic frameworks, which is essential for attracting investments in the Mediterranean basin. MEDREG recognizes the central role of TSOs in identifying investment needs and assessing infrastructure projects. It is advisable that TSOs regularly provide data to regulators and are responsible for drafting investment plans, which are then subject to regulatory review. MEDREG believes that the regular and transparent exchange of information and know-how among regulators and TSOs could synergize the efforts for cooperation in the Mediterranean. The 2013 cooperation agreement between MEDREG and Med-TSO and the 2014 Memorandum of Understanding signed with Med-TSO and the EC to implement the Euro-Mediterranean Platform on Electricity are positive steps towards this direction.
6. Design a Ten-Year Network Development Plan for the Mediterranean region: the assessment of overall costs and benefits deriving from infrastructure investments (in particular new ones) is a complex task and needs very careful consideration. In the medium term the improvement of the use of existing infrastructures and the definition of common rules regarding new ones. In the medium to long term, it could be beneficial for the region to develop a Mediterranean TYNDP (Ten-Year Network Development Plan) based on a sound methodology developed by TSOs and assessed by regulators.
7. Identify projects of Mediterranean common interest: considering the European experience regarding the PCIs (Project of Common Interest) and following the example of the Energy Community, MEDREG could also consider a list of infrastructure projects that are of interest for the whole region. The selection process should be transparent and non-discriminatory, and involve international financial institutions active in the region such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB). According to the data on electricity and gas flow analyzed in MEDREG’s report and the responses to the its public consultation, under the current forecasts for demand and given their known technical specifications, some projects seem particularly relevant for the energy development of the MENA region.
8. Support technology innovation to improve the condition of vulnerable consumers: the great and growing level of investment involving renewable energy sources is dramatically changing electricity markets. During the last twenty years, Southern Mediterranean countries have elaborated different institutional schemes with the aim to promote the usage of renewable energy sources (RES). While every country has developed its own approach, most of them have raised the bar of their objectives concerning generation and development of RES. Almost all the countries have passed or are discussing legislation regulating the sector. However, incentive measures tend to be limited and only a few of these regulations foresee the use of feed-in tariffs as a means of support. In most cases, the use of authorization procedures or tax exemptions is preferred. Distributed generation could represent an important chapter that links greater investment in RES to the reduction of fuel poverty and the creation of better conditions for vulnerable consumers. Technology innovation is also key to improve specific national aspects of Mediterranean energy markets concerning consumers, such as technical safety, quality of service and provision of transparent and complete information to the benefit of household consumers.

ConclusionEnergy markets in the Mediterranean region need more independent regulators and, at the same time, closer cooperation among the most relevant and different regional and national energy actors: regulators, governments, producers, transmission system operators, investors and consumersMEDREG regularly cooperates with the main stakeholders of the region MedTSO (Transmission systems operators), UFM – Union for Mediterranean (Governments), PAM – Parliamentary Assembly of Mediterranean (Parliaments), OME - Observatoire Méditerranéen de l’Energie, RES4MED (energy companies), other Institutions RECREE, MEDENER, etc.Bottom up approach and technical-institutional cooperation are key factors of a successful and effective integration of energy market in the Mediterranean Region. For more information on MEDREG and to download the report visit www.medreg-regulators.org 

1. An increased penetration of the electricity in the energy system, which is able to bring to energy customers a cleaner energy carrier;
2. A stronger and complete market design, which is able to provide the requested quantity of power at a fair price;
3. A consistent evolution of the production structure of the power industry, which is able to enhance both efficient and renewable sources.

As a matter of fact, electricity today can be produced in very efficient power plants fueled with fossil fuels such as natural gas or coal, whose pollution emissions are strictly regulated. On the other hand, production both from thermal and non-thermal renewables have recently widespread all over Europe, directly helping in achieving EU climate objectives.Such a development has been until now strongly based on supporting schemes, very expensive in most of the cases. If we take the example of Italy, in the period 2009-2014, power production from RES have increased from 69 to 121 TWh (real annual data), but in the same period more than 42 bilion euro have been charged on power prices to promote the RES deployment, especially from PV source. As a result, levies charged on consumption to finance the said evolution have boosted. For instance, the levies paid by the (hypothetical) Italian household customer consuming about 2,7 MWh/year have increased from 4,29 euro/MWh to 31,45 euro/MWh.Anyway the evolution towards an efficient and RES-based power system is still under way and can be clearly even more strengthened, but keeping in mind the necessity to avoid excessive costs for the EU electricity system.The way forward is to exploit the existing potential at European Level, by avoiding both the actual lack of alignment between Member States – which have in the last years developed very different schemes - and the inability to internalize the reduction of RES investment costs, due to relative rigidity of the premium price (clearly downward).In few words, we need more RES at lower costs in a power system which is fit for them.Such an evolution requires a new market design.Indeed, the actual market rules are, more or less, rooted on the revolution introduced even in Europe when it became clear the necessity to open up the power markets together with the availability of new sources and technologies. Natural gas fueled CCGT came out in the late 80s and the market revolution started.Today the new step forward is offered by RES penetration into the energy system, which is especially challenging for V-RES, i.e. those sources whose availability can be forecasted only in statistical terms.Hence an evolution of the actual market design is requested to allow both RES to participate in all the power markets (from day-ahead one to balancing or capacity markets) and the productive structure to cope with the request for long-lasting capacity availability and flexibility, that is system adequacy.This development is twofold.On the one hand, the short-term market must be adapted to the necessities (or limits) of RES powerplant, to completely exploit the benefits that RES can offer to the energy system. Markets must be fit for RES, i.e. they must efficiently use the available flexibility and assign the right value to it. RES should be able to compete on an equal footing with conventional sources and should be exposed to prices from markets that would give adequate signals to produce electricity when needed or to install/use storage technologies. All generators (conventional and renewable) should be equally balancing responsible.To this extent, for instance, adequate intraday markets must be developed, where trading is continuous and gate closure time is harmonized and near to real time, imbalance settlement periods are set out accordingly, clear rules for curtailing power generation are defined, balancing markets allow the efficient use of balancing resources and enable RES participation.At the same time, until the conditions enabling fair competition among all sources are not in place some measures should be envisaged in order to guarantee a smooth transition. Furthermore, recommendations on balancing responsibilities have to consider market maturity as well as the penetration level of non-programmable renewable generation (V-RES) in the system. So, for instance, the participation of V-RES to the balancing markets for all services should occur only on a voluntary basis. At the same time, Market design should also allow Aggregators to dispatch distributed resources and to facilitate the participation of plants which do not intend to participate directly in the market.On the other hand the power market must go over the short-term and energy-only concepts, recognizing the necessity to offer, more than energy, repeated-over-time security of being supplied. Capacity markets must be introduced, clearly in line with state-aid regulation, which are able to promote future market-based investments, in a competitive environment.Now, the most asked question is why to abandon an energy-only power market which is able to give investment signals until being competitive.The issue here is the price.RES supporting schemes have been financed via premium prices charged on power consumption. Such taxes and levies charged on electricity have introduced a gap between the market value of the electricity, as perceived by participants both on the supply and the demand side, and its price. The rising role of the “non-market-based” components (again, taxes and levies) have hindered the role of the price in the energy markets.As prices in the energy-only model have lost part of their representativeness, they are no more sufficient to give correct signal for new investments or consumption behaviors.On the latter, the issue is that prices are no fairer, because they do not reflect the value of the electricity consumed by the customer but include indeed a value which is linked to the electricity produced in the power system. Hence, the customer is paying a quota of the public objectives taken at EU and national level, without being (normally) aware of that and being informed on the trade-off.About the former, while the overall price have been increasing, the energy component of the price -which is the one more related to the investment cycle at least in a marked-based system - havestrongly decreased.Hence it appear necessary that the future market design is based not only on prices which reflect actual scarcity, but also on prices which reflect the actual relation between demand and supply of capacity, energy and flexibility, now and tomorrow.These challenges can be addressed by defining well-structured capacity remuneration mechanisms as instruments to provide long term signals to the market. Hence, well-designed and technology neutral capacity mechanisms (such as Italian reliability options) are necessary to give the market those right long term and stable signals for investing in new capacity/upgrading existing one or for deciding to disinvest in existing plants.It would be in any case unfinished any project which is unable to rethink also the design of the retail market, starting from a (perceived) evolution of a market fundamental. Indeed, one of the aftermaths of the evolution towards a RES-based power system is the decline of the value of making electricity available.Power per se has lost and will lost added-value [By the way it can be noted that this is the implicit meaning of the transition towards a twofold power market, where also system adequacy is correctly priced].As it happens in all the mature markets, even in the power industry the service (indeed in Europe, not likely in most neighboring countries) is acquiring more and more weight. Hence the new challenge is to guarantee an evolution where the customer is offered the needed or desirable services by a multitude of suppliers ensuring a level playing field.And here it comes the customer and the Commission’s “Fifth freedom”. In the Energy Union concept the new role of the prosumer is pivotal, since it is seen as a picklock for opening up the energy markets. But this freedom to produce and to actively take part to the market has to be rooted, again, on equal responsibilities, between costumers this time.That is to say, for instance, that all consumers including self-generators should participate on an equal footing to cover network and system costs, as the growth in self-generation does not decrease distribution costs. Neither it does with system costs, especially when they include price components tailored to finance public policies.Therefore the energy markets rethinking process, to really start from the citizens, should be able to avoid any “consumer divide” process, creating speculative bubbles in the regulatory assessment simply for being unable to socialize those costs which come from public objectives.Hence, in the new overall power market, the price must be able to allow competition to grow up while offering a signal for actual and future scarcity, at the same time being as neat as possible from other components which do not allow the right perception of the trade-off between consuming power or not.In this predictable future market environment, electricity can be made available to satisfy increased needs of energy. Electricity produced exploiting the RES potential or very efficient fossil fuels plants is able to internalize the search for a cleaner form of energy.Polluting emissions can be released far away from town centers while being strictly controlled in terms of both average concentration and overall quantity. Lack of ability of the public authority to introduce and keep measures to abate inner town pollution levels can be answered, in the longer term, only by cleaning the energy carrier, not by renouncing to energy.Other objectives (less perceived by the multitude despite years of advocacy campaigns) can be better or more easily achieved. Overall GHG emissions from the energy sector can be strongly reduced and – turning to efficiency - the decline of fossil fuels consumption can be offset by the increased availability of renewable sources, without renouncing to the service.As a matter of fact, an increased penetration of power in heating and cooling and, most of all, in collective and private transport is the turnaround for a stronger and farsighted strategy against the pollution-based morbidity and mortality and the climate change.Hence, the distribution system must evolve in a smart way, being able to take power where it is needed, while the DSOs should be able, and made able, to carry out their new role of neutral market facilitator. But this is another story. Stay tuned.To conclude, briefly, a new Energy Union can be enforced in the view of allowing European citizens to a better choice for the energy they need. To this extent, power must be smartly available, offered by a number of different suppliers, in the requested quantity, being produced from efficient and renewable sources and valorized at a fair price, which reflect actual and future availability.There is no other farsighted way than abandoning a “hunc et nunc” approach and start thinking (even) to the future, as Aesop teaches us. [1] “A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy” - COM/2015/080 final - Annex I: “Roadmap for the Energy Union”.[2] “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EC) 2003/87 to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments” - COM(2015) 337 final. Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure) European Parliament: ENVI/8/03972 – Rapporteur Ian Duncan (ECR) - Awaiting Committee decision - Council of the European Union: 2001/0245 (COD) “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting a framework for energy efficiency labelling and repealing Directive (EU) 2010/30” – COM (2015) 341 final. The proposed Regulation is accompanied by a short report, a detailed impact assessment (SWD(2015) 139 final), and an evaluation of the existing Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives (SWD(2015) 143 final), Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure) European Parliament: ITRE/8/03966 – Rapporteur Dario Tamburrano (EFDD) - Awaiting Committee decision –Voted scheduled in Committee, 1st reading, 24/05/2016; Council of the European Union: 2015/0149 (COD) “Delivering a New Deal for Energy Consumers” - COM(2015) 339 final “Launching the public consultation process on a new energy market design” - COM(2015) 340 final (closed in October the 9th).[3] “State of the Energy Union 2015” - COM(2015) 572 final – Annex I: “Updated Roadmap for Energy Union”; Annex II: “Guidance to Members States on National and Climate Plans as part of the Energy Union Governance” - Accompanying Document: “Monitoring progress towards the Energy Union objectives - Concept and first analysis of key indicators” (SWD(2015) 243 final); Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) …/...of 18 of November 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 as regards the Union list of projects of common interest - C(2015) 8052 final; Council of the European Union: ST 15156 2015 INIT - The Council may object to it until 18 February 2016. Proposal for a Regulation on “European statistics on natural gas and electricity prices and repealing Directive (EC ) 2008/92 concerning a Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users” - COM(2015) 496 final - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure) European Parliament: ITRE/8/05106 – Rapporteur Barbara Kappel (ENF) - Awaiting Committee decision - Council of the European Union: 2015/0239 (COD) - DG Energy - Consultation Questionnaire – “Preparation of a new renewable energy directive for the period after 2020” (RED II) - 18 November 2015 to 10 February 2016 - DG Energy – Consultation on the Review of the Directive(EU) 2012/27 on Energy Efficiency - 4 November 2015 to 29 January 2016.