4th ESP Conference 2011 Ecosystem Services: integrating Science and Practice

1. Real Space For Ecosystem Services Assessment In Italian Local Governance And Institutions? An Expert-based Application And An Exploratory Survey 4th ESP Conference 2011 Ecosystem Services: integrating Science and Practice WS 5 – Role of ecosystem services in policy making and institutional aspects Rocco Scolozzi – Fondazione EdmundMach Elisa Morri & RiccardoSantolini - University of Urbino

2. Current state - questions • The assessment of ecosystem services is the focus of intense policy and management interest. • Ecosystem services are becoming increasingly threatened • Resources that are not valued in the market and are ignored in management decisions Whatabout Italy?

3. Current state - questions • “to make ecosystem services a useful framework and applicable tool for environmental management and policy making, the services first need to be quantified and visualized appropriately” DONE! …Appropriately? Who will care about? Is there space for integration? Which scale more helpful?

4. Aboutland-use planning in Italy 20 Regions ≈15.000 km2 103 Provinces ≈ 3.000 km2 8101 Municipalities ≈ 30 km2

5. Aboutland-use planning in Italy Regions  Guidelines and principles Provinces  Indications prescriptions (e.g. protected areas) Municipalities  Land-use definitions

6. Expert-basedassessmentof ES valuechange • Assessment for 3 scales: • -Province • Municipality • Catchment basin

7. Exploratorysurvey: focus groups and interviews Reggio Emilia Bologna Ravenna Modena • At municipal, • provincial and regional level: • Departments of Urban Planning • Departments of Environment • Regional Environmental Agency Reggio Emilia Ferrara Ravenna

8. Aboutrealland-use planning Regions Provinces Municipalities Principle of Subsidiarity Economic crises! Construction Industry

9. Aboutrealplacefor ES Regions Provinces Municipalities • No knowledge/awareness • orsome knowledge but not used • Environmental values: • Merely as nature conservation areas • Or as landscape cultural/aesthetic values • ...but great interest!

10. To incorporate ES intopolicy-making and institutionsrequires: • 1. flexibleinstitutions (scales) • 2. awarepolicy-makers • 3. integrative policies • Checklist for Italian cases: • 1. No • 2. No • 3. No • Solutions?

11. Suitable scale • At province scale: • To identify ES suitability and related guidelines • To manage local conflicts between economic forces and community resources/benefits • At catchment basin: • To identify “territorial compensations” (e.g. upstream, downstream areas) • To define measures/rules according to the scale of ecosystem processes • At municipal scale: • “not really useful level of detail” • “More uncertain, less reliable and probably wrong”

12. Quantitative Qualitative • Potentials • As criteria for sustainability assessment, impact assessment (EIA, SEA) • As framework for integrative environmental accounting of local institutions • As criteria for quantification Costs/Benefits of land-use changes • As framework for ecological compensations (especially in urban planning) Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Quantitative • For particular Italian cases (only?): as leverage for reinforce position of public interests vs. private interests within local spatial planning • ESA may help to enlarge the perspective/vision • ESA as paradigm to overcome short period thinking

13. Open questions • Reliability of assessment methodology? “We need of a reliable methodology ... As for budget and accounting, with possibility to be certified” • Shared paradigm (perspective)? • “Concreteness” of intangible values • Monetary vs. non monetary values • Monetary values but not market confrontation “We need of quantification of tangible values” • Old question: • Feasible estimation vs. impracticable exactness • First: change the mental map, raise awareness • (a matter of social learning) Thank s for the attention!

14. Tailored benefit transfer method