The Friuli model

The expression ‘Friuli Model’ emerged when it became clear that the reconstruction of earthquake-ravaged Friuli would be completed in under fifteen years. While the term ‘model’ suggests replicability, the more time passes, the more unique the Friuli model of emergency response and post-earthquake recovery appears. This is because it is linked to conditions that cannot be reproduced and which were not present in the earthquakes in Irpinia (1980) and L'Aquila (2009). These are the only seismic events comparable in magnitude and damage to the 1976 crisis in Friuli.

Five decades on, the most striking aspect of the Friuli Model is the decentralisation at multiple levels that made this system possible. Legislatively and administratively, the Central State Government granted the fledgling Regional administration substantial autonomy, and the Regional Council subsequently delegated the full spectrum of responsibilities and functions to the local Municipalities. These duties included preparing detailed urban plans and managing subsidies for private construction. This genuine ‘bottom-up’ reconstruction approach represented a rare and successful instance of regional subsidiarity in the history of a centralist State.

From a broader perspective, the Friuli Model was based on an extraordinary sense of unity and a strong feeling of belonging to the homeland. This unity was reflected in the involvement of various key groups in Friulian society: the Church (from hierarchy to clergy), intellectuals, social movements, political parties, and trade unions. It also included governing authorities in administration, economics, and politics.

The Friuli Model was not successful everywhere. In terms of urban planning, the decision to rebuild ‘as it was, where it was’ produced mixed results, being more positive in small historic centres and less so in more rural areas. There was also an absence of a clear link between the post-earthquake planning and the Regional Urban Plan, which was in fact approved during the earthquake crisis. Ultimately, it is unclear whether the extraordinary circumstances of the post-1976 period were given sufficient consideration in the administrative processes of the Regional and Municipal administrations.