The First Law of ecology states that 'everything is connected to everything else'.¹ I often find myself reflecting on diversity and the challenges it presents. Comparative law accustoms us to navigate complexity and otherness in today’s world. Nevertheless, managing diversity, especially at the cultural, linguistic, and religious levels continues to be an unresolved issue. What if we tried to imagine the diversity of groups and individuals using the ecosystem paradigm? In this blog, I propose this "thought experiment" exploring the role that so-called "historical minorities" might play in such an exercise.

Law n° 482/1999, titled 'Law on the Protection of Historical Linguistic Minorities', was a landmark step in safeguarding languages and cultures of minority communities historically present in Italy. The law officially recognizes and protects Albanian, Catalan, German, Greek, Slovenian, and Croatian communities, as well as speakers of French, Franco-Provençal, Friulian, Ladin, Occitan, and Sardinian. Moreover, it also reaffirms in Article 1 that 'the official language of the Republic is Italian'. The law focuses on various measures to ensure effective protection. For instance, it allows minority languages to be used in public institutions, official acts, and education, and supports their promotion in schools and universities. Additionally, it enables communities to use their languages for the names of local places.

Local governments play a key role in implementing the law, as they are regarded as the most suited to meet the specific needs of these communities. Meanwhile, schools are crucial cultural hubs for preserving and transmitting minority languages.

However, legal recognition doesn’t automatically guarantee immediate protection—it depends on how these rights are enforced. For the first time in 1999, the linguistic and cultural heritage of 12 small minority groups was acknowledged at the national level.

While the combined population of Friulian, Occitan, Franco-Provençal, and Ladin speakers in northern Italy remains significant, this is not the case for minority communities in the central and southern regions, such as Albanians and Occitans in Calabria, Catalans in Sardinia and the Griko/Grecan speakers in Apulia and Calabria. Indeed, half of the minority language groups recognized by Law 482/1999 which are gradually diminishing are found in central and southern Italy, as well as on the islands.

These minorities are now notably at risk, facing a decline in both the number of speakers and the population in their traditional territories. For example, a recent study carried out on children and young people attending schools located in arbëreshë minority communities in Calabria (speaking Albanian language according to the above-mentioned legislative indication) revealed that, out of 571 students, only 81 speak arbëreshe (14.2% of the total). This figure is significant.

As Brunetti noted in 1992, "every culture that dies takes with it an irreplaceable part of humanity's heritage, and a country’s level of democracy is measured by how well it protects its minorities." Since the law’s enactment, scholars have praised its potential but also pointed out its limitations, such as the small number of languages it protects and the criteria used to select them. Before 1999, these communities received little attention at the national level, with minor recognition only appearing in regional laws starting in the 1970s. For example, Molise’s Statute from the 1970s included the preservation of the linguistic and historical heritage of ethnic communities as one of its objectives. Similarly, Calabria’s 1971 Statute and later the Calabria’s 2004 Regional Law, recognized and promoted ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities, including as those of Albanian, Grecanic, Occitan and Roma origins. Likewise, the 2004 Statute of Apulia emphasized the region’s commitment to protecting and promoting its linguistic minorities.

This brief legislative overview helps answer the initial question. However, I have significant doubts about the legislative choice to adopt an approach based on the "protection" and "enhancement" of historical minorities. Despite national and regional efforts, I find such measures partial, limiting, and, in some respects, anachronistic, as they fail to guarantee effective outcomes.

Over the past 25 years, neither Law 482/99 nor regional regulations have succeeded in ensuring the vitality of minority languages and communities. With very few exceptions, they are best described as being "in distress". And yet, perhaps not all is lost. Returning to the ecological paradigm: when reading these laws, beyond their content on collective, individual, and language rights, what immediately stands out is the legal lexicon, which curiously mirrors that of ecological sciences: protection, safeguarding, and defense. So, I wonder: from an ecological perspective, can historical minorities be considered an "endangered species"? Just as endangered flora and fauna require special protection due to their decreasing numbers, these minorities are indispensable elements of an ecosystem. Without them, other elements cannot survive. Over recent decades, there has been a growing legal focus on biodiversity, especially in Europe. On a global scale, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework—agreed upon at the 2022 UN Biodiversity Conference—has brought the issue back to the forefront of international discussions. In Europe, biodiversity has been a key issue since the 1980s, as demonstrated by measures such as the Birds Directive, the 1992 Habitats Directive, and most recently, the adoption of the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) in June 2024. This Regulation—part of the Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030—requires Member States to implement measures to restore at least 20 percent of the EU's terrestrial and marine areas by 2030 and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.

In the wake of this 'thought experiment', we should ask ourselves how can shift the perspective of the "protection paradigm"? Are protection and promotion sufficient for minorities? Perhaps this legal approach is not entirely incorrect, but it needs to be reimagined within a truly holistic and pluralistic framework.

In nature, species protection is based on an understanding of biodiversity and the maintenance or creation of proper ecological connectivity between different environments. However, knowledge and technical procedures can only be fully effective if translated into clear and enforceable regulations—an idea that may serve as food for thought.

If 'loss of biodiversity' is one of the most critical challenges of the contemporary world, in the same way, can we consider 'loss of diversity' a threat? After all, democracy thrives on diversity, and societies evolve through engagement with otherness. The vitality of pluralism, like that of biodiversity, requires efforts. As Pink Floyd sings: "together we stand, divided we fall".