Failures of political decentralization in promoting network governance in the forest sector: Observations from Italy

Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Failures of political decentralization in promoting network governance in the forest sector: Observations from Italy Laura Secco ∗ , Matteo Favero, Mauro Masiero, Davide Matteo Pettenella Department of Territorio e Sistemi Agro-Forestali (TESAF) (Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry), University of Padova, Italy

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 April 2016 Received in revised form 4 November 2016 Accepted 5 November 2016 Key-words: Decentralization Network forest governance Local governments Power delegation Narrative policy analysis Forest sector Italy

a b s t r a c t Decentralization has been the most remarkable reform process that has occurred in the institutional arrangements and framework in Italy, a country of contrasts and contradictions with neglected – but increasing – forest resources and a limited range of actors’ networks able to make the sector more modern and dynamic. On the basis of a qualitative-based document analysis and observations collected in three case-study Regions (Veneto, Molise and Sicily), our paper aims to provide interpretations of the failures in network forest governance in Italy connected with the decentralization policy process. Our findings show that Italy is experiencing several of the recurrent problems highlighted for decentralization in other countries, including difficulties in creating the conditions for more network-based governance initiatives with the involvement of local community and civil society. Problems have been exacerbated by the financial and political crisis and the consequent spending review. However, some encouraging signals also exist. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Italy is a country of contrasts and contradictions, also in the forest sector: the country has experienced a radical change in forest cover that doubled in 50 years, in the social demands for forest products and services and in the structure of the wood-working industry, but its institutional organizations, mode of forest governance and the political-legal frameworks have only changed slightly. The objectives and contents of Italian forest policy have slowly evolved over time (Pettenella and Romano, 2010: 11), but most of the Italian formal institutions connected with the forest sector, at all levels, have been unable to reform and adapt themselves to the new challenges posed by the changing environmental, social, economic and political scenarios. The most remarkable step towards introducing changes in Italian institutional arrangements and forest governance has been the decentralization process, which is “a crucial issue in sustainable forest management” worldwide as “its quality may ultimately determine the fate of forest resources in all their aspects – economic, social and ecological” (Blaser et al., 2005:1). Decentralization varies a lot from country to country in terms of mechanisms, degree of powers transfer, level of social responsibil-

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Secco). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.013 0264-8377/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ity, etc., therefore having impacts that differ (Colfer and Capistrano, 2005; Rojas-Briales, 2005). Concerning the forest sector, the vast majority of the literature is focused on developing countries (e.g. Agrawal and Ribot, 1999; Colfer and Capistrano, 2005; Ribot et al., 2006; Ribot and Oyono, 2012; Tram Nam and Burgers, 2012; Persha and Andersson, 2014) or countries in transition, and only a few studies have been conducted on decentralization processes and their effectiveness in European countries, exceptions being for example Switzerland (Küchli and Blaser, 2005), Scotland (Ritchie and Haggith, 2005) and France (Sève, 1999). In a comparison study focused on Mediterranean countries, decentralization tendencies are reported as being “evident in all the countries despite significant differences in their scope” (Rojas-Briales, 2005: 384). Starting in 1977, political-administrative decentralization1 in Italy has now been lasting for more than 40 years, but a stable and balanced organization of public institutions to deal with the challenges of the forest sector is far from being reached: the central State adminis-

1 Political decentralization occurs when “groups at different levels of government – central, sub-national (meso) and local – are empowered to make decisions related to what affects them”. Administrative decentralization occurs when “different levels of government administer resources and matters that have been delegated to them, generally through a Constitution”. In particular, in Italy, we can talk about devolution, which transfers specific decision-making powers from one level of government (State) to another (Regions). “Regional governments become semi-autonomous and administer forest resources according to their own priorities and within clearly defined geographic jurisdictions” (Blaser et al., 2005: 8).

80

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

tration should in theory have no role in policy-making, all forest tasks having been transferred to the 21 Regional administrations and Autonomous Provinces. However, some of these administrations are so limited in their policy and political action, in the relevance of their forest sector and/or the political role played by the sectoral interests, that no comprehensive and consistent regional forest policies are implemented and many responsibilities have been transferred back to the Central administration under formal bi-lateral agreements. Such a complex, unclear and fragmented legal-policy situation, originating from a defective decentralization process, also occurred in a similar way in many other sectors (e.g. agriculture and rural development, health care),2 is one of the reasons for Italian public administration inefficiency, which has contributed to exacerbating the problem of financial viability of a proactive forest management oriented at preserving forest multi-functionality (Pettenella, 1994; Cesaro et al., 2013) and ecosystem services provisions. As a result of this situation, Italy does not in practice have one single updated National Forest Programme (NFP)3 nor a comprehensive sectoral policy supported by coordinated budget allocations. It instead has various different local forest policy programmes or sets of laws that are formulated and implemented by the Regions and/or Autonomous Provinces. According to Cullotta and Maetzke (2008), only 8 out of 21 Regions in Italy have completed their Regional Forestry Programmes (RFPs) while “presumably the others have by now been provided with planning documents or plans of one kind or another for the forestry sector” (Carbone and Savelli, 2009: 511). Horizontal coordination among these local fragmented policies is very limited, and if we add the typical complexity of the legal framework – with often tens of national and local laws and rules regulating single types of activities like wood harvesting or mushroom picking (Vidale et al., 2012) – the policy and related governance framework of the whole sector appears particularly confused, without a clear and common oversight. The decentralization process in itself, which should have better connected policy-makers to other sectoral stakeholders and local institutional capacity to global goals, has been demonstrated to be an inadequate governing model, “very dispersed and ineffective due to high transaction costs” (Rojas-Briales, 2005: 375). Many of the failures reported with decentralization reforms (at least those that occurred in the ‘90s) in several countries worldwide (Colfer and Capistrano, 2005; Berkes, 2010) are also valid for Italy, as “effective devolution takes time, requiring a shift from a static concept of management to a dynamic concept of governance shaped by

2 Decentralization has been implemented in several other sectors, with similar consequences of institutional fragmentation. Italy has, for example, 21 different Rural Development Programmes (one for each of the 21 Regions and Autonomous Provinces), with different and not coordinated strategies, measures and actions (Cesaro et al., 2013). This also determines inefficiencies in the interaction with the EU authorities during rural development policy negotiation (Corrado and Merlo, 1999). However, decentralization in agriculture and rural development differs slightly from that in the forest sector. In fact, while almost 40% of forest is owned by public entities (namely, State and municipalities) under direct or indirect control of the State Forest Service, agricultural land is almost totally privately owned, so the State does not play any relevant role, with either active (incentives) or passive (command-and-control) policies. In the environmental sector the situation is slightly different: competences have been defined as a matter of concerted action between State and Regions. This determined a long-lasting conflict and several delays in environmental protection policies implementation. The proposed reform of the Italian Constitution, which will be the subject of a referendum at the end of 2016 and will take this problematic issue into consideration, is likely to bring a re-centralization of the environmental protection competences. As for the industrial sector, including its forest-related components (e.g. sawmills, pulp and paper producers, furniture, etc.), it is dominated by private actors and several public services (e.g. railways, airlines, . . .) have been privatized, so that nowadays the State does not have any special role. 3 The possible use of the term “Plan” instead of “Programme” has been discussed by Carbone and Savelli (2009).

interactions, feedback learning and adaptation over time” (Berkes, 2010: 489), not always having the expected (positive) impacts on forest management in the country. However, decentralization has been reported as one of the most important principles of good governance identified in international policy processes (Rojas-Briales, 2005). Our paper, on the basis of the analysis of three case-study Regions (Veneto, Molise and Sicily), provides observations on the failures in forest governance in Italy connected with the policy process of decentralization. In particular, we present and discuss the reasons for Italian forest sector decentralization being unable to support the shift from conventional government towards innovative governance arrangements, where stakeholders are supposed to be more involved in the decision-making process, profit and nonprofit organizations are expected to increase their participation in defining forest economy strategies, and command and control regulations are progressively integrated by voluntary and marketbased tools. 2. Methodology The paper adopts a narrative policy analysis approach combined with a case-study method and is based on a qualitative-based analysis conducted in 2014–2015, which included: a) documents analysis, i.e. reading and analysing texts of policies and laws at national and regional level, with a focus on three regions selected as case-studies; b) primary sources collection and analysis. While document analysis has been used mainly for compiling Sections 3 and 5.1, the analysis of original data has been used mainly for Sections 4 and 5.2. The selection criteria and description of case studies, methods for data collection and analysis, and the narrative structure are reported in the following. 2.1. Case-studies identification and description Our three case-study regions were selected on the basis of the following criteria: i) to guarantee a balanced geographical distribution among the three main Italian macro-areas (North, Centre and South/Islands), thus including one case-study region per macroarea (respectively Veneto, Molise and Sicily); ii) to incorporate different timespans of the decentralization process, thus including one autonomous Region (Sicily) the first Region to have the competences in the forest sector transferred in the middle of last century and two Regions (Veneto and Molise) where decentralization implementation started in the late ‘70s; iii) to cover different models of forest economy: one with a relatively high level of timber production linked to a dynamic wood working sector (Veneto); one with poorly stocked forest almost exclusively used for fuelwood production and environmental protection (Molise); and one regional forest economy almost exclusively connected to environmental services provision and social functions (30,000 publicly employed forest workers) (Sicily). In each Region, one sub-regional area4 has been identified and explored, thus focusing the analysis at landscape level. Key data are summarized in Table 1. Forest area dynamics that can be observed for the three case-studies follow the national trend, with a continuous expansion of the forest cover during 2005–2015 (Table 2). However, while Veneto shows an increase that is below the one observed at national scale (+4.7% vs. +6.2%), Molise (+16.6%) and Sicily (+13.2%) present the highest increase rates among all Italian regions, being the only ones doubling the national value (CFS,

4 Respectively Asiago plateau in Veneto, Alto Molise area in Molise and Etna regional park in Sicily.

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

81

Table 1 Key data for the 3 selected case-studies.

Source: own elaboration based on CFS, 2015; INFC, 2005; ISTAT (2016b)

Table 2 List of interviewed stakeholders, by category and case-study region. Interviewed stakeholder categories

Public forest owners* Private forest owners Public forest officials** Local politicians Logging companies/bioenergy industries Sawmills Parks, Protected Areas Forest technicians, consultants Local recreational associations*** Environmental associations Total interviewed

Case-study region Veneto (North)

Molise (Centre)

Sicily (South)

7 2 3 2 5 5 – – 2 – 26

4 2 2 – 1 – – – 5 1 15

3 2 8 – 1 1 3 1 5 – 24

Source: own elaboration. Note: *Municipalities. **These include officials of the State Forest Service and/or Regional Forest Services, depending on the case-study. ***These include for example associations of hunters, tourist guides, mushroom pickers.

2015). Such an expansion reflects the increasing farmland abandonment and the under-management of local forests rather than resulting from afforestation/reforestation initiatives. This is partly confirmed by data regarding forest areas managed according to formally approved forest management plans. While about one-third of Veneto forests have a plan in place, in Molise this figure decreases to 18% – i.e. very close to the national figure, 16% – and in Sicily it is 0 (INFC, 2005). Lack of active management is confirmed by data on wood removals, even if doubts exist about the reliability of these data5 (Table 2), in all cases less than half the net annual increments.

5 Several studies raised concerns on the consistency and full reliability of official statistics on forest removals in Italy (especially on firewood production in coppice stands). Corona et al. (2007), for example, found that clearcut areas reported by

Impacts of poor forest management can also be perceived in terms of risks for local territories. For example, according to ISPRA (2015), Molise is the region with the second highest landslide density (i.e. number of landslides per km2 ) in Italy. In all three regions, the forest sector enterprises (especially those of the forestry and logging sub-components) have a very limited role with respect to the total number of enterprises and employees at regional level.

official statistics of the Forest Administration in Central Italy are lower than those detected via satellite images. Hellrigl (2002) and Pra and Pettenella (2016) highlighted inconsistencies between official forest removals and statistics on domestic firewood consumption. The National Report for Italy of the 2010 FAO Forests Resource Assessment states that “removal of wood fuel – mainly produced in coppice stands of oaks and other autochthonous species – has enormously increased in the last decade: likely more than what official statistics show.” (FAO, 2010: 52).

82

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

2.2. Primary data collection and analysis Primary data collection at landscape level was based on semistructured interviews submitted to key-informants representing various categories of stakeholders, with numbers that varied case by case (Table 2). A total of 65 face-to-face semi-structured interviews were completed (52 as individual interviews and 13 as joint interviews6 with more than one stakeholder). Key-informants to be interviewed were selected via a snowball sampling,7 starting from one well-known contact person in the forest sector in the selected sub-regional area. The interview phase took advantage of the INTEGRAL Project,8 as a first round of semi-structured interviews was carried out in the early project stage, in order to produce detailed descriptions of selected case-study areas, in terms of socio-economic and ecological key-factors. One set of questions was aimed to explore respondents’ viewpoints on desired changes to forest policy and policy regimes, type and level of cooperation with other stakeholders in landscape management, trust and power among stakeholders, level of information sharing, attitudes towards willingness to create new relationships, autonomy given to forest owners for taking their management decisions, organizations that influence forest management, reputational power, relationships with government representatives (e.g. decision-makers at local level). Questions about respondents’ perception of higher hierarchical levels (e.g. national or EU), market, structural factors and discourses affecting forest management at landscape level were also included. Among the available set of data, only information and insights relevant to the purposes of this paper have been selected, i.e. those highlighting which unfavourable policy regime conditions act as main obstacles to a sound and comprehensive development of the forestry sector in the selected sub-regional case-study areas based on the adoption of new network governance mechanisms. The main interview results were summarized and presented in three focus groups organized with the same stakeholders aimed at defining possible future reform strategies for the sector (see Appendix 1). 2.3. The narrative structure of our analysis Our study is intended to be a context-oriented explorative narrative that regards the decentralization process in Italy as a “whole story” to be analysed by focusing on events and actions (Brukas, 2015: 497) and through a case-study method (Yin, 2009). According

6 2 officials of the Regional Forest Services were interviewed jointly in Veneto; 3 representatives of the Regional Park, 3 officials of the Regional Forestry Agency and 3 mountain guides were interviewed jointly (by group) in Sicily. 7 Despite its limits, not being based on a systematic sampling strategy, with the lack of statistical data and obstacles due to the law for privacy protection, this approach is the only achievable one in such local contexts in order to identify accessible respondents. The number of interviewed people is large enough for guaranteeing validity to such types of qualitative-based analysis. 8 As part of INTEGRAL project, a multiple-scenario development process was conducted that tried to address two main questions: which forest-related developments might unfold in Europe by 2040 and what consequences might such developments stimulate within the forestry sector, in terms of integrated forest management practices to be carried out to sustain the provision of the expected balance between different environmental services (ES) provided by forests at the landscape level. During local participatory processes, engaged stakeholders were asked to navigate through the various possible scenarios (or combination of scenarios) and to identify the ideal desired endpoint, defined as the set of ES values most likely to be reached within the case-study area, if relevant forest policies are enforced throughout the simulation period (25 years). This approach allowed gap analyses to be performed, aiming to highlight the main discrepancies between current conditions in the forestry sector, and those describing the ideal (but realistically achievable) selected ones. For further details on INTEGRAL Project (Future Oriented integrated management of European forest landscape) see: http://www.integral-project.eu/

to this approach, thorough attention has to be paid to insights into context description, exhibiting the relevant case-specific causality, where “causes are mostly working in complex bunches, the events (Abbott, 1990). Explanation consists in relating an event to a human project, and the strength of the narrative mode is in exhibiting the explanation, placing it in the context of what happened (Czarniawska, 2004)” (Brukas, 2015: 497). In contrast with the causal or logico-scientific approaches that try to “disentangle the inherent complexity into some key variables (Giessen, 2011) in an attempt to elicit causes behind the stochastic realisations of events” (Brukas, 2015: 496), the narrative approach does not require rigid compliance with pre-defined theoretical frameworks – which often have to be modified to better fit the needs of each specific application (Brukas, 2015). The strength of adopting this approach with respect to the dominant theory-driven one (recently questioned in favour of more flexible frameworks by Arts et al., 2014) is the richness of information that can be provided by examining the specific process and its related practices and by interlinking different analytical emphases, i.e. by recounting “the whole story”. This approach fits particularly well with the casestudy method, which allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events and is thus particularly relevant the more that research questions require an extensive and “in-depth” description of complex social, political or organizational phenomena (Yin, 2009). Even if we did not follow a pre-established theoretical framework – too rigid for recounting “the whole story” in a complex and highly fragmented country like Italy – we organized our storyline along four main interconnected parts, where the minimum elements of a narrative structure are included. According to Jones and McBeth (2010: 340–341) there are four of these elements. The first one is “the setting or context”: in our study, the natural, socio-economic and political contexts for the forest sector and decentralization at both national and regional levels. The second is “a plot” that introduces a temporal element and provides relationships between component parts structuring causal explanations that determine the plausibility of the story: in our study, the policy reform of decentralization, which has introduced several institutional and political changes, thus often causing negative effects on the forest sector (e.g. in terms of declining efficiency). The third element is “characters” i.e. those who are fixers of the problem, causers of the problem or harmed by the problem: in our study, forest actors/institutions and networks that affect (or are affected by) decentralization (now or in the past). The fourth element is “the moral of the story”, where a policy solution is normally offered. Even if a practical policy solution to the problems of forest decentralization in Italy is missing in our study, our discussion and final reflections are intended to highlight the potential of possible future positive development. Following this structure, our narrative starts by describing the Italian forest sector and the key agent-based and structural factors that influence “who decide” (i.e. actors, networks and policy regimes – Dahl, 2005 as cited by Arts), and consequently how decisions are taken at national level9 (Section 3). The aim of this first part is “to set the scene”. Actors are examined by distinguishing among public, private and others and describing their power in influencing decisions; networks are described by distinguishing between intra-sectoral and inter-sectoral networks; policy regimes (i.e. governing practices and government configu-

9 Actors and networks that exist and/or are active at national level are neither necessarily representative of those existing at regional level, nor necessarily able to influence regional dynamics. Where possible, in the three case-studies, additional information about regional/local actors and networks is reported in the respective Sections (4.1, 4.2 and 4.3).

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

rations) are explored by referring to the two main components of decentralization processes (Colfer and Capistrano, 2005): i) delegation of power and resources from central State authorities to local governments (from State to Regions i.e. meso-scale government authorities); ii) higher degree of involvement and empowerment of the local community in decision-making and forest management responsibility based on the application of the principle of subsidiarity – i.e. the most effective level for policy implementation is the one closest to the local actors who will be directly engaged in implementing forest management (Toth, 1992). Having depicted the socio-spatial, temporal and national political contexts in which the various regional structures and local governing mechanisms (case-studies) are placed, our narrative proceeds with reporting the observations made for each of the three selected case-study Regions (Veneto, Molise and Sicily) (Section 4). The narrative structure in each regional section is tentatively developed around the same elements of analysis used at national level (i.e. actors, networks and policy regimes), with the description of specific institutional organizations and policy reforms, regional networks and local governance mechanisms, even if fully comprehensive information is not available to the same extent for all the cases. Our narrative continues by discussing and critically analysing how the two main components of decentralization processes (returning to Colfer and Capistrano, 2005) apply to the Italian situation, how our results and findings correspond to the existing literature, and what are possible future developments (Section 5). The narrative concludes with a summary and discussion of the key reasons and effects of decentralisation failures in relation to new governance modes in the forest sector in the country. 3. A general overview of the forest sector in Italy 3.1. Forests and the forest sector10 in Italy Italy has a total forest area of about 10.9 million hectares (CFS, 2015), mostly located in mountainous or hilly areas (95%). Forest resources quality differs depending on their geographical position, in the Alps (North) or Apennines (Centre or South and Islands) (INFC, 2005). For example, the South and Islands Apennines’ macroregion hosts only 25% of total “forests” and about 62% of “other wooded lands”. High forests prevail in the North (Alpine region), where more than 50% of total high forests are located, and in the South and Islands; coppice is the most common forest management regime in the Centre. Broadleaves prevail in about 68% of forests (but, at sub-national level, there are exceptions in the Alps, where conifers prevail). Both the growing stock per hectare and mean annual increment per hectare vary significantly. They range, respectively, from a minimum of 56.4 m3 /ha and 2.0 m3 /ha in Sardinia (South and Islands) to a maximum of 312.4 m3 /ha and

10 According to FAO data, “forest sector” includes three components: “forestry and logging”, “wood industry” and “pulp and paper industry” (“furniture industry” being a component of the industrial sector). This is consistent with the explanation of the term “forestry” as reported in The Dictionary of Forestry (2008): “the profession embracing the science, art, and practice of creating, managing, using, and conserving forests and associated resources for human benefit and in a sustainable manner to meet desired goals, needs, and values—note the broad field of forestry consists of those biological, quantitative, managerial, and social sciences that are applied to forest management and conservation; it includes specialized fields such as agroforestry, urban forestry, industrial forestry, nonindustrial forestry, and wilderness and recreation forestry” as well as in other dictionaries and online encyclopaedia (The Oxford Dictionary, 2016; Wikipedia, 2016). In our paper, we specify data at national level for the whole forest sector, thus providing a comprehensive overview of the country’s conditions. At the case-study (regional) level the focus is on forestry and logging activities, sawmills and wood-based bioenergy industries i.e. those components of the sector that are still linked to land management practices and the use of national forest resources.

83

6.1 m3 /ha in the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano (North). Forests with a higher quality (i.e. higher production potential) are more frequently covered by forest management plans (e.g. up to 94% in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano, in the Alps). A large share of Italian forests (33.9–43.9% depending on the statistical sources) is publicly owned and 65–70,000 forest workers are (inefficiently) employed by public organizations (Pettenella and Secco, 2004), with a large concentration in Southern regions.11 Despite the relatively large amount of forest cover (30% of total land), for various reasons Italian forests have been systematically underutilized over the years (Pettenella, 1994). Today, only 23.8% of the net annual increment is harvested (55.6% on average in the EU) (Eurostat, 2013). Over about 50 years (1950–2007) the forest cover has doubled, wood consumption tripled, while the economic value of domestic timber harvests has halved. The expansion of forest area is one of the most relevant land use changes currently underway in the country (+6.2% in the last 10 years, from 2005 to 2015; +0.6% in the last year), mainly associated with farmland abandonment and natural expansion of the forest.12 The forestry and logging sector share on the national GDP has reduced considerably in the last decades (remaining negligible, i.e. accounting for about 0.05% of national GDP). The whole forest sector share (i.e. including contributions of the wood industry and pulp and paper industry) has had similar trends (accounting for 1.1% and 0.8% of the national GDP respectively in 1990 and 2006 – FAO, 2014). Employment (formal sector) and number of enterprises in the forest sector have also reduced significantly: −27.7% in 25 years (from about 332,000 persons in 1990 to 240,000 in 2015) and −19% in the period 2000–2008 (from about 55,000–44,000 enterprises), respectively13 (FAO, 2014; EUROSTAT, 2016). In terms of employment, the forestry and logging components alone account for 14.7% of the sector in 2006 (FAO) and 21.2% in 2015 (EUROSTAT). The added value (wood and non-wood production) on the total value of the primary sector (agriculture, forestry and fishery) decreased from 1.5% (1984–2004) down to less than 0.9% (2012). Notwithstanding a general decrease in overall wood imports in recent years, Italy remains one of the major European wood importers, accounting for 15% of the EU sawnwood imports in 2013 (FAOSTAT). As for industrial wood,14 the self-sufficiency rate is only 17% (with 4.7 million cubic meters of production of raw material and sawnwood and 14.2 million cubic meters of consumption) (UNECE/FAO, 2015). These data show the structural disconnection between the use of domestic forests and national wood-based industrial activities (especially furniture) (Brun et al., 2005; Ciccarese et al., 2014), which is associated to a lack of wood mobilization, land abandonment and very limited active management. In addition, Italy became the largest worldwide importer of firewood and the fourth largest importer of wood residues, particles and chips, and the first European importer of pellets for residential use (Jonsson et al., 2015).

11 In Southern Italian regions, public spending for supporting this form of social assistance in the more marginal and remote areas is relevant and, as a result, there is not much room for financing interventions other than those connected with the maintenance of forest workers. 12 The phenomenon is one of the most studied landscape changes that have occurred in Italian rural areas after WWII, and it is still ongoing, with increasing risks from landslides, forest fires etc. (see Section 6). 13 More in detail, the sector passed from 332,000 persons in 1990 to 278,000 in 2006 – according to FAO (2014); to 240,000 persons in 2015 – according to EUROSTAT and from 54,749 enterprises in 2000 to 44,112 in 2008–according to EUROSTAT online database. 14 All the data on production/consumption of industrial wood rate are calculated as an average over the period 2010–2014.

84

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

3.2. Forest policy history and profile in Italy During the period between the first and second World War, a strong central forest administration was built up based on the military-oriented State Forest Service (Corpo Forestale dello Stato – CFS). With the New Constitution (1948), five Autonomous Regions and Provinces with their own forest administrations and sixteen ordinary Regions were created, with, in the long-lasting transition period towards a decentralized system, the forest sector remaining under the central authority. In the ‘40s, ‘50s and ‘60s, the forest sector played a mainly social function, providing employment opportunities and representing an important source of income in marginal areas (especially in the South of Italy and in mountain areas). In order to enhance employment in and income from forestry, a massive investment programme for creating forest plantations was launched and (only partially) realized as part of the Plan for South Development. In the same period, and until the ‘70s, also as a consequence of this political programme, the CFS reinforced its role at national level, having the necessary technical expertise to assist new forest plantations. In 1977 the planned decentralization process started and several conflicts arose between the central CFS authority and officials of the Regions/Autonomous Provinces regarding tasks assignment and State land management. One significant drawback was the maintenance of a central CFS while all tasks and missions related to forest management and monitoring were being transferred to regional authorities. During the ‘80s Regions developed their own organizational structure and regional governance procedures, thus leading to a fragmented structure at national level, with 21 different regional forest plans (Corrado and Merlo, 1999). The second, recent “National Forest Plan” was approved in 2008, 22 years after the first one (approved in 1986), after a long negotiation process and under pressure from the European Commission for the country to comply with the MCPFE and UN IFF commitments for NFPs (Carbone and Savelli, 2009). Rather than a plan, it is a Framework Programme for the Forest Sector (Piano Quadro per il Settore Forestale – PQSF): it came late with respect to other parallel programming tools (e.g. the European Rural Development Programme approved in 2007 for the period 2007–2013) and was not associated with any financial provision to the sector (Romano et al., 2012). Two other signs of such a limited political role of the forest sector (in particular of its forestry component) in the country are worth mentioning: no Ministers nor their deputies attended the 3rd National Forest Congress held in Taormina in 2008; no funds for R&D were allocated to the forest sector in recent international strategic programmes such as ERA-Net.15 3.3. Main actors in the forest sector in Italy Table 3 gives an overview of the main actors in the forest sector in Italy, with a short description of what type of relative power they have in influencing decisions at national level. Italy is characterized by a very large number of small-scale private forest owners, who are neither coordinated nor able to be

15 Italian government’s decision about ERA-Net in June-September 2014 was to provide 800,000 D to Arimnet – Coordination of Agricultural Research in the Mediterranean area, and no funds to the parallel project Foresterra related to the forest sector. 33 Other actors in the private category should be mentioned, who have a role in forest resources management in Italy. For example, volunteers against forest fires (representatives of the civil society/local communities) involved in forest fire control. Approx. 3900 small local NGOs are organized under the Civil Protection for this task. However, they are equipped and compensated by the Public Administration (i.e. they are not at zero costs for the public sector!), and sometimes they represent an alternative to forest workers employed by local public authorities (Secco et al., 2009).

politically influential. However, following the EU standards, only forests encompassed in farmlands and only land units with >1 ha of farmland are included in the agriculture census, representing a total of about 3 million ha. Specialized forest units (i.e. made up only of forestland) and abandoned forests are not included in the census, so no one knows how many forest owners actually exist in Italy, with property rights on the remaining 1.2 million ha of private forest land being recorded only by the national inventory. Historically, there have been no forest-specific initiatives to reduce the problems of land fragmentation and support the market and political power of private forest owners, who are considered to be the “silent stakeholders” of the primary sector (Pettenella 1994; Pettenella and Romano, 2010). There are several signs that both public and private forest owners have a very limited capacity to represent their interests: Italy is the only European country (with Poland) that is not member of the Confederation of European Forest Owners; there are no Italian representatives in the Union of Foresters of Southern Europe; there are no representative of State forests in EUSTAFOR and only a small regional organization (Veneto Agricoltura, within Veneto Region) has recently been accepted as an associated partner. Government authorities at both national and meso-levels are still perceived as the most powerful actors in forest management by many forest owners, managers and other stakeholders. The State Forest Service (CFS) is probably the body most well-known by the Italian public. On the one hand, its role as forest police administrator in charge of patrolling for environmental and forest illegalities (e.g. poaching, illegal logging, unauthorized waste disposal in natural areas, malicious forest fires) is consolidated and perceived positively by society. On the other, in the last decades the CFS lost its traditional role of providing technical assistance to forest owners. Its technical functions have been partly assumed by officials from the Regional and local institutions. Italy is the only EU country with such a specialized forest police service employing approximately 7500 agents and 140 top generals. However, a major reform process – under discussion for several years (Rojas-Briales, 2005) but that could no longer be delayed due to the spending review – has recently merged the CFS with another police service (Carabinieri) (Decreto Legislativo del Consiglio dei Ministri del 28/07/2016 n.124) thus causing it to lose its specificities and technical skills on forest-related concerns. At regional level, there are several examples of dismantled Forest Services, with a fragmentation and transfer of forest sector competences under other administrative units dealing for example with biodiversity protection, soil and watershed protection or rural development, thus confirming forest policy as a “shadow policy” (Pettenella, 1994). According to a recent study conducted in Northern Italian Regions (Saccone et al., 2013),16 the 3 main regional administrative units that have assumed responsibilities in the forestry sector are those dealing with: 1) protected areas or, alternatively, 2) rural development and 3) agriculture. This is perfectly coherent with a stronger political role played by administrations concerned with nature protection, land use planning and economic development. More in general, we should mention that many actors coming from other sectors can directly or indirectly influence forest policy. Apart from the institutional actors (i.e. for example the representatives of protected areas within Regions, who have formal “rights” to determine rules affecting the forest sector – see Fig. 1), there are a number of actors who are “informally”

16 The study was based on primary data, collected through a questionnaire submitted to 43 forest services officials and professionals in the Northern Italian regions, and was the first attempt to capture the current, relevant institutional changes within forestry in the country.

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

85

Table 3 Main public and private actors in the forest sector in Italy. Actors

Main interests/tasks

Attributes

Power

a) Coordination of agriculture, food and rural development policies, with minor attention to forest policies. b) Biodiversity conservation and climate change measures connected with forests. Development of protected areas national policy. c) Landscape conservation

Forest-related tasks fragmented among the 3 Ministries. Very limited and ineffective coordination at ministerial level. A specific unit on forest policy with about 40 staff will be established at MAFFP following the July 2016 reform (Art. 11 − Legislative decree 124/2016).

State Forest Service (Corpo Forestale dello Stato) (merged with Carabinieri from July 2016)

Implementation of command-and-control instruments i.e. guarding the territory and punishing illegal activities in relation to logging, hunting, land management, biodiversity protection. Patrolling and fighting forest fires.

7500 employees, reduced to 7000 with the reform. A police organization with a strong internal hierarchy, a long history and tradition. Management responsibilities for the State forests (130 forests, covering about 130,000 ha), mainly protected areas.

Regional forest authorities (Forest Services, Forest Administrations)

Competences on defining and implementing forest and forest-related policies: EU Rural Development forest measures, forest management plans, extension and training, watershed management, forest nurseries, certification, etc. Maintaining the main production function and the provision of ecosystem services of public utility (C sequestration, biodiversity conservation, landscape maintenance, recreation, soil and water protection)

21 Regional administrations with 21 different policies due to: local environmental conditions and quality of forest resources, role in direct employment of forest workers, involvement of volunteers, dominant political parties at regional level. Municipal- and Regional-owned forests, representing 39% of total forest land. Single municipalities do not employ forestry workers. Logging is typically assigned to external private companies by auction. Management plan (if any) is developed by forest consultants. Only when Municipalities are associated do they sometimes directly employ a few experts and forestry workers.

a) Coordination of the few initiatives connected with the National Forest Programmes, without any budget allocation. Representation of Italy in European and international context. b) Constraining and controlling active forest management, considered a threat to nature protection. c) Constraining any changes to forest land use. Very strong in influencing national decisions on resources and power allocation until the recent reform. Good links with the right wing political parties but also support from the green components of other parties and civil society (mainly thanks to its high visibility in forest fires fighting and biodiversity protection). In general, quite weak with respect to other sectors (namely, agriculture and nature conservation). They might have more power in some regions than in others (e.g. in influencing resources allocation).

Forest workers employed by public institutions

Maintaining employment opportunities in forestry, environment and land management.

65–75,000 forest workers (mainly seasonal) employed by regional public authorities. Currently under reduction due to public spending policy review.

Universities, Scientific Academies and Societies and research centres

Providing high education and training to future forest experts. Contributing to advancement in forest-related science knowledge. Supporting innovation. Stimulating the scientific debate on forest resources.

14 Universities awarding “forest science” and “forest and environmental sciences” degrees, with a total of 3651 enrolled students in 2014–2015. About 250–300 forest researchers.

Maintaining the main production function. Protecting and enhancing their natural capital. Diversifying their sources of income based on forests by exploring potentials for ecosystem services provisioning.

61% of total forest land; 378,800 private owners on 3.0 M ha of forests; average size 8.0 ha forest/owner; 57.3% of the units <5 ha managing 14.4% of the forest cover. Vast problems of land fragmentation, abandonment with absent/distant owners.

Public Ministries: a) Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forest Policies (MAFFP) b) Ministry of Environment c) Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Landscape

Public forest owners

Private33 Private forest owners

Limited to their own forest land and resources. Under pressure for the current public funding cuts, they are often losing their power (e.g. responsibilities for regional forest management are likely to be transferred by concessions to other organizations − NGOs). Municipalities sometimes organized in Forest Consortia (which can also include private owners amongst their members), thus gaining some power in interactions with both policy makers and timber traders (at least at local level). They have significant power in terms of votes associated to their employment opportunities (especially in the Southern regions). There is evidence that some damage to forests (e.g. fires) has been voluntarily caused by these workers to keep their employment position. Some of the highly-qualified scientific organizations have a very significant capacity to influence policy discourses at national level and sometimes policy makers at various levels. In general, however, the capacity of science to influence policy in its concrete implementation of measures/actions is very limited. Italy has no representative in either of the two most important associations of private forest owners in Europe. No national wide associations of forest owners, or specific sections dealing with forest resources within the national associations of landowners.

86

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

Table 3 (Continued) Actors

Main interests/tasks

Attributes

Power

Forestry and logging enterprises

Harvesting and marketing timber and firewood. Income generation. Maintaining their business (at least al local level) and employment.

In 2015, 24–28,000 qualified forest workers employed by 8–9,000 private logging companies. 350 cooperatives with 11,000 employed providing harvesting and maintenance services.

Wood industries (mainly sawmills and wood-based industries, included bioenergy industries)

Processing and marketing wood-based products, included biomass for energy production, or pulp and paper products. Maintaining/increasing their competitiveness on the market (often at international level). Technological innovation.

In 2014 30,001 wood working enterprises (3940 sawmills) and 18,130 furniture mills. The national federation of wood industries (Federlegno) includes mainly large companies among its approx. 1000 members.

The validity of some regional and supra-regional networks among harvesting companies and cooperatives is becoming recognized at national level. However, still limited capacity to influence forest policy decisions. Some forest cooperatives receive an effective support from political parties at local level. Different potential ability to influence decisions, depending on their business size. However, larger industries are often not interested in influencing national forest policy, as their supply chains are totally based on imports. The national federations of industries, having the largest companies as members, have a significant political influence (despite their limited representativeness in terms of number of members).

Pulp and paper industries

National Association of Chartered Agronomists and Foresters Other actors Environmental NGOs

Media and scientific journals

Employment opportunities in the forest sector. Valorisation of qualified knowledge for professional work.

In 2014 3800 enterprises. The 70 members of the national association of pulp and paper industries (Assocarta) supply 90% of the production. 21,750 members in total (2013), of whom 80% men and 20% women; 3480 (16%) of chartered foresters are women.

Nature conservation, with a special attention towards biodiversity protection (protected areas), environmental pollution and land use.

Only a few active at national level. However, there are several local NGOs or local units of national NGOs with thousands of members.

Information and communication on the sector to stimulate the national debate and keep practitioners and enterprises updated.

One technical journal highly specialized in the forest sector. A few others sometimes publishing news on the sector. Some specialized scientific journals.

Very limited capacity to influence forest policy at national level. They might have some influence at regional level. The higher influence is related to the introduction of strict limitations to forest management activities (especially in protected areas) to preserve biodiversity. The technical journal is published only in Italian, as the main target are logging companies, consultants, enterprises, practitioners. Likely able to indirectly influence the forest policy through the debate they stimulate.

Source: own elaboration on the basis of Secco and Pettenella, 2006; Secco et al., 2011; Bruschini, 2008; EUROSTAT, 2016; ISTAT 2016a,b; MIPAAF, 2015; MIUR, 2015; SISEF, 2016; Decreto Legislativo del Consiglio dei Ministri del 28/07/2016; CONAF, 2013; Federlegno-Arredo, 2016; Assocarta, 2016

3.4. Actors’ networks in the forest sector in Italy trying17 to influence decision-making in forestry. Indeed, Saccone et al. (2013) found that the most relevant actors able to influence policy-making (at least in Northern Italian Regions) are the dominant political parties and the farmer’s associations and their representatives. Other categories, like for example environmentalists or the “public” (citizens), are considered to have marginal or no capacity to influence decisions related to changes in the forest sector structure. Finally, among the actors, it is worthwhile mentioning academics. In certain regional contexts and sometimes at national level, they are influential actors in policy-making. The National Association of Chartered Agronomists and Foresters also has some political strength and visibility, with a growing number of members (from 13,091 in 1999 to 16,095 in 2003 and 21,750 in 2013) (CONAF, 2013). A marginal role is played in relation to Italian forest policy by the most important environmental NGOs active at national level (e.g. WWF Italy, Legambiente, Greenpeace Italy, Lega Italiana Protezione Uccelli – LIPU).

17 As an example, we can mention the fact that the new regional forest law in Piedmont has been defined and brought to the Regional Board for official approval by Coldiretti, an association of private farmers, not by the regional forest sector representatives or officials (Corgnati, pers. com. 2013).

3.4.1. Intra-sectoral networks. A national association of private forest owners does not exist. The three national farmers’ unions (Coldiretti, Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori and Confagricoltura) have very limited direct interests in the forestry sector and no national offices specialized in forest matters.18 The federation Federforeste, which represents the municipal forest properties and their associations, has only a few tens of members out of the thousands of municipal forest owners. The national association of regional forest administration (ANARF) has only 5 members and very little representative power. In a few words: the set of stakeholders’ networks representing forest owners, either public or private, has a very weak structure, very limited representativeness and, as a consequence, a modest political profile. Other and positive examples of networks are those created among forest cooperatives and their employees. The largest organization is the recently created Alliance of Agro and Agro-food Cooperatives, which includes about 350 forest cooperatives with about 11,000 members and employees (Marini, pers. com. –

18 However, as described in note 5, Coldiretti often puts on pressure to address the forest sector.

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

87

Fig. 1. Stakeholders influencing the reform of the forest sector in Northern Italian Regions. Source: Saccone et al., 2013

2015).19 This Alliance is active in promoting debates at national level, periodically organizing conferences and events with the participation of high-level representatives of the central authorities. They depict themselves as one of the few advocacy coalitions able to act with some impact on policy-makers at national level. Another interesting network, which has recently been growing and creating interregional coordination (of local networks), is the one among harvesting companies, not structured as cooperatives, named CONAIBO (Consorzio Nazionale Imprese Boschive). Even if comprehensive data about its dimension (e.g. in terms of total amount of workers involved) are not available, this network is undoubtedly getting a political recognition at national level, being regularly invited as a permanent member of the national consultation forum of forest and wood sector (Tavolo Foresta-Legno) and to other national events. Within the wood industry component of the sector, an important network is the one among members of the national federation of wood-based (large) industries (Federlegno); a similar network exists among the pulp and paper industries (Assocarta). Other, more representative (in terms of number of members) but less influential networks, are the three main associations of small and medium-sized enterprises in the wood sector.20

3.4.2. Inter-sectoral networks. The most relevant institutional network is the one among public bodies at different hierarchical level, the so-called “StateRegions Conference”. This is a national body specifically created and managed at governmental level to guarantee stable connections, coordination and synergies among Regions and the State. However, this national level coordination remains weak and in practice only sub-national networks exist and act. These are the networks created for example among a few Regional Forest Services of neighbouring regions (e.g. North-East regions) or due to some common interest (e.g. PEFC forest certification development). These are not stable networks strategically aimed towards a com-

19 In 2006, there were approximately 500 forest cooperatives, with about 4000–6000 employees (Pettenella and Secco, 2006). The trend seems to be a reduction in the number of cooperatives and an increase in the number of people employed or involved as members, but there are no fully comprehensive statistical data about this type of stakeholders. Forest cooperatives are becoming larger than in the past. 20 Namely, they are Confartigianato Legno e Arredo, Confederazione Nazionale dell’Artigianato e della Piccola e Media Impresa: Legno (CNA Legno) and Confederazione Italiana della Piccola e Media Industria Provata: Unione Italiana Arredi Legno (COFAPI – UNITAL).

mon goal, they can rather be described as aggregations around a temporary corporate interest. In general, very weak (or even absent!) collaborative networks exist among private and corporate forest owners, forest users, public forest enterprises and forest administrations at national level. Where relationships exist between the traditional forestry sector and other sectors’ actors (e.g. environmentalists, agricultural administrative bodies, biodiversity conservation authorities), they are likely to be uncooperative or conflicting. Environmental NGOs (e.g. WWF Italy, Greenpeace-Italy and other national NGOs) are quite active in the forestry sector, mainly in relation to the issues of deforestation, forest degradation, poaching, fires and the leading role of Italy as importer of illegal wood. This has been made visible by the long-term, effective mutual relationships established between environmentalists and other forest actors in the creation and management of the FSC national working group (Secco and Pettenella, 2006). Another sector with forest interests is bio-energy. The growing market for fuelwood is stimulating some policy action and the organization of lobbying activities by NGOs and traditional and new stakeholders’ groups (e.g. associations among stove producers, pellet and chip sellers, energy plant managers) have been created. This is currently probably the only dynamic segment of the forest policy arena.21 All the above-mentioned forest interest groups have a minor power to influence non-forest related public authorities.22 They use very traditional means to publicize their positions such as technical journals, professional press, congresses and resolutions, etc. No single politician acting at national level can be mentioned as representative of any forest stakeholder group, so lobbying in administrative bodies, and presence in some policy arenas is not able to influence access to the legislative process.

21 During the discussion in Parliament of the two last Budget laws the lobby of methane distributors, whose interests are affected by the increased use of bioenergy for residential use, was successful in raising the VAT on pellets from 10% to 22%, notwithstanding a national petition promoted by the NGO AIEL that was signed by thousands of people representing the 2 million Italian households consuming pellets. 22 A minor but significant indicator: at the 3rd National Forest Congress organized in 2008, with hundreds of participants from all forest stakeholders’ groups, the two Ministers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forest Policies and the Ministry of Environment were invited as speakers for the introduction and conclusions of the meeting. Nobody showed up; no General Directors from the two Ministries participated in the event, apart from the head of CFS.

88

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

3.5. Policy regimes in the forest sector in Italy 3.5.1. Delegation of power and resources from central State to local governments As mentioned, the Italian Constitution (1947) has given most of the responsibilities for decision-making and policy implementation in the agricultural and forestry sectors to the 21 Regions, five of which have a strong administrative autonomy. The transfer of responsibilities has been a long-lasting process due to strong resistance23 from the central administration to relinquish its traditional functions (Pettenella, 1994). Decentralization led to differentiated organizational models in Regions. While (mainly) Northern regions structured Regional Forest Services, thus de facto creating sub-national forest authorities, Central and Southern regions are still using the central Forest Service’s personnel for their policies implementation, through official bi-lateral agreements with the State. A third alternative (common in Central Italy) is based on a significant decentralization of the responsibilities from Regional to local authorities. Notwithstanding the regional structure, the main sources of conflicts between State and Regions have been in the ‘80s and ‘90s the assignment of the property of the former State Agency for the Public Forests (Azienda di Stato per le Foreste Demaniali) and the internal setting and assignment of functions to the central State Forest Service (CFS). Today, almost all the State-owned forests have been transferred to the Regions, their property no longer being a source of conflict, while CFS has remained under the control of the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forest Policies (MAFFP). For years the presence of such a State agency (i.e. CFS) with functions of both policing and technical assistance has delayed the start up and consolidation of regional forest administrations, particularly in some Central and Southern Regions where the forestry sector has no relevant political and economic role. The conflict was not only between State and regional authorities, but also within the State administrations: since the late ‘80s there has been pressure to transfer CFS (or part of its personnel) under the control of the Ministry of the Environment. Although CFS has been under the control of MAFFP it has been working as a technical and policing agency for the Ministry of the Environment (e.g. management and control in National Parks and State Reserves). However, a problem of horizontal coordination also exists inside MAFFP, which is responsible for rural development policy implementation (and therefore for the Forest Measures, by far the most important source of financial support to the forestry sector in Italy nowadays), without having forest officials and technical experience in the sector, and CFS, which has technical skills but no clear mandate to support State policy action in the sector. CFS is also in charge of the CITES convention implementation and it has recently been designated as National Authority for the implementation of the EU Timber Regulation 995/2010. As mentioned, in 2017 CFS will be absorbed by another military-police service (Carabinieri), now with no competences at all on forest resources, with effects that at the moment are difficult to forecast.

23 Despite a large majority of votes collected in two referenda in favour of dismantling the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, the immediate consequences of the reform have been only the change in the Ministry denomination, while the ongoing decentralization process was neither radical nor quick. After the first referendum the Ministry was re-named Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forest and then, after the second referendum, it took the name of Ministry of Agricultural and Forest Policies (now Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forest Policies − Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali – MIPAAF).

Box 1: Forest certification in Italy: a missed opportunity for re-defining the role of public authorities in forest policy. Since 2001, with the establishment of the national initiatives of the two most important forest certification schemes (FSC and PEFC), the Italian forestry sector has gained direct experience of one of the major issues discussed at global level on the transformation of relations between public – the State (e.g. Lemos and Agrawal, 2016; Arts et al., 2010) and private actors – the market (e.g. Cashore, 2002; Kirton and Trebilcock, 2004). While it is unquestionable that through the forest certification initiative, the Italian forestry sector has begun to experience public participation – with a vast range of forest stakeholders sitting for the first time around a table debating forest issues of common interest – the capacity of private and community components of the society to influence collective decisions has been very limited in practice. This was due, on the one hand to a lack of familiarity of stakeholders with participatory practices, but on the other (and mostly) to the resistance of the traditional public forest administrations in accepting a change of their role (Secco and Pettenella, 2006). This was also at the basis of a harsh conflict between the two schemes. One of the reasons was that, when forest certification started to be known in the country, the public institutional organizations in charge of forestry at local level in Italy (Regions) felt uncomfortable with sharing decision-power with new, non-professional forest actors like environmentalists. As a consequence, from the very beginning, in order to maintain a direct and strong control over decisions related to forest resources management, a group of them, led by the North-Eastern Regions, decided to create and support the PEFC national initiative by means of direct funds, communication and technical assistance to forest owners. In this way, the public authorities have been able to keep their predominant role within the forestry arena without explicitly declaring it. In Italy, as well as in other countries, the extent to which traditional governing capacities have been used, and the amount of policy networks needed to support forest certification programmes have been underestimated (Glück et al., 2004).

3.5.2. Involvement and empowerment of local community in decision-making and forest management responsibility The global debate about shifts from/to and inter-linkages between the conventional-hierarchical/government-centred and the innovative-networking/participatory governance-based mode of taking collective decisions (see e.g. Kjaer, 2004; Arts and van Tatenhove, 2006; Kleinschmit et al., 2009; UNDP, 2009; Hufty, 2010; Broekhoven et al., 2012; Giessen and Buttoud, 2014) has also been experienced in Italy. But the few and weak examples of network governance in the last decades at national level within the country (Secco et al., 2013) have not significantly changed the existing interactions among public and private stakeholders, with the public meso-level authorities remaining predominant in forest decision-making. Real and effective participatory governance approaches in forest policy formulation in Italy are more utopia than likelihood. This can be seen very clearly in the representative case of forest certification (see Box 1). However, the second and last NFP approved in 2008 has introduced one potentially innovative tool in the policy implementation process in Italy: the creation of a permanent consultative Committee with representatives from the State, Regions and private organizations. The Committee has been entitled to prepare, monitor and evaluate the NFP (Secco et al., 2013), but there are neither new regulations nor budget allocation supporting the activity of the Committee.

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

4. Case studies 4.1. Veneto region Veneto covers an area of approximately 1.9 M hectares and, according to the forest national inventory (2005), about 450,000 ha (24.3%) are forested. Resident population in 2011 was 4.8 M. The forest sector represents 1.1% in terms of number of enterprises (with respect to the total number at regional level) and 2.5% in terms of employees; forestry and logging, accounting for only about 5%, is a very minor component of the sector (see Table 1). In terms of its administrative setting, Veneto recently underwent major changes. Forest tasks are no longer the responsibility of a specific dedicated Department, which has been dismantled and fragmented under other sectors (i.e. Agriculture and Rural Development, Biodiversity protection, Soil protection and hydrogeological risk management, Tourism, Civil protection – as for forest fires management). The former Regional Forest Service was subdivided into five offices, one for each of the provinces in Veneto. The amount of resources and activities left to the Regional Forest Service has dramatically decreased. This reduction also affected the regional agency Veneto Agricoltura, which maintains some operative tasks such as managing region-owned forests, providing technical assistance to economic actors, organizing training and environmental education services, while other activities (e.g. forest nursery management, plantations development in plain areas, etc.) have been progressively reduced in the last decade. CFS’s functions are limited to policing. As a unique case in Italy, it is worth mentioning that in Veneto there is an association of public owners i.e. Municipalities (Associazione Forestale Veneto Orientale), active in managing some relict forests and some newly created plantations on the plain. In Veneto, the organization and power of stakeholders’ groups is quite similar to the one described at national level. However, ancient or re-constituted Common Properties in mountainous areas (Regole or Magnifiche Comunità) are region-specific actors who play a significant role in promoting socio-economic development and shaping landscape at local level, guaranteeing local residents rights on forest management, pasture and other land uses. Many of them have internal rules securing local residents participation in decision-making about forest resources, while totally excluding other stakeholders. These actors coexist with individual owners and Municipalities, thus increasing the complexity of and potential conflicts among regional networks. Finally, despite the relatively limited number of forest sector enterprises, Veneto has a strategic position in the wood and furniture market. The average number of employees per enterprise in the sector is 6.4 (higher with respect to 2.8, i.e. the average number of employees/enterprise calculated for all economic sectors at regional level) (ISTAT, 2011). Veneto Region has not only participated in PEFC-Italy from the very beginning as a co-founder, but it also launched a group for regional certification (PEFC-Veneto, supporting with public funds the certification and surveillance of more than 73,000 ha of forests among municipal-, private- and commonly-owned). Veneto Region has also tried to promote other innovative tools to support the provision of ecosystem services.24 In terms of governance, in our study Veneto represents the model of fragmentation. With decentralization, forest tasks have been split among five different administrative units, under the responsibility of various other sectors, no longer with a single coordination unit at

24 By launching the Carbonmark initiative, to allow local industrial companies to offset their emissions by buying carbon credits generated by saving part of the annual increments in regional forests or improving forest cover density of degraded forests. In 2012 the first credits were sold by three Municipalities committed to improve their forest management for this goal.

89

regional level. Traditional public authorities (Regional Forest Services) tried to maintain their control over forest management by creating and keeping under direct control innovative market-based instruments like PEFC forest certification (see Box 1). According to the direct survey, Forest Services at both Regional (since they are entrusted with the (technical) decision-making authority) and State level (control of law compliance by harvesting companies) have been reported as the most powerful forest stakeholders in the Region. Other intermediate institutional organizational actors, traditionally in charge of integrated management of rural territories at local level (e.g. Provinces and Mountain Communities, Comunità Montane, i.e. aggregations of local municipalities in mountainous areas) are disappearing and/or losing their forest management prerogatives and therefore their power in influencing decisions as a consequence of profound re-arrangements due to the spending review. As clearly emerges from the interviews, autonomy/freedom of forest owners and forest managers to make decisions on forest management practices is negligible, also as a consequence of the rigid framework of regulations and prescriptions (e.g. on harvesting rates) that are very much oriented towards biodiversity and forest stock conservation. Regional “bureaucrats” (i.e. those who have the responsibility of implementing EU policies and programming RDP funds allocation) are perceived as responsible for this situation, being also unable to implement in practice “environmental subsidiarity”. However, when developing/reforming policy and laws, regional policy-makers are perceived to be disconnected from the real situation of forestry and its working conditions, and forestry is not sufficiently recognized as a productive asset. Hunters, who have links with the local political representatives, are reported as powerful actors: despite being a minority and decreasing group in the Region with respect to the whole population, they are able to successfully lobby for their interests. Another powerful actor is the regional public agency responsible for rural development payments (AVEPA). Fluid (and often informal) exchange of personal contacts link different groups and regulate their mutual relationships. No evident conflicts have been reported, except for some isolated cases. However, they seem to be latent. In fact, according to interviews (Appendix 125 ), relevant political factors that are limiting the development of the forestry sector in the Region include: problems in working together overcoming ancient rivalry and mistrust of the public administration, lack of shared ideas and goals for forest management, unbalanced focus on tourism development in mountain areas among public forest owners (Municipalities), absence of a participatory board on forestry and environmental sector, continuous institutional changes and reforms.26 Among social factors, low capacity to understand new initiatives and implement them with enthusiasm, attachment to the status quo and low inclination to changes are reported. 4.2. Molise region The Molise Region covers an area of 443,800 ha, of which 157,609 are forested (35.5%). Resident population is about 315,000 (2011). The forest sector represents 0.9% in terms of number of

25 More detailed information on political, economic, ecological and social factors that are perceived as limiting factors for the development of forestry in each Region as extracted from the interviews is reported in the Additional Material to this article (Appendix 1). 26 E.g. The current transition from the so-called Mountain Communities, public administrations formed by groups of Municipalities created for joint management of several services, including landscape and forest management in mountainous areas, to the new one called Mountain Unions, as a consequence of the spending review.

90

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

enterprises (with respect to the total number at regional level) and 1.5% in terms of employees; its forestry and logging component accounts for 26%, but the absolute numbers of both enterprises and employees are very low (see Table 1). The administrative organization is based on a central Regional Department. However, Molise has not implemented any regional operative structure in charge of superintending forest operations and enforcing forest policies within the regional territory. Mountain Communities are under a process of transformation into Unions of Mountainous Municipalities, without political representativeness. A regional technical agency for the development of the primary sector does exist, but it has very limited operational capacity in the forest sector. Functions delegated with bi-lateral agreement from the Region to the State Forest Service are therefore still quite broad and diversified. Municipalities own most of the public forests, while regional public properties do not exist. Private forests are fragmented and the woodlots represent a small component of the farmland. The forest sector has a very minor role in the policy debate being a minor component of the rural development policy discussion. Also in terms of number of enterprises its role is very limited and the forestry and logging component, likely to generate lower added value than the other components of the sector, prevails. The average number of employees/forest sector enterprise is 2.2, slightly higher than that calculated for all economic sectors at regional level (i.e. 1.4 employee/enterprise) (ISTAT, 2011). Forests are mainly managed for firewood production, with very limited role in value added creation. However, due to relatively underdeveloped farming, the relative role of forest production is higher than in other regions, reaching 6% of the regional added value of the primary sector. The traditional system of use rights on public forests for firewood harvesting by the local residents is quite consolidated and still active. The representatives of forest owners and harvesting companies have no system of formal representation of their interests at regional level, and thus they do not play any role (e.g. “No, forest owners do not have any influence in the sector: an influential organisation [a lobby] is missing, as votes are missing” – interviewed forest owner). The activity of NGOs is quite limited.27 Nevertheless, interviewees have indicated environmental associations and organizations such as Legambiente and WWF Italy as able to influence local management plans, particularly within nature reserves. The University of Molise, with its BSc and MSc programmes in reforestation science, is a positive engine for training highly educated professionals and for supporting innovation in the sector. Truffle-pickers have been mentioned as an “influencing lobby”. In fact, picking truffles in public forests may be very lucrative and it is practised by several local people, sometimes indirectly fostering the local economy (e.g. restaurants) or supplying the informal economy (i.e. black market). Thus, usual pickers are inclined to oppose to any forest management operation that could impede gathering activities. Hunting associations have also been indicated as influencing actors, since they have links, contacts and representatives within the political arena. Interestingly, the previously mentioned agency for the development of the primary sector has not been quoted as a powerful actor, although it is partially responsible for public regional expenditures in agriculture and forestry matters. Forest certification was not developed at regional level. In Molise, certified forests do not exist (only few wood/paper processors or traders are certified). Several hectares of Short Rotation Forestry and forest plantations were established in the region due

27

One of the few exceptions being Molise Alberi – www.molisealberi.com, involved in environmental education and forest inventories.

to the promising introduction of new clones resistant to summer drought and pest attacks (Di Matteo et al., 2012). In our study, Molise represents the missed decentralized model, i.e. the Region has had the tasks transferred but, not giving political priority to the forest sector, has left most of the executive responsibilities in policy-making to the central State Forest Service. Interviewees unanimously suggested that the regional forest sector is marginal and lacking dynamism and vitality to such an extent that the identification of a most powerful actor is almost impossible (e.g. “The regional policy is not organized and weak”; “There are sporadic and not coordinated interventions”; “The policy is too static and myopic, a common direction is missing” – an interviewed local association of mushroom pickers and a municipality staff). It is worth recalling here that regional strategic forestry plans and strategic territorial policy documents somehow mirror this administrative “evanescence”. In fact, almost all interviewed stakeholders stressed that such documents are neither based on precise quantitative features, nor specify pragmatic criteria to be followed in order to reach and/or implement specified targets and objectives. Stakeholders often perceive forest policy documents as “hybrids” between generic guidelines and detailed declarations of intent. Furthermore, management plans for public forests are not compulsory, and their drawing up is left to the willingness of each individual public organization (Table 2). Forest managers, owners and stakeholders feel they are entrusted even with too much “freedom”, because: i) law requirements are generic and more similar to declarations of intent than aimed to depict particular silvicultural paradigms and/or operative guidelines; ii) controls are infrequent; iii) lack of coordination between different public bodies and even between public entities and private resources. Curiously, some private forest stakeholders even said they “would have desired some contrasts or debates with public managers” (!), because it would have been proof that the regional administration actually cares about forests and forest sectors. On the contrary, stakeholders described a frustrating situation where a political indifference prevails, even when they pro-actively propose forest-related actions to public authorities. The most important political factors impeding the development of forestry mentioned by interviewees include the poor awareness of realities/problems on the local level, and the small size of the municipalities involved is undoubtedly a serious limit to implementing strategies on the landscape level. Among social factors, the continuous depopulation trend emerges as the most important (Appendix 1). 4.3. Sicily region Sicily Region covers an area of approximately 2.5 M hectares and, according to the forest national inventory, 520,000 (21%) are forested. Resident population is about 5 M. The forest sector represents 0.8% both in terms of number of enterprises (with respect to the total number at regional level) and employees; forestry and logging component accounts for only 3% (Table 1). Sicily is an autonomous Region28 with a long-lasting experience of managing the forestry sector in full autonomy. The administrative structure is based on a Regional Department organized in 4 units, one dealing with forests. Up until the recent past a separate Regional Agency managed the regional forestland. In fact, there have been several reorganizations of the regional offices and the resulting remodelling of the subordinated administrative structures (departments and services) during the last decades (the last

28 This means that it benefits from greater freedom in designing and financing institutional mechanisms, actions and programmes than other Italian Regions, provided with “ordinary statues”, are usually allowed.

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

one in 2013). Nowadays, this organization is fully integrated in a Department responsible for rural development. However, a second macro-structure has to be mentioned as having a relevant role to forestry, i.e. the Regional Forestry Service within the Department for the Territory and the Environment, with duties of surveillance and control on forest and mountain territory, natural resources and protected areas, as well as the local operating structure responsible for fire control. As in other Regions, there is a regional technical agency for assistance in the primary sector with very few activities carried out in the forest sector. In this Region, Mountain Communities have been totally abolished as well as Provinces, while 35 Unions have been created on a voluntary basis among Municipalities, some of them with duties related to protected forest areas management. Sicily being an autonomous region, the State Forest Service (CFS) has no functions. The public sector in Sicily has an overwhelming role in terms of forestland ownership, employment creation and therefore political representativeness of the sector. Although unique and reliable figures are not available, it is estimated that with approximately 30–35,000 forest workers (with a large component of seasonal employees) the forestry sector represents the main source of employment in the region. Forest workers are employed by regional and local public administrations for carrying out seasonal work (plantations, infrastructure maintenance and forest amelioration works, fire prevention and fighting), with very limited impacts on short-term value creation. As a matter of fact, there have been many criticisms about this form of public spending, considered more as a welfare measure to reduce unemployment in rural areas (and to raise political consensus for local politicians) than an effective tool for local development. Besides the enormous financial commitment sustained annually by the Region for the payment of its workers’ salaries, it should be stressed that the workforce is ageing, suffers from unequal gender balance, and those with advanced training in forest management techniques are a minority. Almost every interviewee, and even the regional officers, admitted that this approach was the most relevant barrier for the development of forest sector in the region, because forestry was bound to perverse political motivations rather than market-driven approaches (“It’s a matter of votes”; “Ineffectiveness is a political fact: action is revolution”; “only if politics change, might there be changes in the forest management as well as products and services” – interviewed staff members of regional Forest Service). It is therefore not so strange that this issue monopolized almost every interviewees’ answers. Most interviewees agreed that political nepotism constitutes the main (impeding) factor influencing most of the forest-related dynamics, even private initiatives (“The mafia does not tolerate the initiating of a [virtuous] political mechanism and/or private investment” – an interviewed nature guide). Forest sector enterprises are small (on average, 1.6 employees/enterprise, which is in line with the number of employees/all sectors enterprise calculated at regional level) (ISTAT, 2011). With strong and powerful public institutions and no role played by market mechanisms in financial and human resources allocation, a common problem in the implementation of forest policies is related to the coordination of public institutions. Conflicts among Municipalities, protected areas authorities, and Regional Departments are very common. The major role of public spending in activating forest investments and ordinary works is raising problems of corruption and illegality. In our study, Sicily represents the neo-centralism model, i.e. traditional forest administrative units, which have consolidated a strong power and a hierarchical approach, as it was previously with the State authorities. However, according to interviewees, the regional system has remained ineffective and inefficient. Sicily is the only Italian Region without a regional forest law for regulating the sec-

91

tor. Provincial territories therefore have to follow obsolete and poor general provisions. Planning obligations, also by public owners, have been widely overlooked. From an operational point of view, the Regional administration fully superintends almost all forest management activities, insomuch that both private and public (Municipalities) forest owners can stipulate formal agreements with the Region, delegating the management of their own lands. This frequently happens particularly for Municipalities, sometimes even de facto (i.e. this is done without any formal agreement established with the Region). Some interviewed stakeholders suggested that a certain degree of cooperation can be pursued and achieved with the Region. The need for employing seasonal forest workers can represent a “stimulus” for strengthening the relationship between different public administrations. Among social and political factors that obstruct the development of the forest sector in Sicily, interviewees report: diffidence of forest operators towards regulatory and technical innovations, opposition of forest worker unions to the closure of guaranteed contracts and the entrusting of forestry activities to third parties; the public bodies will find it difficult to justify entrusting forestry activities to third parties, due to having a high number of staff on their books covering all the functional positions (Appendix 1).

5. Discussion 5.1. On delegation of power and resources from central state to local governments The previously described defective delegation of power and resources to lower levels of government in the Italian policy regime has determined a number of negative consequences. The first one is that the Regional authorities, with their dispersed and not coordinated policies, are unable to organize and finance their own offices for international affairs; they are not informed about the work of foreign institutions, or about the instruments and commitments developed at international level; they not only “act locally”, they also “think locally” instead of globally. The lack of vertical and horizontal integration and coordination, emphasized by the long-lasting conflict between State and Regions, after the crucial decades of the ‘80s and ‘90s, has led de facto to a country without an international agenda, and to local forest authorities with too few capacities and resources to directly deal with main global concerns (e.g. IPCC, CBD, UNFF). This is in line with the statement by Blaser et al. (2005:2), that “poor decentralization processes fault in linking sustainability objectives at the local level with broad global goals”, while achieving global goals concerning “forest management and human well-being requires greater institutional capacity at both national and sub-national levels”. The situation has been exacerbated by the fragmentation of forest responsibilities, internal (unsolved) conflicts among Ministries (Table 1) and the recent spending review.29 As observed by Rojas-Briales (2005:184), “the centralized structure of the CFS may collide with the strong degree of decentralization achieved in Italy”. For 40 years the setting of a new balance of powers between Regions and State as well as the maintenance of a central, powerful position by the State Forest Service (CFS) have absorbed almost all the interests and energy of public institutions. Now, the role of the State and its presence in the international arena are inadequate; the State is neither prepared

29 Due to the effects of the economic crisis started in 2008 and the traditional high public debt, the Italian government has implemented a public spending review with major cuts in the State budgets and in the transfer to the Regional administrations and local authorities.

92

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

nor motivated to create links between international initiatives and regional or local actions. In the meanwhile, Regional authorities that invested in the past in the recruitment of forest professionals for their new offices, have been asked to cut their costs, with the blocking of the turn-over of forest officials for some years and the dismantling of the small local administrative units, with a lowering of the quality of their services, and without being able to develop more flexible adaptive structures (Rojas-Briales, 2005). The drivers of this situation include the lack of delegation of resources and the lack of delegation of decision-making power on resources allocation, the general problem being a conflict over time over the division of authority and balance between the various administrative levels (Blaser et al., 2005; Sasu, 2005). On the one hand, these lacks might be an indicator of the unwillingness of central government agencies to relinquish full authority to the local governments (Blaser et al., 2005; Sasu, 2005). On the other, decentralized administrations, i.e. local governments, have had no leverage to influence national decisions about resources and more recently have been even more weakened by the State’s spending review. Budget cuts have also had strong impacts on other previously existing public administration structures: both Mountain Communities and Provinces have been abolished; forest associations among Municipalities and Regional agencies providing advisory services to farm and forest managers have been reformed, in some cases they have been abolished and the officers transferred to other offices with administrative functions. The most affected components of the public administration have been those more close-to-the-field activities (Fig. 2), with more relevant roles at very local level. In the meanwhile, however, the forest legal framework has not changed, it has remained rigid and not adapted to modern demands (Corrado and Merlo, 1999; Venzi, 2008; Vidale et al., 2012). The Italian case shows how “shortcomings of devolution can generate legal insecurity and inefficient overlapping, if the institutional changes are not followed by a legal reform” (Rojas-Briales, 2005:375). As a consequence, public administration has exacerbated its bureaucratic role, while the physical and psychological distance between land managers and public authority has increased, thus not facilitating the implementation of the subsidiarity principle. Whether the abolishing of these local structures, and the related reduction of local services, is one phase of the “historical oscillation regarding preferred levels of decentralization”, reported in the literature as one of the recurrent problems for decentralization (Blaser and Robledo, 2007), has to be further explored. Budget cuts are also expected to have major effects on forestry and forest authorities because of the contemporary reduction of Rural Development Programme funds. Funds allocated to Forest Measures for the period 2014–2020 are reduced with respect to the previous one: while in 2007–2014 RDP they represented 14.3% of the total funds, in 2014–2020 they account for only 8.0% (Colanzi and Sidorini, 2016). This reduction is due to the fact that Regional administrations have not been able to fulfil their spending potentials: they spent only 70.5% of the total available funds (2.4 MD ) (Romano, 2015). This can partly be a consequence of the highly fragmented administrative structure: the management of 21 separate Rural Development Programmes, with different sets of Forest Measures, has caused significant problems of information of the potential beneficiaries and high transaction costs by the administration, exacerbated by limited interactions and coordination among Regions in exchanging lessons learned and ideas for possible common solutions.

5.2. On the involvement and empowerment of local community in decision-making and forest management responsibility According to our observations, both in Veneto and Sicily the regional administrative structures are still considered the main relevant and most powerful actors in forestry, able to strongly influence overarching approaches and forest policy dynamics. This is in line with much of the literature dealing with participatory approaches and the (un)changed role of public authorities in forest policy (e.g. Ruppert-Winkel and Winkel, 2009). However, in all the Regions, there is a clear lack of meso-level organizations able and properly qualified to support already weak and not associated private forest owners in managing their forest land at landscape level, in dealing with the international business environment, introducing social innovation, promoting a higher degree of participation, reinforcing and/or creating new networks, finding new solutions to gain value to forest products and ecosystem services. Forest certification (Box 1), one of the most advanced and nowadays consolidated mechanisms for promoting new forms of governance, and a possible Trojan horse for more participatoryoriented processes in the country (Secco and Pettenella, 2006), has not been used in an effective way for this purpose, remaining under the control of the regional public authority in Veneto and not stimulating any special initiative in Molise and Sicily. The progressive bureaucratization of the sector (Section 6.1) has increased the gap between the new social challenges expressed by society and forest stakeholders and the vision and action of policy-makers. In Molise, interviewees commonly mentioned the figurative “distance” that separate politics from the forest sector, explained by the fact that “trees don’t vote”. All the above-mentioned factors contribute to a defective involvement of local stakeholders (especially private owners, who are even under-represented or not represented at all – Section 3) in decision-making. An alternative model of development, based on delegation of forest management responsibilities to civil society, private entrepreneurship, bottom-up and network-based private initiatives, in coherence with the principle of horizontal (i.e. social) subsidiarity introduced by the reform of the Italian Constitution in 2001 (art. 118 c. 4),30 is far from being fulfilled in practice. As found elsewhere (Andersson, 2006: 33), “successful outcomes within a decentralized governance regime [. . .] rest to a significant extent on the institutional conditions for exploration and learning among the local actors”. However, it should also be remembered that public authorities are only co-responsible, together with other forest stakeholders, for the decentralization failure in the country. On the one hand, State and Regional authorities are undoubtedly required to still maintain relevant roles in forest management and policy-making (e.g. for guaranteeing the provision of ecosystem services of public interest). The gap between private (i.e. market) revenues and social value of environmental services implies a larger and deeper direct involvement of public bodies as a substitute for stagnant private initiatives. As found in other cases, possible risks (for example to biodiversity and resource conservation) “exist unless some important functions remain in the hands of the State” (Sayer et al., 2005: 5) and “many threats are posed to forests by decentralization as implemented to date” (Malysheva, 2005). On the other, in several cases, private actors are neither “perceiving themselves as possible representatives of forestry interests” nor having enough skills, capacities, power to influence decisions, shared goals, etc. (Table 1). In other words, they are not empowered

30 “The State, Regions, Metropolitan Cities, Provinces and Municipalities favour the autonomous initiative of citizens, either single or associated, to pursue activities of general interest on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity”.

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

93

Fig. 2. Institutional organizations connected with forest resource management at various administrative levels under reforms in Italy. Source: own elaboration.

enough to become pro-actively engaged, and this is another recurrent difficulty in decentralization processes (Blaser et al., 2005). Moreover, the forest sector share on the national GDP is less than 0.1% and its added value is declining; as described, it is multi-fragmented and shaded by many other sectors (where specialized competencies are often lacking). In cross-sectoral issues, the dispersed and extremely weak “forest political presence in federally-structured countries’, like Italy, “shows an inability to guarantee that forest interests are adequately represented where they overlap with others’ (Rojas-Briales, 2005: 377). It shouldn’t be a surprise that stakeholders representing this sector are extremely weak, without national-wide visibility and lobbying power close to zero, and that attention given to forestry by both politicians and the general public is very limited. Options for large local communities involvement in forest management and forest protection, such as those in Scotland (Ritchie and Haggith, 2005) or the UK (Ambrose-Oji et al., 2014) are unlikely to be foreseen in Italy in the near future. 5.3. A final overview and possible future improvements With our study, it is impossible to clearly identify cause-effect links between different decentralization failures, regional models and consequences in terms of vitality of the sector, level of forest planning and forest resources protection in general. Other factors, such as socio-demographic and economic conditions, which are definitely different in the three Italian macro-regions (North, Centre and South), have relevant effects too, that have not been isolated (and couldn’t be in our study) from effects of institutional and political factors. Moreover, some methodological limitations have to be mentioned, namely the fact that the interviewed stakeholders might not be fully representative of all the interests and experiences of actors in forest sector at national and/or regional level, that only three out of 21 Regions have been explored and that the documents and interviewees’ texts have not been screened by specific text analysis software. Results and conclusions are likely to be influenced by these limitations, as only the largely dominant

negative discourses and opinions have emerged clearly from the analysis, while positive opinions and experiences are less evident and might have been under-represented. Undoubtedly, further research on long-term policy impacts is needed – perhaps based on a logical-scientific approach and/or on more representative samples – to provide empirical evidence of eventual interconnections between decentralization and governance failures and state of forest resources. However, by choosing a narrative approach combined with the case-study method and, thus, by telling ‘the whole story’ of three different Italian regions, and by using the snowball technique to identify stakeholders to be interviewed, we think we have provided remarkably detailed insights into the current situation in the Italian forest governance in general and the issues of decentralization in particular, and to have made the most advanced attempt so far to analyse these issues in the country. Despite the overall critical situation and apparently negative contexts at both national and local level that emerge from our analysis on the two main components of decentralization (Table 4), some positive insights can also be mentioned. fragmented The Rural Development Programme 2014–2020 has introduced specific Measures (namely, Measures 16 and 19) for networks creation, public-partnership promotion and local development strategies based on cooperation between public and private. A recent national Law (D.Lgs. 5/2009) has introduced a new, very flexible form of contractual agreement (the so-called “network contract”) that promotes the creation of innovative forms of collaboration among entrepreneurs. Forestry actors can also apply these policy tools, not just farmers or industrial companies. Among the first examples of network contract is a contractual agreement among actors operating in the wild mushroom market in Veneto. Some other bottom up initiatives, like the first association of forest owners of the plain areas created in Veneto, associations of truffles pickers in Molise, NGOs involved in environmental education and nature tourism in Sicily, “forest therapy” activities promoted in different contexts for social inclusion of handicapped people, are all signs that civil society has creativity and there is room for innova-

94

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

Table 4 Main decentralization failures and forest governance-related problems in the 3 selected case-studies in Italy. Veneto

Molise

Sicily

Model

• Fragmentation system: forest competences split among many regional departments (thus weakening the forest sector at regional level).

• Missed decentralized system: forest policy implementation responsibilities given back to the State.

• Neo-centralized system: traditional dominant strong role of public forest administration maintained (at regional level).

Main decentralization failures

• Lack of a common and coordinated vision and practice at regional level. • Lack of delegation of resources and decision-making power to local governments.

• Lack of capacity (and willingness) of local governments to assume a role in promoting forest resources management, mainly due to a problem of scale (a very small region, with 313,000 inhabitants in 2015).

• No involvement of local authorities and civil society: forestry sector maintained under the full control of the public actors, even if at regional level rather than national.

Main governance issues

• Resistance to changes, conservative approach by regional policy-makers associated to a perceived minor relevance of the sector. • Lack of sub-regional (meso-level) organizations able to support the involvement of non-public forest stakeholders.

• Predominant indifference of policy-makers towards the sector. • Poor and limited forest resources with limited room for private sector initiatives. • Too small territory, a few number of (potential) stakeholders/actors.

• Large public spending for forest workers with minor impacts on the use of forest resources. • Willingness of local politicians to maintain their political power by exchanging votes for employment opportunities. • No active role of civil society in forest management.

Source: own elaboration.

tion in the forestry sector, also in areas with serious problems of depopulation, low incomes and social marginality. It is clear that Italy is experiencing several of the recurrent problems highlighted for decentralization in other countries, including difficulties in creating the conditions for more network-based governance initiatives with the involvement of local community and civil society. These problems have been exacerbated by the financial and political crisis of the last years, and the consequent need to reduce public spending in the sector. Italy has one of the largest public debts in the world, and the forestry sector is not considered to play a priority function in maintaining an active role of the State. While investments should have been made to structure and support the new decentralized investments, and to drive the engagement of the higher level of governance (Rojas-Briales, 2005), local institutions have been asked to progressively cut their budgets and reduce their activities. However, in the meanwhile, no serious attempts have been made to put in place alternative mechanisms to promote private-public network-based governance systems and the old “command and control” top-down hierarchical style is still predominant. However, it can be a matter of time span, as the decentralization process has lasted for “only” 40 years. In Switzerland, decentralization started more than 150 years ago. During the first decades, the country experienced problems very similar to those that newly decentralized countries are reporting (Küchli and Blaser, 2005). There are encouraging signs. Nowadays, the problems connected with high fragmentation and the lack of a central public body accountable for forestry are more clearly perceived in the national forestry environment. In a non-scientific survey carried out among forest stakeholders in 2015,31 the creation or identifica-

31 The survey was conducted in May 2015 by one of the most important technical Journals in the country, Sherwood – Compagnia delle Foreste, on a non-representative sample of forest stakeholders. During a national event organized to celebrate the 20 years of the Journal, approximately 120 participants were asked to select, among three pre-defined, their priority for trying to improve the Italian forest policy. About

tion of a unique, single administrative body (e.g. one single Ministry or Directorate) able to coordinate all the actions of those with responsibilities for forest and forest legislation has been reported as the first goal to be pursued for improving the effectiveness of forest policy in Italy (Mori, 2015). Such a proposal has been considered by the Government and, in the decree approved on 28th July 2016, the dismantling of the State Forest Service and the political willingness to create a Forest Department/Directorate within the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forest Policies became official. So, 40 years after the start of the decentralization process, Italy has begun to re-consider a more balanced relationship between central authorities and Regions. Moreover, in mid-April 2015, the deputy Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forest Policies was formally appointed as responsible for the forestry sector policy (never previously mentioned among the competences of the Minister and his Vice-Ministers). Although they are too recent for their effectiveness to be evaluated and some risks still exist of perpetuating an old, “command-and-control” based approach to forest policy,32 these initiatives display promising changes in the future trends of Italian forest governance.

60 provided their preference: 44% selected as main priority the creation of a single, unique public entity for coordinating all the actions at various levels; 34% the need for more representativeness of forest interests at national level and more representation of national interests at international level; and 22% the need for more accurate and comprehensive, regularly updated data about the sector (Editoriale Sherwood 211). 32 With the July 2016 reform, most of the competences and staff of the State Forest Service have been transferred to a new unit devoted to forest and environmental protection of the Carabinieri, a special national military police corps. In this way, the State authority has reinforced a command-and-control based approach to forest policy that prevailed in the past, with forests mainly considered as land resources to be passively protected against illegal practices, rather than mobilized within a rural development strategy.

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

6. Conclusions In all the three explored case studies problems and failures of decentralization, which affect forest sector and limit potential for promoting network governance, can be identified. On the one hand, in Molise there is a problem of scale i.e. too small territorial dimension of the region for implementing an effective decentralization assuming those functions that normally are under the State responsibilities (e.g. connections with the international debate and decisions, inter-sectoral strategic planning, etc.) and motivating local networks of stakeholders and policy makers to be active. In Sicily, the main obstacles seem connected with the local political system and nepotism-based relationships between forestry workers and local politicians, together with a strong neocentralized power where no room is left for those who are not public and institutional actors. Both in Molise and Sicily, forest cover is rapidly increasing (+16.6% and +13.2% respectively in the period 2005–2015) and the level of forest planning very low (16.3% and 0% respectively), but this can be interpreted more as the result of the abandonment of marginal farming areas than the outcome of a deliberative policy. On the other hand, Veneto region shows fewer limitations and some encouraging signs in terms of more chances of private stakeholders’ interests and involvement with respect to Molise and Sicily. Here, the forest cover has also increased (+4.7% in 2005–2015), even if more slightly, while the extent of planned forest area is a bit higher (31% of forest with a forest management plan in 2005). Even if we cannot directly link decentralization failures and lack of network governance alternative models to the abandonment of forest management, we can presume that they are likely co-responsible factors for the increasing reduction of active land management and therefore of expansion of forest cover. In

95

fact, having more dynamic local forest organizations and diversified sets of stakeholders, together with more capable and pro-active public forest administrations, would create more favourable conditions for maintaining an interest towards forest resources, which is fundamental to their protection. As a matter of fact, decentralization of forest functions in Italy has so far not been able to create the institutional pre-conditions for maintaining an active and proper management of forest resources in the country, wherever and whatever the regional model for its implementation has been designed and applied. The current financial crises and the mistakes accumulated in the past have exacerbated the problem, with the public forest administrations progressively losing functions, power and resources at both national and regional level, and the private actors not correspondingly improving their capacity and influence and/or more integrated public-private investments in the sector. However, Italy is a forest-rich country, with high potential of provision of ecosystem services and forest products. In the interest of the whole sector, forest stakeholders and public administrations at regional level should collaborate in order to enhance awareness on the potential strategic relevance of the forest sector in Italy. The final, overall goal should be to invert the tendency of Italian forest sector abandonment as well as the progressive reduction of its added value, so that the provisioning of key ecosystem services from forests will still be guaranteed in future years. Policy makers and other forest actors will have to face the challenge of revitalizing the sector through innovative solutions, ideas and organizational reforms. Luckily, there are some encouraging, even if still fragmented, signs in this direction and past mistakes may in the end result as being the effective drivers of new and more advanced governance systems.

Appendix 1. Political, Economic, Social and Ecological factors limiting the development of forestry sector in the three selected Regions

96

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

Veneto Political factors - Other and different interests of regional and local politics (e.g. “Regole dell’Altopiano” institution) could obstruct the aim to promote the wood from this district; - Fears that timber promotion for energy purposes by politics would not be in step with the aim of its efficient promotion (cascade use); - Doubts about politics capacity to prepare a new law about fauna heritage management in a reasonable time; - Problems in working together overcoming ancient mistrust (local rivalry), doubts about administration willingness to work together; - Municipalities do not share the same ideas about how to manage forests, environment and tourism in the area - there is no participatory board for forestry and environmental sector; - Laws constantly changing; - Problems related to administration transition from Mountain Community to Mountain Union.

Economic factors - Forest management criteria aimed at sustainable and non-intensive forest management; - The main obstacle for environmental promotion is the future economic uncertainty; - Difficulties in coordinating different administration employees; - No training; - Uncertainty of “Turcio” plant future; - Difficulties in creating a market for goods and services coming from the forest; - The market of authorizations based on picking time had a slow application and is still misunderstood and accepted by forest users. Law adoption has not followed participatory processes, except for amounts picked and exam (immediately revoked) to obtain a permit. More communication between management bodies and pickers could advantage both parties: one could benefit from more efficient supervision and services, while pickers could better understand mechanism unity if picking chances increase. The same applies to all picking authorizations. - Need for initial investments in technologies and machines; - Every timber company acts on the market as a single subject, without creating its commercial offer together with other companies. Collaboration is lacking, especially now that there is an economic and social crisis; - Decrease of farming, reduction of farm employment; - Use of some certifications that do not provide added value but increase production costs, e.g. the so-called “Deco” (municipality certifications). On the contrary, positive certifications are DOP, IGP, IGT, Organic, EMAS and territorial ones. These certifications create big added value because they mostly identify the product and production area. The strength of these certifications lies in European acknowledgement.

Social factors 1- Fears that the forest could be destroyed create resistance in tourists towards a bigger use of forests. This depends on the poor knowledge locals have of the forest applied management criteria; - Progressive aging and progressive decrease of native population could lead, in the long term, to an “emotional” detachment from nature; - Low capacity to understand new initiatives and carry them out with enthusiasm; Attachment to status quo. Low inclination to change; Possible conflict between different users of the same resources: too much pressure on resources could create conflict between local populations that often have the right to civic use; - Problems in creating a network of tourist services - problems in creating a unique strategic management; - Recession and unemployment increase will prevent tourists from spending money they do not have. Public administrations, lacking budget (because of less public funding from the government), should receive specific new funds to pay for these “new” services, because the few remaining resources could not be used to finance these activities.

Ecological factors - Increase of forest surface in place of meadows and pastures; - Fears that an increased use of timber could cause an increased use of old or dead trees, which represent important habitats, or that natural reserves for limited use will not be created; - Fears that an increase in cuts could cause a depletion of soil, due to nutrients loss; - Fears that an increased use of wood from protective forests could compromise protective functions; - Increase in cutting and deforestation methods with tools highly impacting the environment; - Exploitation of forests by public and private owners only to collect wood, without taking into account all the other resources a forest could offer; - Constant danger to forests from parasites and adverse weather conditions; - Risk of forest “clearance” according to aesthetic criteria; - Inclination to non-differentiation of areas of intervention; - Insufficient dialogue among subjects operating in the forest; - Locally, presence of NTFP pickers could disturb fauna, especially during breeding (e.g. mushroom picking during spring-summer for grouse, herb picking in May for roe deer fawns, soil compaction by pickers walking etc.); While the act of picking mushrooms does not affect new productions, but instead makes it easier, the same cannot be said for herbs. Among all non-timber forest products, herbs and smaller animal picking (e.g. snails) could be a threat to species’ survival. - Conflicts in the application of Natura 2000 norms; - Poor culture, awareness, information and training among population and tourists. A common “green culture” could not be created and these themes were not communicated appropriately; - Pine growth, in place of mountain meadows and pastures; - Leaving agriculture and farming in marginal areas can cause environmental instability and imbalance; - Difficult co-existence of mountain livestock with big carnivores (bear, wolf)

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

Molise Political factors - Local organization budget problems, state allocation cuts; - Difficulty in overcoming the “parochial” mentality; - Not focusing on mitigating climate change, increase in biodiversity or hydro-geological safety, or renewable energy, the area project will not be greatly supported by international, European or national politics; - Slow standard and regulation approval (bureaucratization); - Poor awareness of the realities/problems on the local level. - The small size of the municipalities involved is undoubtedly a serious limit to implementing strategies on the landscape level

Economic factors - Increasing co-funding problems by local organization (e.g. VAT rate); - Scarce ordinary fund distribution by the Region; - Minimum infrastructure management problems for rural tourism: difficult access to non-ordinary funding by the private sector - Lack of direct investments in the trekking sector and path maintenance

Social factors - The greatest limitations could be tied to the actual integration of social components in territorial governance. The risk is that forest property fragmentation, the strong role of public administrations in management and abandonment of traditional activities could limit the application of the hypothesized strategies. This would create an offset in the set of services offered, with a benefit for biodiversity protection (compared to the current conditions) and a high reduction in services with strong economic impact (wood and non-wood forest products). - The biggest hindrance is the area’s demographics, characterized by continuous, albeit slow, human depopulation, the necessary basis for social-economic growth in any territory. Official demographic data indicate two main aspects that drive depopulation: the incessant depopulation and progressive ageing of the resident population. Depopulation is the result of a process that began in the past, partly dependant on the emigration phenomenon, to which Alto Molise was, and is still subject, due to both morphology characteristics and poor employment possibilities. The phenomenon has reached worrisome levels after the increase in industrialization and tertiary development. Following these processes, in fact, a migratory flow impoverished the active population classes, significantly reducing production activities and fuelling the ageing process. The obvious consequence to the demographic drop and ageing population is the reduction of the active population. - Abandonment of pastoralism and “farming culture”; - Cultural limitations/resistance tied to the political sustainability approach mainly due to the area’s demographic layout (age, type of companies, level of education, localization, density, etc.); Constant depopulation trend (lack of human capital).

Ecological factors - (In the past) Years of abandonment and consequent growth of trees and bushes on former farmland, need for strong investments to recovery the “tratturi” and public areas intended for valley and mountain pastures. - (In the future) Excessive increase in forest cover, disappearance of pastures due to constant abandonment of farming activities and high fragmentation of landowners; - Biodiversity could diminish due to higher tourism and economic activities; - Land fertility and productivity reduction (especially forest land) mainly due to farming abandonment; - In some specific cases, the current forest fragmentation conditions may not permit the recovery of land vitality on the short term. This would create areas (albeit limited) with high functional reduction and procurement of ecosystem services (especially biodiversity conservation).

97

98

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

Sicily Political factors – Low sensitivity and awareness of the regional political class; – Low degree of trust in the institutions and their support possibility; – Low predisposition of politicians to work in synergy; – High degree of parochialism among the administrators of local bodies (Municipality, groups of Municipalities); – Lack of technical skills in the Park structures; – Lack of technical skills in the relevant Regional Departments; – Lack of interest and resources for the forest sector and lack of appropriate organization in terms of direction and institutional support; – Conflicting norms not in line with the needs; – Rooted policy of abstaining from acting; – Inertia in the activation of policies that would bring an immediate economic advantage; – Welfare policies; – Frequent turnover inside councils; – Unpopularity of some required urgently laws; – Resistance and cultural opposition by the population; – Energy policy: The use of public resources in support of the forest sector could clash with other interests of the Sicilian regional policy (e.g. infrastructural investments in other sectors, support of public healthcare welfare measures, etc.).

Economic factors – Inappropriate political commitment in promotion of the development process; – Lengthy bureaucratic procedures for interventions inside the protected area; – Lack of a structured wood market; – Need to create structured supply chains, insufficient “spot” structures; – Failure to put into action equipment for the recovery of wood product waste; – Lack of funds available for technological updates; – High initial investment costs for the purchase of state-of-the-art machinery; – Difficulty in obtaining construction wood; – Lack of a wood industry; – Inefficient promotion of local products by the territorial body; – Risk of fruitless investments, unless supported by appropriate supply chain contracts; – Suppliers trapped by oligopolistic demand; – Scarce spirit of association, individual and fragmented initiatives; – Competition in the biomass market, as far as offer, by the citrus market (pruning and exploitation); – Difficulty in creating the supply chains due to lack of a rational use of forest workforce, utilized based on social, rather than economic criteria.

Social factors – Non-widespread environmental education programme, almost exclusively directed to primary schools; – Traditional conservationists see the protected area as their “own” property, “taken over” by a Park that limits their personal interests; – The “generational detachment” forces a re-appropriation of trades and culture that is not always easy; – Reluctance of users to follow the rules; – Diffidence of forest operators towards regulatory and technical innovations; – Opposition of forest worker unions to the closure of guaranteed contracts and the entrusting of forestry activities to third parties; – The public managing bodies find it difficult to justify entrusting forestry activities to third parties, due to having a high number of staff on their books covering all the functional positions; – Public opinion against slvicultural activities, perceived as deforestation. – Tourism, recreational, and leisure activities: Development of competing unstructured tourism activities not taking the territory into account; – Lack of an integrated system for the use of the Park: few tourist welcoming and support structures; – Lack of dialogue between the players of the wood supply chain and the tourism sector; – Persistence of habits and reluctance to innovation.

Ecological Factors – Rooted “silvicultural tradition” scarcely inclined to change, supported by welfare policies, not in line with modernization policies; – Low training level; – Absence of specialist public or private support; – Integrating conceptions of habitat management; – Human disturbance due to low vigilance; – Excessive tourist pressure with disturbance of the balance of the habitats; – Lack of forest stabilization plans; – Lack of connection among the various types of territorial planning. – Biodiversity: Fear that a higher use of wood and the removal of trees will result in loss of habitats, impoverishment of the soil, jeopardising the protection function of the woodland.

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

References Abbott, A., 1990. Conceptions of time and events in social science methods: causal and narrative approaches. Hist. Methods 23, 140–150. Agrawal, A., Ribot, J., 1999. Accountability in decentralization: a framework with South Asian and West African cases. J. Dev. Areas 33 (4), 473–502. Ambrose-Oji, B., Lawrence, A., Stewart, A., 2014. Community based forest enterprises in Britain: two organising typologies. For. Policy Econ., http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.11.005. Andersson, K., 2006. Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2 (1), 25–35, http://ejournal.nbii.org. Available online, URL: http://www.snre.umich.edu/∼ifri/Publications/0507-010.andersson-R061-27. pdf. (Accessed 20 May 2015). Arts, B., van Tatenhove, J., 2006. Political modernisation. In: Arts, B., Leroy, P. (Eds), Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance. Environment & Policy, 47, 21–43. The disoriented state. Shifts in governmentality, territoriality and governance Arts, B., Lagendijk, A., vanHoutum, H. (Eds.), 2010. Environment & Policy, vol. 49. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., p. 2010. Arts, B., Behagel, J., Turnhout, E., de Konig, J., van Bommel, S., 2014. A practice based approach to forest governance. For. Policy Econ. 49, 4–11. Assocarta, 2016. Number of Members as Reported in the Institutional Web-Site of the National Association of Pulp and Paper Producers in Italy, Available online, URL: http://www.assocarta.it/en/company-members.html. (Accessed 10 September 2016). Berkes, F., 2010. Devolution of environment and resources governance: trends and future. Environ. Conserv. 37 (4), 489–500, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S037689291000072X. Blaser, J., Robledo, C., 2007. Initial Analysis on the Mitigation Potential in the Forestry Sector, Prepared for the UNFCCC Secretariat, 2007. Intercooperation, Bern, Available online URL: https://unfccc.int/files/cooperation and support/ financial mechanism/application/pdf/blaser.pdf (Accessed 28 November 2016). Blaser, J., Kuchli, C., Colfer, C.J.P., Capistrano, D., 2005. Introduction. In: Colfer, C.J.P., Capistrano, D. (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization: Forests, Power and People. Earthscan, London, pp. 1–9. Broekhoven, G., von Scheliha, S., Shannon, M., Savenije, H., 2012. Moving forward with forest governance. ETFRN News 53, 7–15. Brukas, V., 2015. New world, old ideas–a narrative of the lithuanian forestry transition. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 17 (4), 495–515, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 1523908X.2014.993023. Brun, F., Carbone, F., Cesaro, L., Ciccarese, L., Pettenella, D., Klöhn, S., Venzi, L., 2005. Italy. Forest sector entrepreneurship in Europe. Country studies. Cost E30 Economic integration of urban consumersö demand and rural forestry production. Acta Selvatica Lignarica Hung. 2, 383–436. Bruschini, S., 2008. Lauree forestali. Dove e come cresce il futuro del settore. Sherwood, 146. CFS, 2015. Stime preliminari basate sui risultati della sola fotointerpretazione di INFC2015 e sui risultati di INFC2005. Corpo Forestale dello Stato. Available online, URL: www.corpoforestale.it. (Accessed 12 April 2016). Carbone, F., Savelli, S., 2009. Forestry programmes and the contribution of the forestry research community to the Italy experience. For. Policy Econ. 11, 508–515. Cashore, B., 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: how Non-State Market-Driven (NSDM) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Govern. Int. J. Policy Adm. Inst. 15 (4), 503–529. Cesaro, L., Romano, R., Zumpano, C. ((a cura di), 2013. Foreste e politiche di sviluppo rurale. Analisi e approfondimenti sul post 2013. Osservatorio Politiche Strutturali, INEA Studi e Ricerche, Roma, p. 1300. Ciccarese, L., Pettenella, D., Pellegrino, P., 2014. A new principle of the European Union forest policy: the cascading use of wood products. L’Italia Forestale e Montana-Italian J. For. Mt. Environ. 69 (5), 285–290, http://dx.doi.org/10.4129/ ifm.2014.5.01. Colanzi, T., Sidorini, L., 2016. Gli interventi forestali nei nuovi PSR. L’Informatore Agrario 13, 33–36. Colfer, C.J.P., Capistrano, D. (Eds.), 2005. Forests, Power and People. Earthscan, London, Sterling, VA. Corona, P., Giuliarelli, D., Lamonaca, A., Mattioli, W., Tonti, D., Chirici, G., Marchetti, M., 2007. Confronto sperimentale tra superfici a ceduo tagliate a raso osservate mediante immagini satellitari ad alta risoluzione e tagliate riscontrate amministrativamente. Forest@ 4 (3), 324–332. Corrado, G., Merlo, M., 1999. The state of art of national forest programmes in Italy. Joensuu, Finland In: Glück, P., Oesten, G., Schanz, H., Volz, K.R. (Eds.), Formulation and Implementation of National Forest Programmes. Vol II: State of the Art in Europe. EFI Proceedings No. 30, vol. II. Cullotta, S., Maetzke, F., 2008. La pianificazione forestale ai diversi livelli in Italia. Italia Forestale e Montana 1, 29–47. Czarniawska, B., 2004. Narratives in Social Science Research. Sage, London. Dahl, R.A., 2005. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. Yale University Press. Decreto Legislativo no. 124/2016. Decreto Legislativo recante disposizioni in materia di razionalizzazione delle funzioni di polizia e assorbimento del Corpo Forestale dello Stato ai sensi dell’Articolo 8, Comma 1, Lettera A) della Legge 7 Agosto 2015, n. 124, in materia di riorganizzazione delle Amministrazioni Pubbliche. Consiglio dei Ministri del 28/07/2016, n. 124.

99

EUROSTAT, 2016. Annual work units in forestry and logging from online database, URL: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=for awu&lang=en. (Accessed 24 August 2016). FAO, 2010. Global Forest Resource Assessment 2010—Country Report, Italy. Forestry Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. FAO, 2014. Contribution of the Forestry Sector to National Economies, 1990-2011. Forest Finance Working Paper FSFM/ACC/09, Available online, URL: http:// www.fao.org/3/a-i4248e.pdf. (Accessed 06 September 2016). Federlegno-Arredo, 2016. Number of Members as Reported in the Institutional Web-Site9, Available online, URL: http://www.federlegnoarredo.it/it/ associazioni/fedecomlegno. (Accessed 10 September 2016). Giessen, L., Buttoud, G., 2014. Defining and assessing forest governance. For. Policy Econ. 49, 1–3. Glück, P., Rayner, J., Cashore, B., 2004. Change in the Governance of Forest Resources. Contribution on 4.2 Governanceof Iufro’s Special Book Project on World Forests, Society and the Environment. Hellrigl, B., 2002. L’uso energetico del legno nelle abitazioni in Italia. Sherwood 75, 15–26. Hufty, M., 2010. Investigating policy processes: the governance analytical framework (GAF). In: Hurni, H., Wiesmann, U. (Eds.), NCCR North-South Synthesis: 403–424. Geographica Bernensia (Available online, URL: http://ssrn. com/abstract=2019005. (Accessed 26 May 2015). INFC, 2005. Inventario Nazionale delle Foreste e dei Serbatoi Forestali di Carbonio. Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali/Corpo Forestale dello Stato/Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura. Available online, URL: http://www.sian.it/inventarioforestale/jsp/01tabelle superficie. jsp. (Accessed 13 February 2015). ISPRA, 2015. Rapporto di sintesi sul dissesto idrogeologico in Italia 2014. Available online, URL: www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/temi/suolo-e-territorio/dissestoidrogeologico/sintesi dissesto idrogeologico ispra marzo 2015.pdf. (Accessed 30 October 2015). ISTAT, 2011. Industry and Services Census 2011 Database, Available online URL: http://dati-censimentoindustriaeservizi.istat.it/Index.aspx (accessed 24.08.16.). ISPRA, 2016a. Agriculture Census 2010 Database, URL: http://daticensimentoagricoltura.istat.it/Index.aspx. (Accessed 24 Augusrt 2016). ISPRA, 2016b. Industry and Services Census 2011 Database, Available online, URL: http://dati-censimentoindustriaeservizi.istat.it/Index.aspx. (Accessed 24 August 2016). Jones, M.D., McBeth, M.K., 2010. A narrative policy framework: clear enough to be wrong? Policy Stud. J. 38 (2), 329–353. Jonsson, R., Giurca, A., Masiero, M., Pepke, E., Pettenella, D., Prestemon, J., Winkel, G., 2015. Assessment of the EU Timber Regulation and FLEGT Action Plan. From Science to Policy 1. European Forest Institute. Küchli, C., Blaser, J., 2005. Forests and decentralization in Switzerland: a sampling. In: Colfer, C.J.P., Capistrano, D. (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization. Forests, Power and People. Earthscan, London, Sterling, VA, pp. 152–165. Kirton, J., Trebilcock, M. (Eds.), 2004. Hard Choices, Soft Law: Combining Trade, Environment, and Social Cohesion in Global Governance. Ashgate Press, Aldershot. Kjaer, A.M., 2004. Polity Press, Governance, pp. UK–USA. Kleinschmit, D., Böcher, M., Giessen, L., 2009. Discourse and expertise in forest and environmental governance: an overview. For. Policy Econ. 11 (5-6), 309–312. Lemos, M.C., Agrawal, A., 2006. Environmental governance. In: Matson, P., Clark, W.C., Gadgil, A., Kammen, D.M., Liverman, D.M., Naylor, R.L., Ray, I, Schimel, D.S. (Eds.) Annual Review of Environment and Resources. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States 10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621. MIPAAF, 2015. Dossier istituzionale. Corpo Forestale dello Stato. Ministero Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, vers. Aprile 2015, Available online URL: www.corpoforestale.it. (Accessed 28 August 2016). MIUR, 2015. Database iscritti 2014-2015 Università Italiana. Ministero Italiano per l’Università e la Ricerca, Available online URL: http://statistica.miur.it/scripts/ IU/vIU0 bis.asp. (Accessed 28 August 2016). Malysheva, N.V., 2005. Main features of Russia’s forest management system. In: Colfer, C.J.P., Capistrano, D. (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization. Forests, Power and People. Earthscan, London, Sterling, VA, pp. 229–237. Mori, P., 2015. La storia siamo noi! Editorial article Sherwood—Compagnia delle Foreste, 211. Persha, L., Andersson, K., 2014. Elite capture risk and mitigation in decentralized forest governance regimes. Global Environ. Change 24 (1), 265–276. Pettenella, D., Romano, D., 2010. Silviculture: forest and environmental policies. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Silviculture National Congress, L’Italia Forestale e Montana/Italian J. For. Mt. Environ., 65 (2) 255–263. 10.4129/ifm.2010.2.18. Pettenella, D., Secco, L., 2004. Il lavoro in selvicoltura. Lo stato dell’arte delle conoscenze in Italia. Sherwood – Foreste Ed Alberi Oggi, vol. 97, 6–14, ISSN: 1590-7805. Pettenella, D., 1994. EC forest policy from a Mediterranean point of view. Denmark, November 1993, Scandinavian Forest Economics In: Helles, F., Linddal, M.

100

L. Secco et al. / Land Use Policy 62 (2017) 79–100

(Eds.), Proceedings from the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, vol. 35. Pra, A., Pettenella, D., 2016. Consumption of wood biomass for energy in Italy: a strategic role based on weak knowledge. L’Italia Forestale e Montana 71 (1), 49–62, http://dx.doi.org/10.4129/ifm.2016.1.03. Ribot, J.C., Oyono, P.R., 2012. The politics of decentralization. In: Wisner, B., Toulmin, C., Chitiga, R. (Eds.), Towards a New Map of Africa. Taylor and Francis, pp. 205–228, http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781849773393. Ribot, J.C., Agrawal, A., Larson, A.M., 2006. Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev. 34 (11), 1864–1886. Ritchie, B., Haggith, M., 2005. The push-me, pull-you of forest devolution in scotland. In: Colfer, C.J.P., Capistrano, D. (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization. Forests, Power and People. Earthscan, London, Sterling, VA, pp. 212–228. Rojas-Briales, E., 2005. Decentralization and participation: key challenges for mediterranean public forest policy. Chapter 24. In: Merlo, M., Croitoru, L. (Eds.), Valuing Mediterranean Forests: Towards Total Economic Value. CABI Publishing, CAB International UK, pp. 373–390. Romano, R., Marandola, D., Cesaro, L., Marchetti, M., 2012. Politiche forestali in Europa e scenari 2020: tra sostenibilità e sviluppo rurale. L’Italia Forestale e Montana 67 (3), 221–236 http://dx.doi.org/10.4129/ifm.2012.3.01. Romano, R., 2015. Oral presentation on Le misure forestali nel nuovo PSR, passi indietro o nuove opportunità? at the conference Gestione forestale e produzione di biomasse: il mercato e gli operatori cambiano. Cambiano anche le istituzioni? (in Italian), Italia Legno Energia, Arezzo 13–15 February 2015. Ruppert-Winkel, C., Winkel, G., 2009. Hidden in the woods? Meaning, determining, and practicing of common welfare in the case of the German public forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 130 (3), 421–434. Sève, J., 1999. Some Views on Decentralization. in a Unitary State and Implications for Community-Based Forest Management: Lessons from France. Discussion Paper. Available online, URL: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf docs/PNACH360.pdf. (Accessed 28 April 2015). SISEF, 2016. Lista dei soci attualmente iscritti alla SISEF (aggiornata: 18/01/2016), Available online, URL: https://sisef.org/society/lista-soci/. (Accessed 28 August 2016). Saccone, L., Secco, L., Pettenella, D., 2013. Istituzioni forestali del Nord Italia. Razionalizzazione o destrutturazione? Sherwood – Foreste Ed Alberi Oggi, 194, 5–10, ISSN: 1590-7805. Sasu, O., 2005. Decentralization of federal forestry systems in Ghana. In: Colfer, C.J.P., Capistrano, D. (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization. Forests, Power and People. Earthscan, London, Sterling, VA, pp. 196–211.

Secco, L., Pettenella, D., 2006. Participatory processes in forest management: the Italian experience in defining and implementing forest certification schemes. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Forstwesen 10, 445–452, http://dx.doi.org/10. 3188/szf.2006.0445, ISSN: 0036-7818. Secco, L., Pettenella, D., Gatto, P., 2011. Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: likelihood or utopia? For. Policy Econ. 13, 104–112. Secco, L., Da Re, R., Pettenella, D., Gatto, P., 2013. Why and how to measure forest governance at local level: a set of indicators. For. Policy Econ. 49, 57–71, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.07.006. The Dictionary of Forestry, 2008. Forestry (Accessed online, no longer available URL: http://dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/forestry. (Accessed 03.03.2014). The Oxford Dictionary, 2016. Forestry, Available online, URL: https://en. oxforddictionaries.com/definition/forestry. (Accessed 06 September 2016). Toth, A.G., 1992. The principle of subsidiarity in the Maastricht Treaty. Common Market Law Rev. 29, 1079–1105. Tram Nam, T., Burgers, P., 2012. Decentralized forest governance in central vietnam. Chapter 6.4. In: Broekhoven, G., Savenije, H., von Scheliha, S. (Eds.), Moving Forward with Forest Governance. Tropenbos International, Wageningen the Netherlands, pp. 240–249. UNDP, 2009. A Users’ Guide to Measuring Local Governance. United Nations Development Programme. Oslo Governance Center, URL: http://www.undp. org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/local governance/a-users-guide-to-measuring-local-governance-.html. (Accessed 24 June 2015). UNECE/FAO, 2015. Forest Products Statistics. UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section, Available online, URL: http://www.unece.org/forests/ forestsfpmonlinedata/forest-products-statistics/production-and-trade-tables2010-2014.html. (Accessed 26 August 2016). Venzi, L., 2008. Outlines of Forest Policy in Italy: Past Experiences and Recent Developments. In: Cesaro, L., Gatto, P., Pettenella, D. The Multifunctional Role of Forests–Policies, Methods and Case Studies. EFI Proceedings No. 55, 2008, 39–46. Vidale, E., Pettenella, D., Gatto, P., Secco, L., 2012. What can we sell behind timber production? The role of forest externalities in the eastern Alps and the implementation of payment for environmental service schemes. Scand. For. Econ. 44, 168–179. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, 2016. Forestry, Available online, URL: https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry. (Accessed 06 September 2016). Yin, K.R., 2009. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 5. Sage, Thousand Oaks, p. 219.