0578-C1
Roberta Raffaelli, Geremia Gios and Sandra Notaro 1
The ties between human beings and forests in temperate mountain areas have weakened over time. The relative importance of forest functions has changed: forestry timber generates very low returns, whereas recreational, environmental and other non-market values of forests have assumed substantial significance. In terms of economic and social sustainability, this causes problems: finding forms of forest utilization that guarantee economic sustainability and the direct involvement of the population seem to be absolutely necessary. With this as an aim, participation and partnership become key concepts.
From analysing the situation in the Trentino, a mountainous province on the Italian side of the Alps, traditional and innovative forms of partnership emerge. For centuries collective property has guaranteed participatory forest management, but nowadays new forms of integrated and bottom-up approaches to local development (Leader initiative) are producing good results, notwithstanding the fact that they are typically aimed at productive objectives. The territorial pacts - a more recent instrument of negotiated planning - seem to have notable potential in the forest sector too. However, it appears that broadening the participation to include all the interested stakeholders in the management of sustainable forests is necessary. This wider partnership might guarantee economic sustainability by means of forms of forest associations able to manage the forest more efficiently, and through locally recovering part of the benefits and externalities produced by the forest that are perceived by non-local actors. A broader partnership would also be fundamental for the circulation of information, for the creation of consensus around multifunctional forest management objectives and so, in the final analysis, to rescue those ties between human beings and forests that would otherwise be confined to the already small number of woodsmen who work in the Alps.
Notwithstanding the fact that the actual situation in Alpine forests may have improved compared to the situation which existed some decades ago, a subtle and growing apprehension affects some of those who have the destiny of the temperate region forests at heart. Above all, there is an increasing awareness today that the symbiosis between the rural population and the forest is diminishing and, in some cases, it has already disappeared. With a decline in these ties, the participation of the local population - a fundamental element capable of guaranteeing sustainable forests management- will decrease.
Therefore, the first objective of this article is to reflect briefly on the three aspects of sustainability in Alpine forests with particular emphasis on participation as a criterion for social sustainability. In the past the involvement of the local population was guaranteed by numerous common property forests which still continue to survive in the Alps. Today, beside the traditional participative forms, there are also many innovative types, for instance, the Leader initiatives. A more recent instrument of participatory and integrated local development are the territorial pacts, whose potential for a multifunctional forest management is discussed.
Reasoning is carried out by referring to the experience of the Autonomous Province of Trento (PAT), an Alpine province in the Dolomites of North East Italy where forest covers 54.4% of the surface area and plays an important economic role not only in the production of timber and non-timber products2 but also as a tourist attraction.
There are a variety of causes which are weakening the ties between man and forest. Among the more important are at least three: changes in the socio-economic conditions of the rural community, evolution of the technology for forest utilisation, and change in the relative importance of forest functions. In effect the social system based on the integration of farming, pasture and cultivation of the forest has all but disappeared, greatly reducing the number of agro-forestry enterprises and changing the complex relationship between natural resources and local population. In addition to this, the development of new technologies which imposes increasing capital requirements and growing specialisation on forest enterprises along with the low value of industrial wood have resulted in the forest losing its role as fundamental resource for the mountain economy. On the other hand Alpine forests have increased their recreational/educational and hydrologic protection role, so that silvicultural techniques have been adjusted according to multifunctionality (Pollini and Tosi 2000).
This change in the relative importance of forest functions has resulted in more than one consequence. First of all the activities connected with the recreational functions do not have the ability to create positive externalities which influence the maintenance and protection of the forest. Rather, it is more probable that these activities bring negative externalities not only on the environment (traffic pollution, drawing water for artificial snow, damage to the ecosystem, etc.) but also on the local social organisations, especially if traditional models of tourism are followed instead of sustainable ones. Moreover, the substitutability among different forest sites from the tourist point of view is certainly higher3 compared to that which might be found in a silvicultural - pastoral economy. In this latter case each site is unique and cannot be substituted and so a long-term perspective - which can be defined as sustainable ante litteram - is applied in the forest management.
In order to analyse the Alpine forest situation from the point of view of sustainability - in its three aspects: environmental, economic and social - the following characteristic elements form the starting point:
Given these conditions particularly relevant problems guaranteeing enviromental sustainability do not seem to exist, first of all, because of the diffusion of the near-to-nature and also the more recent multifunctional silviculture.
Indeed, there are more evident problems for guaranteeing economic sustainability because "in modern forestry timber generates very low returns whereas non-market value of forests assume substantial significance" (Font and Tribe 2000).
Considering timber production first, more efficient harvesting and commercialisation techniques, along with public support for infrastructure, are required. On the other side, the identification of exclusion mechanisms in order to transform the forest from free access to a club good is more frequently and increasingly pursued. The commercialisation of non-timber products and environmental benefits has sometimes become the only way to cover the ever increasing costs of managing a multipurpose forest (Merlo 1995).
The problem of social sustainability appears to be even more complex. What its being dealt with is the identification of the rights which both the local community and the visitors possess in respect of the forest, rights which may be categorised as active and passive. The former relate to public rights of way and sometimes to free recreational or social use of the forest. Passive rights refer to the right to safeguard the forest because it has a value as a natural place, and the ability to adopt choices concerning the future of the forest (Font and Tribe 2000). This means that the social dimension of sustainability comprises the right to participate in decisions concerning forest development. Within these terms participation represents one criterion for social sustainability but, from a slightly different point of view, participation is also an instrument which permits a local definition of sustainability to be arrived at. In any case, according to both points of view, participation appears as a necessary but not sufficient condition for social sustainability.
Since great agreement seems to exist on the necessity for participative approaches in sustainable forest management in both developing and industrialised countries, the issue is now "how best to put it into practice" (Davis and Richards 1999).
It is therefore fundamental to move from the concept of participation to that of partnership. Without delving deeply into the sometimes subtle differences between the two concepts, the following can be considered to be a convincing distinction: although "participation" may be used at different levels of the decision making process (formulation, implementation, evaluation), "partnership" particularly concerns concrete actions, that is, the decisions of different actors with diverse interests and viewpoints to carry out simultaneous and co-ordinated actions, sharing not only benefits but also costs (Buttoud 2002).
In spite of the difficulty of focusing different stakeholders5 on the formulation of a single action plan and the various levels6 of partnership possible, the critical factors for partnership to work seem to be integration and resources. Resources - both material and immaterial (people skills, knowledge and collaboration tradition, management time)- must be utilised in a shared and innovative manner - applied to new areas and new ways - and aimed at creating a leveraging effect (Bills 2002).
Traditional participative forms of forest management continue to survive around European mountain regions. Institutions such as common properties represent a successful example of participation. The Magnifica Communità di Fiemme is a well known example of effective and modern management of common land for the benefit of a forest-dependent community according to ancient rules. The forest management is the complete responsibility of the Council of Regolani, elected by the community members (vicini - neighbours) without any participation of stakeholders of any other nature.
Beside these traditional participative forms, innovative forms of partnership are spreading as a consequence of the most recent approaches to rural development pursued by the European Union (EU) which seems to move resolutely towards the logic of integrated, cross-sectorial and bottom-up approaches. The EU initiative Leader II (1994-1999) in the Trentino, with two Local Action Groups (Valle del Chiese and Pasubio-Vigolana) is a good example.
Both districts lie at the edge of the Dolomites suffering some degree of economic marginality. Forests cover around 70% of the total surface area - well above the provincial average - representing an important potential resource for the development of the area.
In the experience of the Valle del Chiese, 13 municipalities and 3 Separate Civic Use Administrations (Asuc) have associated in the "wood project" to create a unitary management of forest ownerships and harvesting in order to diminishing the costs and simplifying commercialization. Stumpage sale has been replaced by sale at the roadside loading area through the awarding of a contract to a forestry company for cutting, log preparation and delivering to loading area. This new way of working has brought about a 35% increase in yield. In addition to this, the multifunctional role of forests was enhanced through an ethnographic footpath (Rio Caino) which allows the discovery of the old jobs and skills (woodsman and woodcutter, blacksmith, stone mason) and the olden rural mills.
Furthermore, in the Pasubio-Vigolana experience, 3 out of 10 municipalities have created an association -"Forests of the Plateaus" - for the unitary commercialisation of wood through communal auctions of the timber stacked up in the roadside loading areas. In addition, via a partnership with the Institute for Wood Technologies and the Provincial Forest Services, experimentation with a method of qualitative visual classification of logs over an ample area has been carried out.
Both of these initiatives can be considered to be successful because:
Notwithstanding these successes, these experiences confirm Bottoud's concerns (2002) according to which, from an empirical point of view, a potential danger exists which is the restriction of the partnership to selected partners with direct private interests excluding beneficiaries of recreational and environmental services, privileging productive topics rather than promoting multifunctionality.
Therefore, accelerating the movement towards a forest partnership which is more oriented towards multifunctionality both in terms of objectives and stakeholders seems to be necessary. The full meaning of this assertion will be discussed in the next section with reference to territorial pacts.
Territorial pacts are certainly a new instrument in bottom-up type development: they are based on local initiatives, partnerships, innovation, and integration.
Launched by the European Union in 1996 as instruments of employment support in depressed areas, they seem to lend themselves very well to achieving broad objectives of local development, in particular "for the planning and implementation of sustainable mountain development" (FAO, ICALPE, IUCN 1996).
Since the official publication of Provincial Law no. 6 of 1999, 4 territorial pacts for a total of 24.5 million Euro have been approved in the Trentino. The territorial pacts of the Valle del Chiese has been among the firsts to start, and has seen the greatest number of requests for a total of 11.8 million Euro (48% of the total) (PAT 2002). This is surely to be ascribed to the Leader initiative working as an experimental laboratory for local partnership and intersectoral integration. This seems to show that the participative approach is a long process of learning, of the formation of a tradition of co-operation, and of bringing knowledge resources into play. For this reason it is particularly important that those institutions which operate on the territory since a long time ago enter in these territorial pacts so that the experience matured over the years can be capitalised upon and placed along with the other stakeholders in the network, increasing the probability of a leveraging effect on the resource.
So why and how can the territorial pacts contribute to the sustainable and multifunctional management of the forest? First of all, they are an instrument that facilitates the identification of all possible stakeholders at a local level, and their meeting around a table. The participation of all the economic operators who make their income from tourism is self-evident and would allow part of the benefits and externalities produced by the forest to remain locally,8 thereby contributing to the economic sustainability of forest management. The broadening of the partnership to include all stakeholders/users, at least on a local level, and the representatives of that part of the population which is not directly involved in the productive exploitation of the forest (environmental associations, local cultural associations, etc) can create problems in the construction and management of the pact. The convergence of interests automatically becomes more difficult even if helpful theoretical and operative models exist (Buttoud 2002). However, it is fundamental to realise that this latter category of stakeholders, although not bringing financial resources, does bring immaterial resources of notable relevance: at the local level they can promote solicitations coming from higher levels, broaden the objectives of forest management to include multifunctionality, and contribute to increasing the population's acceptance of these new objectives.
Last but not least, in a world "flooded with information" in which "the people we trust most are our immediate community and ourselves" (Bills 2002), the territorial partnership can become the privileged place for the exchange of information.
In the face of the new scenarios which affect Alpine forests, management forms which guarantee economic sustainability and require the local population's direct involvement seem to be absolutely necessary.
The experience of Leader II in the Trentino has shown the validity of forestry associationism in more efficient management of the local forestal inheritance. The efficacy of a bottom-up approach favouring the involvement of the population and stimulating the identification and the application of innovative action has emerged. Lastly, it has revealed the fundamental importance of learning to co-operate. For this reason, in the spreading of territorial pacts as instruments of local participative development, the utilisation of the accumulated experience of forest-dependent communities and forestry associations is required. Furthermore, to allow the forest to participate fully in this new type of local development, the objectives of multifunctional forest management must be accepted inside the pact. Broadening the participation to all the stakeholders who are effectively interested - not only in an economical sense - in sustainable forest management is also necessary.
This widening of the base of subjects involved in forest management would allow part of the benefits and the externalities produced by the forest but perceived by non-local actors to remain locally, and thus contribute to economic sustainability. Furthermore, this type of partnership would be fundamental for the circulation of information and for the creation of a consensus about the objectives of multifunctional forest management.
Therefore, in the final analysis, active forms of participation and partnerships can become instruments of a "survival strategy" (Furuberg Gjedtjernet 2002), instruments saving the bond between man and forest which would otherwise be confined to the by now small number of woodcutters who work in the Alps.
References
Bills, D., 2002. Delivering public benefits: multifunctional forestry in the United Kingdom. In FAO, ECE, ILO 2002, Partnership in Forestry, Brussels, 2-6 June 2002: 79-85.
Buttoud, G., 2002. Developing partnerships between forestry agencies and stakeholders: the mixed model as a strategic planning tool. In FAO, ECE, ILO 2002, Partnership in Forestry, Brussels, 2-6 June 2002: 69-75.
Davies, J. and M. Richards, 1999. The use of economics to assess stakeholder incentives in participatory forest management: a review, European Union Tropical Forestry Paper 5, Overseas Development Institute.
FAO, 1999. The participatory process for supporting collaborative management of natural Resources: An Overview. FAO, Rome.
FAO, ICALPE, IUCN, 1996. Towards sustainable mountain development in Europe, European Inter-Governmental Consultation 1996, in Proceedings of the final Trento session, Centro di Ecologia Alpina - PAT, Trento: 23-42.
Font, X. and J. Tribe, (eds.) 2000. Forest tourism and recreation: case studies in environmental management, Cabi Publishing, Oxon, UK.
Furuber Gjedtjernet, A.M., 2002. Partnerships in forestry - some Norwegian examples, In FAO, ECE, ILO 2002, Partnership in Forestry, Brussels, 2-6 June 2002: 79-84.
Merlo, M., 1995. Common property forest management in northern Italy: a historical and socio-economic profile, Unasylva 46 (1).
PAT, 2002. Rapporto agricoltura 2001, Dipartimento Agricoltura, Alimentazione, Foreste e Montagna, Trento.
Pollini, C. and V. Tosi, 2000. Multifunctional management in the Alpine mountain forests. XXI IUFRO World Congress, K. Lumpur 7-12 August 2000. Group Session TF2.
1 Assistant professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Trento, Via Inama 5, 38100 Italy. [email protected],
2 In 1999 forest production was of 37 million Euro, whilst in 1995 mushroom production and the harvesting of forest fruits was estimated to be the equivalent of 1.5 million Euro.
3 A Contingent Valuation study, which is still in progress, of the Lavazè forest (a typical sub-alpine forest at 1,800 m in the Trentino, Italy), estimates a willingness to pay for not being prevented from visiting the site equal to about 2.2 Euro. Above this price, the average visitor would substitute the recreational site.
4 In the sample interviewed in Lavazè (note 2) the local population were only 3%.
5 The Fao (1999) groups the forest stakeholders as following: users (different interest groups -from local to global), government bodies, development and support agents and other private (ordinary people, private enterprises).
6 Local, regional, national or international.
7 Measure 9.1.3. supports forest associations and measure 9.2.3. supports the environment valorisation and the renewal of old forest buildings.
8 In some forest districts in the UK, up to 25% of income comes from external partners (tourist agencies, environmental agencies and national park authorities) (Bills 2002).