Dismantling of European environmental policy: how great expectations in Brussels are dashed by Italian subnational implementation

Figures & data

Table 1. The framework of the analysis.

Dimensions	Indicators
Coordinating capacity	− centrality of one actor, able to manage the actors − number of actors in the network
Regulatory capacity	− timing of rules adoption − regulatory tools adopted − incomplete or missing rules
Delivery capacity	− Procedural effectiveness: Timeframe of getting AUAs, clarity of procedures; IT platforms − Enforcement effectiveness: Effective operating capacity and efficiency in accomplishing the procedures for Conferences of service and SUAPs

Table 2. Coordination capacity of the regions.

Regions	Total n. AUA (2016-2018)	Regional level – competent authority (centrality of the network)	n. Provinces	n. Municipalities
Abruzzo	924	YES	4	305
Basilicata	2005	NO	2	131
Calabria	2615	NO	5 (1*)	440
Emilia Romagna	9140 (partial 88%)	Regional Authority and SAC (in each province)	9 (1*)	328
Friuli Venezia Giulia	1766	YES	4	215
Lazio	1302 (partial 60%)	NO	5 (1*)	378
Liguria	507 (partial 75%)	NO	4 (1*)	234
Lombardy	4249 (partial 67%)	NO	11 (1*)	1506
Marche	3555	NO	5	228
Molise	440	NO	2	136
Piedmant	4799	NO	7 (1*)	1181
Puglia	1397	NO	6 (1*)	257
Sardegna	165 (partial 60%)	NO	5 (1*)	377
Sicily	2571 (partial 78%)	NO	9 (1*)	390
Tuscany		YES	10 (1*)	273
Umbria	1808	YES	2	92
Valle d’Aosta	316	YES	-	74
Veneto	5486	YES	7 (1*)	563

Source: own elaboration. * included metropolitan cities.

Table 3. Regulatory capacity of the regions.

Regions	Adoption of National law D.P.R. n. 59 of – 13 march 2013	Adoption of standard formulaire Decree 8 May 2015	Incomplete or missing regional rules (Survey judgment)
Abruzzo	>3 years	1 year	Negative
Basilicata	>3 years	4 years	Negative
Calabria	>2 years	n.a	Negative
Emilia Romagna	< 1 year	< 1 year	Positive
Friuli Venezia Giulia	>5 years	>6 years	n.a.
Lazio	>2 years	2 years	Negative
Liguria	>3 years	1, 5 years	Neutral
Lombardy	<1 year	Several circulars – not binding	Positive
Marche	>1year	>2 years	Negative
Molise	>3 years		Negative
Piedmont	<1 year	<1 year	Several circular – soft law not binding
Puglia	n.a	>2 years	Not regulation – INERTIA
Sardegna	1 year	n.a	n.a.
Sicilia	1 year	n.a.	Negative
Tuscany	>1,5 year	>1,5 year	Several circular – soft law not binding
Umbria	>6 years	>5 years	Issuing guidelines (2019) INERTIA
Valle d’Aosta	>1 year	n.a	n.a.
Veneto	<1 year		Circular – not binding

Source; own elaboration.

Table 4. Delivery capacity of the regions.

Regions	Procedural effectiveness			Enforcement effectiveness
	Timeframe of getting AUAs	Clarity of procedures (Survey judgment)	IT platform*	Conference of service efficiency (Survey judgment)	SUAPs efficiency (Survey judgment)
Abruzzo	Critical	Negative	NO	weak	Negative
Basilicata	Critical	Negative	IT platforms 2	weak	Negative
Calabria	n.a	Negative	MIX	weak	Negative
Emilia Romagna	Under control	positive	It platforms	Moderate/weak	Negative
Friuli Venezia Giulia	n.a.	n.a.	IT platforms	weak	negative
Lazio	Critical	negative	MIX	weak	negative
Liguria	Critical	negative	NO	weak	negative
Lombardy	Critical	positive	IT platforms interoperability	moderate	negative
Marche	Critical	negative	IT platforms	moderate	negative
Molise	Under control	n.a.	No	moderate	negative
Piedmont	Under control	neutral	IT platformsNot interoperability	moderate	negative
Puglia	Critical	negative	NO	weak	negative
Sardegna	Under control	neutral	IT platforms	positive	negative
Sicily	Critical	negative	NO	weak	negative
Tuscany	Under control	positive	IT platforms	moderate	negative
Umbria	Under control	neutral	NO	n.a.	n.a.
Valle d’Aosta	Under control	n.a	IT platforms	n.a.	negative
Veneto	Critical	neutral	IT platforms	Weak/moderate	negative