Landscape permits, archaeologists' alarm in the House

TheNational Association of Archaeologists (ANA) was received at a hearing yesterday, Wednesday, Feb. 4, by the VIII Environment, Territory and Public Works Committee of the Chamber of Deputies as part of the examination of four Proposed Laws that intervene in the landscape authorization procedures provided for in the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code. Representing the ANA at the hearing was National President Marcella Giorgio, who explained to the deputies an articulate and critical position with respect to the regulatory interventions under discussion.

The proposals that were the subject of the hearing are No. 2606, already approved by the Senate, and Nos. 1429, 2230 and 2529, all aimed at modifying, with different approaches, Legislative Decree No. 42 of January 22, 2004, particularly with regard to modalities, timing and competencies in the issuance of landscape authorizations. An issue that directly touches the heart of thebalance between cultural heritage protection and infrastructural development, both interests of constitutional status.

This is not the first time the National Association of Archaeologists has intervened in the debate. As early as April 2, 2025, the ANA was heard in the Senate of the Republic on Bill No. 1372, from which the current proposal No. 2606 derives. On that occasion, as also reiterated in the House, the association had stressed the need for any revision of the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code to be conducted in an organic manner, avoiding partial and sectorial interventions potentially generating regulatory conflicts and weakening protection.

In her speech, Marcella Giorgio recalled how archaeologists represent a professional category closely linked to the country’s infrastructural development. Archaeologists, in fact, work daily as providers of technical and scientific services for public administrations and other entities, playing a key role in reconciling the protection of cultural heritage and the implementation of works. Precisely for this reason, according to the ANA, regulatory reforms must take into account the concrete effects on planning, design and land management activities.

The proposed laws under discussion declare broadly shareable goals, such as reducing administrative time, simplifying procedures and providing certainty in decisions. Needs that, as the association pointed out, are well known to those working in the field. However, according to the ANA, the tools identified to pursue these goals risk producing opposite effects, turning not into real simplification, but into a structural weakening of landscape and archaeological protection and a disorganized approach to cultural heritage management.

Particular concern was expressed over proposals to eliminate or reduce the role of the Superintendencies. According to the ANA, the exclusion of the opinion of the Superintendencies is not conducive to the protection of landscape and archaeology. Instead, a more effective way forward, in the association’s opinion, would be to introduce stricter and more certain timelines for the acquisition of opinions, thus ensuring both administrative speed and protection. The presence of clear time limits is a guarantee for both applicants and the administrations called upon to issue permits.

The ANA reiterated that the protection of cultural heritage must remain with the state as the guarantor of constitutional rights. Making the opinion of the Superintendencies compulsory but not binding, as assumed in some proposals, was said to be contrary to the constitutional dictate, which in Article 9 assigns to the Republic the task of protecting and enhancing the cultural and landscape heritage.

Another critical issue concerns the hypothesis of introducing silence-consent in landscape procedures. The National Association of Archaeologists recalled that Law No. 241 of 1990 explicitly excludes the application of silence-consent to acts and procedures concerning cultural and landscape heritage, and that there do not seem to be any conditions today that would justify overriding this principle.

Regarding the delegation of authorizing powers to other entities, the ANA pointed out that most regions have not yet completed the State-Regions co-planning process through the adoption of the Regional Landscape Plans required by the Code. In this context, a permit under the exclusive jurisdiction of local authorities would not only be difficult to implement, but would also conflict with the existing regulatory framework.

Among the solutions deemed feasible, the association pointed to the acceleration of the adjustment of Regional Landscape Plans and the systematic establishment of Local Landscape Commissions, provided for in Article 148 of the Code. These bodies, if properly strengthened, could help make procedural processes more efficient and effective without compromising protection.

In the details of the individual bills, the ANA expressed perplexity about the amendment envisaged by Proposal No. 2606 in relation to procedures affecting territories that are already fragile in terms of hydrogeological disruption. On Proposal No. 2529, a critical issue related to the protection of the subsurface was reported, as some amendments would not take into account interventions affecting the submerged archaeological heritage, both known and potential. Regarding Proposal No. 2230, the association expressed strong concern about the exclusion from the authorization regime of interventions on interiors and buildings located in the vicinity of listed properties, stressing that landscape value is not reducible to a mere visual or formal datum, but also concerns functions, settlement loads and uses.

In conclusion, the National Association of Archaeologists reiterated that a real reform of the cultural heritage system must aim to make the work of the Superintendencies more effective and efficient through the strengthening of personnel, investment in digitization, definition of realistic procedural timeframes, and greater integration with territorial planning. Simplification, according to the ANA, cannot mean giving up protection, but making it more robust and functional.

Hence the final recommendation to parliamentarians: avoid a fragmentation of regulatory interventions and start a consultation table for a comprehensive review, if not a new drafting, of the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code, involving all stakeholders and professional associations. A path that, according to archaeologists, would be the most effective response to the country’s development and protection needs.

Landscape permits, archaeologists' alarm in the House

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.