Combining Multifunctionality and Ecosystem Services into a Win-Win Solution. The Case Study of

25 Pages·2016·0.85 MB·English

agriculture
Article
Combining Multifunctionality and Ecosystem
Services into a Win-Win Solution. The Case Study of
the Serchio River Basin (Tuscany—Italy)
MassimoRovai*andMariaAndreoli
DepartmentofAgricultural,FoodandAgro-EnvironmentalSciences,UniversityofPisa,Pisa56124,Italy;
[email protected]
* Correspondence:[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
AcademicEditors:GiaimeBerti,MoyaKneafsey,LarryLev,IreneMonasteroloandSergioSchneider
Received:12July2016;Accepted:20September2016;Published:30September2016
Abstract:Post-wardevelopment—characterizedbyintensiveprocessesofurbanization,concentration
of agriculture on the most fertile lands, and abandonment of mountainous and marginal
areas—broughtaboutnegativeenvironmentalandsocio-economicconsequences. Theyhavebeen
particularlysevereintermsofincreaseofhydrogeologicalrisk,whichishighinmostItalianregions.
Overtime,therehasbeenanincreasingawarenessofthemultiplefunctionsplayedbyagriculturein
termsofprovisionofEcosystemServices(ES),whichcontributefundamentallytohumanwell-being.
Inparticular,someESprovidedbyfarmersmayhelptoreducethehydrogeologicalriskofterritories
pronetolandslidesandfloods. Inthisframework, thepaperpresentsasacasestudytheproject
“Farmers as Custodians of a Territory.” This project was implemented in the Serchio River basin,
Tuscany(Italy),andcombinesamultifunctionalfarmstrategyofdiversificationwiththeprovision
of Ecosystem Services related to the hydraulic and hydrogeological protection of the river-basin
territory.Althoughthiscasestudyshouldbereadwithintheframeworkofthetheoriesofagricultural
multifunctionalityandESprovision,itneverthelesstookaverypragmaticandinnovativeapproach,
whichdifferentiatesitfrommostofthecasestudiesgivenintheliterature. Resultsofouranalysis
show that, by involving farmers as custodians of the territory, it is possible to reach a “win-win”
solutioncharacterized, ontheonehand, bybetterservicesforthecommunityatalowercostfor
theLandReclamationConsortiainvolvedwithhydrogeologicalriskprevention, thusimproving
theeffectivenessandefficiencyofESprovision;andontheotherhand,byimprovingtheeconomic
situationandsurvivalchancesoflocalfarms.
Keywords: agricultural multifunctionality; multifunctional rural development strategies;
farmdiversificationstrategies;ecosystemservices;paymentsforecosystemservices;floodprevention;
farmersascustodianorguardianofaterritory;Serchiobasin;Tuscany
1. Introduction
This paper is based on the characteristics and results of a case study located in Tuscany and
analyzes the provision of regulating Ecosystem Services (ES) aimed at increasing the territorial
resilience to floods within the framework of a farm multifunctional strategy of diversification.
The project described in the case-study report had a very pragmatic approach and was promoted
by Tuscany Public Institutions with the main aim of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
resourcesusedforactionsofhydraulicandhydrologicalprotection. Theseactionsarenecessaryto
preventthenegativeeffectsoffloodsandlandslidesinanareawherethesephenomenahavevery
severeandnegativeconsequences;thus,inthefollowingpartsofthepaper,forthesakeofbrevity,
wewilloftenrefertothemasactionspreventingthehydrogeologicalrisk, althoughresponsibility
Agriculture2016,6,49;doi:10.3390/agriculture6040049 www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture
Agriculture2016,6,49 2of25
forhydraulicandhydrologicalprotectionandforhydrogeologicalriskpreventionrestsondifferent
Institutions. Unfortunately,ongoingprocessessuchasunbalanceddevelopmentandclimatechange
demandanincreaseofresourcescommittedtohydrogeologicalriskreductionand,duetothefactthat
fiscalpressureinItalyisalreadyperceivedasexceedinglyhigh,especiallyinregardstorealestate,this
problemhastobefacedinthecontextofareductionofavailableresources. However,thisprojecthas
alsoapositiveimpactonlocalruraldevelopment,insofarasitallowsfarmerstohaveanextrasource
ofincome,thusincreasingthesurvivalchancesoffarmsincriticaleconomicconditionsandindirectly
contributingtocombatinghydrogeologicalrisk,sincelandabandonmentisoneofitsmaindrivers.
Floodsandlandslidesnotonlydependonhumanbehaviorsincetheywereandarepresentalso
intheabsenceofanthropicdrivers;nevertheless,thecurrentmodelofdevelopmenthascontributed
to increasing both the frequency of adverse phenomena and the magnitude of the damages they
cause. However,humanactionsdonotnecessarilyhaveanegativeimpact;theycanalsobedirected
towards the reduction of hydrogeological risk, both in its natural and human-made components.
The case study should therefore be read within the theoretical framework of Ecosystem Services
(ES) and Multifunctional Agriculture (MFA), i.e., as services that contribute to improve the flood
resilienceofaterritory(ES)bymeansofactionsperformedbyfarmers(MFA).Duetoitspragmatic
approach,thiscasestudyhasparticularfeaturesdifferentiatingitfrommostcasestudiespresentedin
theliteraturethatdealwiththeproblemofESprovisionbyfarmersthroughmanagementoftheirown
land. Contrariwise,ourcasestudyrelatestotheprovisionofESbyfarmersviaaseparateeconomic
activity, which directly aims at ES provision rather than being a consequence of the way farmers
managetheirownland.
Thepaperisstructuredasfollows: Section2presentsthetheoreticalframeworkofMFAandES,
providingtoolsforunderstandingthecasestudywhilestressingitsspecificity. Duetothepragmatic
approach of the case-study project and the feature of “survival need” of the hydrogeological risk
prevention[1],wehaveomittedtheliteraturedealingwiththeeconomicevaluationofES.Inthesame
way,duetothefactthattheseservicesareprovidedthroughresourcescomingfromtaxesandother
compulsorypaymentsforreal-estateowners,wehaveomittedtheliteratureaddressingbeneficiaries’
willingnesstopay. Duetothefocusofthepaper,theexamplesgiveninthissectionaremostlyrelated
tohydrogeologicalriskissues.
Section 3 discusses the problem of hydrogeological risk in Italy and the contribution of
farmer-providedES.Althoughthepreventionofhydrogeologicalriskthroughhydraulicprotection
mainlyrestsonmajorprojectstobeplannedandimplementedatthecatchmentlevel(dams,flooding
areas,newchannels,etc.),thereisnonethelessasynergybetweenmajorprojectsandtheinterventions
oflocalmonitoringandlightmaintenance,whichcansignificantlyincreaseterritorialfloodresilience.
ThissectionincludesananalysisofthedifferentlevelsatwhichdecisionsinfluencingESprovision
are taken. In particular, we highlight the importance of the following three levels: (a) farm level;
(b)catchmentlevel;and(c)regional,nationalandinternationallevels.
Section 4 presents the socio-economic and biophysical characteristics of the case-study area
sincehydrogeologicalrisklevelandcase-studyresultsdependonthecontextwheretheprojectwas
developed. Theanalysisofthetrendsshownbythenumberoffarmsandbytheutilizedagricultural
area(UAA)emphasizetheimportanceofprovidingfurtherincomesourcestofarmersinorderto
avoidlandabandonmentandoutmigrationfrommountainousruralareas.
Section5providesadescriptionofthecase-studycharacteristicsanditsmainresults. Thissection
providesabriefhistoryoftheproject,asummaryofitsstrengthsandcriticalpoints,anddescribesits
resultsmainlyineconomicterms,i.e.,costreductionfortheauthorityinvolvedinhydrogeological
riskpreventionaswellasanincreaseoffarmers’income. Interviewswiththefarmersandauthority
employeesmadeitpossibletogatherthedataneededforaquantitativeestimateoftheabove-described
economiceffects. Contrariwise,theanalysisoftheeffectivenessofthisnewwayofprovidingESis
onlyaqualitativeonesincealongerperiodofobservationwouldbeneededtoproperlyestimatethe
variationinthelevelofeffectiveness.
Agriculture2016,6,49 3of25
Section6providesconcludingremarksonESprovisionbyfarmersandtheroleoftheinstitutions.
Theinstitutionalcontextisnottheonlydeterminantofthesuccessofthecase-studyproject,sincein
otherriverbasinswiththesameinstitutionalcontextsimilarapproacheshavenotbeenimplemented.
However, the authors are concerned that the ongoing process of restructuring of the authorities
involvedwithhydrogeologicalriskpreventionmighthinderinnovativeandmoreefficientusesof
localresourcesastheonedescribedinthecasestudy.
2. AgriculturalMultifunctionalityandProvisionofEcosystemServices
IntheirseminalworkonNaturalCapitalandSustainableDevelopment,CostanzaandDaily[2]
stress the importance of including within Sustainable Development analysis not only human-made
capital and labor, but also Natural Capital, whose stock should be kept constant in order to allow
for durable development. Indeed, Renewable Natural Capital usually provides a flow of ES that is
paramountinensuringhumanwell-being.Costanzaetal.[3]defineESas“theecologicalcharacteristics,
functions,orprocessesthatdirectlyorindirectlycontributetohumanwell-being—thebenefitspeople
derivefromfunctioningecosystems.”Inmostcases, ecosystemsarenotentirelynaturalbutderive
from the interaction between nature and human activities; this is, e.g., the case of agricultural
landscapeprovision,whichdependsonagriculturalandforestrylandmanagement(agro-ecosystems).
ESincludesprovisioningservicessuchasfoodandwater;regulatingservicessuchasregulationof
floods,drought,landdegradation,anddiseasecontrol;supportingservicessuchassoilformationand
nutrientcycling;andculturalservicessuchasrecreational,spiritual,religiousandothernonmaterial
benefits. Many benefits provided by Multifunctional Agriculture (MFA) can be considered as
EcosystemServices(ES).Bothacademicliteratureandpolicydocumentsrecognizethemultifunctional
roleofagriculture,i.e.,“thatbeyonditsprimaryfunctionofsupplyingfoodandfibre,agricultural
activitycanalsoshapethelandscape,provideenvironmentalbenefitssuchaslandconservation,the
sustainable management of renewable natural resources and the preservation of biodiversity, and
contributetothesocio-economicviabilityofmanyruralareas”[4].MFAandESarebothanthropogenic
conceptsthatfocusonhumanbenefits. However,whiletheprovisionofgoodsandservicesinMFA
isadirectresultofagriculturalactivities,inESitisadirectresultofecosystemsthatareinfluenced
byfarmingactivities. TheESapproachwasinitiallyorientedtowardnaturalecosystemsandblamed
agriculturalexpansionfordamagingecosystemservices,buthassubsequentlyrecognizedagriculture
bothasconsumerandproviderofES[5]. Forexample,thelevelofhydrogeologicalriskisinfluenced
byrurallandusemanagement[6–10],sinceproperlandmanagementprovidesESabletoincreasethe
resiliencetoadverseclimateconditions. Thus,landabandonmentinLessFavoredAreas(LFA),mainly
duetotheeconomicunsustainabilityoffarmingandtobroaderregressivesocio-economicdrivers[11],
isparticularlyrelevantsince,intheseareas,“continuedagriculturalmanagement(... )contributes
togoodsoilandwatermanagement”[12]. Accordingtothefocusoftheanalysis(typeofEcosystem
Service;demandorsupplyside),studiesrelatetodifferentspatialunits,suchasfarmland,landscape,
basinorcatchmentareas,etc. Forareviewoftherelationsbetweensustainability,EcosystemServices
andhumanwell-beingatlandscapelevel,seee.g.,[1].
The ES literature considers ecosystem functions in the provision of services and prefers
service-centeredapproaches,choosingspatialunitsaccordingtothetypeofES.Conversely,studieson
MFAconsiderthesefunctionsasagriculturalactivityoutputsandpreferfarm-centeredapproaches[5].
From a farm point of view, multifunctionality refers to the provision of multiple joint products
by an activity or a combination of activities [13,14]. For farms as business units, the distinction
betweencommodityandnon-commodityoutputsisveryimportant,sincenotallfunctionscanbe
valuedthroughthemarket. Whenoutputsareofamarketablenature,theycanbeincorporatedinto
amultifunctionaldevelopmentstrategy. AccordingtovanHuylenbroecketal.[13],fromananalytical
pointofview,thetermmultifunctionalityshouldnotbemixedwithotherrelatedbutclearlydifferent
termssuchasdiversificationorpluriactivity. VanderPloegandRoep[15]affirmthatthestructure
ofruraldevelopmentatthefarmenterpriselevelcouldencompassthreedifferentprocesses,namely
Agriculture2016,6,49 4of25
broadening, regrounding and deepening. Broadening relates to the introduction of new on-farm
activities,thusresultinginanincreaseoffarmincomethroughdiversification. Deepeningrelatesto
the transformation of agricultural activities in order to deliver products that have a higher added
valueperunit. Regroundingrelatestooff-farmincome,i.e.,pluriactivity,andtotheuseofinternal
resourceswiththeaimofimprovingtheirefficiency. AlthoughvanHuylenbroecketal.[13]stressthe
differencebetweenmultifunctionalityanddiversification,thetermmultifunctionalityisoftenused
todefinemultifunctionalstrategiesofdiversification[15,16]. AccordingtoWilson[16](p. 368),the
mainfeaturescharacterizingstrongmultifunctionalityarethefollowing: (1)strongsocial,economic,
cultural,moralandenvironmentalcapitalandactorswhoshowstrongtendenciesforlocalandregional
embeddedness;(2)highenvironmentalsustainability;and(3)arevaluationofexistingfarmhousehold
knowledge. Thelevelofmultifunctionalityisimportantinsofarasitinfluencestheattitudeandthe
willingnessoffarmerstoengageinthedirectorindirectprovisionofES[17]. Inthecasethatfunctions
providedbyfarmersareofanon-marketablenature,theymustfindothermeansofevaluationand
remunerationmodesthanthemarket[18],exceptinthecasewhenatotallyvoluntaryproductionis
possible[17]. Muradianetal[19]affirmthat,accordingtothemainstream‘Coasean’approachtowards
PES,thesolutionformarketfailureleadingtotheundersupplyofESisthecreationofmarketsfor
environmentalservicestrading. Whenthecreationofmarketsisnotpossible,someothereconomic
incentives are necessary in order to promote an adequate provision of ES. This is the case of aid
giventoLFA(now“areaswithnaturalhandicaps”),wherethemaintenanceoffarmingactivitiesis
consideredasatooltoreachenvironmentalaims[12],andofagri-environmentalschemes(AES),which
compensatefarmersfortheproductionofnon-commodityoutputssuchusbiologicaldiversityand
soilconservation.
ThesearchforthebesttoolstoensureasatisfactoryprovisionlevelofESshowsanincreasing
importanceintheagricultureandruraldevelopmentpolicyagenda[20,21]. Tofacetheproblemof
marketfailureinensuringanadequatelevelofES,PaymentsforEcosystemServices(PES)areoften
provided.Mostoftheliterature,followingWunder[22],referstoaPESasamarket-basedormarket-like
mechanism, where PES is designed to internalize benefits that are currently externalized, thus
bringingmarginalcostsintocloseralignmentwithmarginalbenefitsandincreasingeconomicsurplus.
Wunder[22]definesaPESas: (a)avoluntarytransactionwhere;(b)awell-definedenvironmental
service(orlanduselikelytosecurethatservice);(c)isbeing“bought”bya(minimumone)service
buyer;(d)froma(minimumone)serviceprovider;and(e)ifandonlyiftheserviceprovidersecures
service provision (conditionality). However, in real life it is very difficult to find situations where
suchanapproachisworkable,duetothecharacteristicsofpublicgoodsofmanyES.Analternative
definitionisthatofMuradianetal.,whodefine“PESasatransferofresourcesbetweensocialactors,
whichaimstocreateincentivestoalignindividualand/orcollectivelandusedecisionswiththesocial
interestinthemanagementofnaturalresources”[19](p. 1205). FarleyandCostanza[23]propose
a new approach to PES, where they differentiate ecosystem goods as stock-flow resources and ES
asfund-servicesinthesenseusedbyGeorgescu-Roegen[24]anddefineecosystemsasaparticular
configuration of stock-flow resources that provides a flux of services. Thus, PES schemes paying
forlandusesassociatedwithgeneratingtheservicearepaymentsforecosystemfunds. Duetothe
complexityofecosystemsandofthefluxofservicestheygenerate,FarleyandCostanza[23]believe
thatpaymentsforabundleoflooselydefinedservicesaremorelikelytomaximizesocialbenefitsthan
a(market-like)paymentforawell-definedecosystemservice,asinWunder’sdefinition.
3. TheImportanceofEcosystemServices(ES)ProvidedbyFarmersinReducingthe
HydrogeologicalRiskinItaly
3.1. TheProblemofHydrogeologicalRiskinItaly
The concern for hydrogeological risk is high in the European Union Agenda as witnessed by
theissueofaspecificFloodsDirectivein2007(2007/60/EC)andbyseveralrecentdocuments(see,
e.g.,[25]). HydrogeologicalriskinItalyandespeciallyinTuscanyisparticularlyhigh. Aninventoryof
Agriculture2016,6,49 5of25
hydrologicalandgeomorphologiccatastrophesinItaly(1917–2000)hasbeendonebyGuzzettiand
Tonelli[26],whileanupdateddescriptionofthecurrentproblemsofhydrogeologicalriskinItalyhas
beenrecentlyprovidedbyISPRA[27]. Accordingtothe2015ISPRAreport,thenegativesituation
in Italy is due, on the one hand, to the geological, morphological and hydrological features of the
territory; ontheotherhand, problemsaretheconsequenceofthesteepincreaseofurbanizedand
industrializedareas,togetherwiththedevelopmentoflineartransportinfrastructuresthat,sincethe
middle of the last century, have characterized Italy. The effects of these anthropogenic drivers on
hydrogeological risk have been worsened by the lack of adequate territorial planning and by the
strongdiffusionofunauthorizedconstructions,i.e.,urbanizationabuses[27]. Atthesametime,the
agriculturalmodernizationprocessisdeterminingnegativeeffectsonthehydrogeologicalequilibrium,
mostly due to: (a) the concentration of agriculture on the most fertile lands; (b) the abandonment
ofmarginalareaswheremechanizationisnotpossibleand(c)theadoptionoftechniques,suchas
upanddownslopeploughingratherthancontourploughing,whichcontributetohydrogeological
risk,e.g.,througherosionandrun-off[28]. Run-offpatternsarealsoinfluencedbyvegetationtype
andlandmanagement,whichtherebyameliorateorexacerbateeffectsofextremeweathereventson
downstreamsettlements[8]. Consequently,agriculturalactivities,theirabandonmentincluded,can
havebothapositiveandanegativeinfluenceonhydrogeologicalrisk;apositivewhentheycontribute
to hydrogeological protection, and a negative due to land abandonment (lack of hydrogeological
protection)ortotheadoptionoftechniquesthathaveanegativeimpactonthehydrogeologicalsystem.
Upstreamuplanddepopulationandlandabandonmenthaveincreasedtheprobabilityoffloodsand
landslides,whilethemagnitudeoftheireffectshasbeenincreasedbytheconcentrationofpopulation
andeconomicactivitiesdownstreamandonvalleybottoms[29]. AccordingtoISPRA[27],Italyand
Tuscanyhave7.9%and13.3%,respectively,oftheirsurfaceinareaswithhighorveryhighlandslide
risk. Thesepercentagesincreaseto15.8%and24.0%,respectively,ifalsoareaswithintermediateflood
riskareincluded. AllmunicipalitiesinTuscanyhaveatleastapartoftheirterritorysufferingfrom
problemsofhydrogeologicalrisk(floodsorlandslides). Tuscanyindicatorsoffloodriskshowthat
25.9%oftotalpopulation(Italy: 10.0%),29.4%ofeconomicactivities’plants(Italy: 12.0%)and19.6%of
culturalheritage(Italy: 15.2%)resideinareaswithintermediatefloodrisk. TheonlyItalianregionthat
showshighervaluesfortheaboveindicatorsisEmilia-Romagna.
Thecatastrophiceventsthathaveoccurredinthelastyearshavecausedthelossofhumanlives
and severe economic damages (see, e.g., [30]), thus determining a high demand for regulating ES
(i.e., flood prevention; increasing resiliency to floods); nevertheless, in Italy, the current financial
situationofpublicinstitutionsandthecomplexityofthegovernanceofhydrogeologicalriskmake
theirprovisionverydifficult. TheItalianbodyoflawsrelatedtowaterregulationandfloodriskhas
beenrecentlymodifiedbytheWaterFrameworkDirective(WFD—2000/60/EC)andbytheso-called
FloodDirective(FD—2007/60/EC).Ananalysisoftheslowandproblematicimplementationofthe
WFDcanbefoundinViaggietal.[31]. Arecentdocument[32]ontheimplementationofFloodand
WaterFrameworkDirectivesinthealpinecontextstressesthecomplexityoftheinclusionofclimate
changeimpactsontheoccurrenceoffloods,asaskedbyArticle4.2oftheFD.However,literatureis
startingtoprovidestudiesonmodelsincludingthisdriver(see,e.g.,[33]),alsoduetotheimportant
contributionofclimaticchangetotheincreasingfrequencyandmagnitudeofdisruptiveeventsrelated
tohydrogeologicalrisk[34].
In2009, agriculturalandforestrylandaccountedfor72.8%ofthetotalsurfaceinEuropeand
68.1%inItaly[35];consequently,farmershaveaveryimportantroleinenvironmentalmanagementat
theterritoriallevel.
Inthisframework,aninnovativeapproachisneeded,suchastheonedevelopedfortheSerchio
Riverbasin,whichcombinesaneffectiveandefficientprovisionofregulatingESatbasinlevelwith
animprovementoffarms’economicviabilityandfarmers’socialstatus,bypromotingamultifunctional
ruraldevelopmentstrategy.
Agriculture2016,6,49 6of25
Agriculture 2016, 6, 49 6 of 25
3.2. FarmMultifunctionalStrategy,EcosystemServicesProvisionandImportanceoftheGeneralContext:
AT3h.2r.e Fe-aLremv eMlAulptipfruonaccthional Strategy, Ecosystem Services Provision and Importance of the General Context: A
Three-Level Approach
In Section 2, we stressed that literature on MFA usually has a farm-centered approach, while
In Section 2, we stressed that literature on MFA usually has a farm-centered approach, while ES
ESanalysesareusuallybasedonlargerspatialunits,whichdependonthetypeofES.Athirdlevel
analyses are usually based on larger spatial units, which depend on the type of ES. A third level of
ofanalysisisrepresentedbythegeneral(macro-level)context,whichdefines: (a)theboundariesof
analysis is represented by the general (macro-level) context, which defines: (a) the boundaries of
marketableagriculturalactivities,stronglyinfluencingmultifunctionalstrategiesofdiversification;
marketable agricultural activities, strongly influencing multifunctional strategies of diversification;
(b)thepoliciesaimingtopromoteanadequateprovisionofES;and(c)theinstitutionalframework
(b) the policies aiming to promote an adequate provision of ES; and (c) the institutional framework
for the authorities responsible for land management and prevention of hydrogeological risk.
for the authorities responsible for land management and prevention of hydrogeological risk. The
The importance of an analysis of the different levels of institutional context in the framework of
importance of an analysis of the different levels of institutional context in the framework of
designing or crafting change in Socio-Ecological Systems has been recently discussed in a special
designing or crafting change in Socio-Ecological Systems has been recently discussed in a special
issue[36]. Inthispaper,ouranalysishasbeenorganizedintoathree-levelapproach,i.e.,farmlevel
issue [36]. In this paper, our analysis has been organized into a three-level approach, i.e., farm level
(micro),riverbasinlevel(meso)andregional,nationalandinternationallevels(macro)(Figure1).
(micro), river basin level (meso) and regional, national and international levels (macro) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Micro, meso and macro levels of the analysis.
Figure1.Micro,mesoandmacrolevelsoftheanalysis.
3.2.1. The Micro-Level (Farm) Analysis
3.2.1. TheMicro-Level(Farm)Analysis
The micro level, according to the MFA approach, deals with farms as units able to perform
The micro level, according to the MFA approach, deals with farms as units able to perform
different functions, such as food and fiber production and ES provision. The production of these last
differentfunctions,suchasfoodandfiberproductionandESprovision. Theproductionoftheselast
types of output may span from a totally unsought process to a development strategy of
typdeisveorfsoifuictaptuiotnm, apyassspinang ftrhormouaghto toatlhlyeru snistouuatgiohntsp rsouccehs satso taecdhenvieclaolp nmeceenstssittyra taengdy cohfodiicveesr sdiufiec attoio n,
paspseirnsgontahlr oatutigtuhdoetsh teorwsaitrudas tgioonosd sauncdh raessptoenchsinbilcea plrnaecctiecsessi.t yInadneeddc, hfaorimceesrsd’ ucehotiocepse, rasso tnhael oantteist uodf es
towotahredrs egnotroedpraenndeurerss p(soenes, ieb.lge.,p [3ra7c])t,i caerse. nInotd oenedly, dfarrimveenr sb’yc ehcooinceosm,aics othr einocnomeseo rfeoatshoenrs,e bnutrte aplsreon beyu rs
(sepe,eres.go.n,a[3l 7g]o)a,lasr, ecunlotutroanl layttditruivdeens abnyde cao dneosmireic foorr sionccioaml reecroeagsnoitnios,nb [u1t6,a1l7s]o. Wbyilpsoenrs [o1n6a],l eg.oga.,l sst,rceusslteusr al
atttihtued iemspaonrtdanaced oesf isroecfiaolr asnodc icaullrtuecraolg “niintitoernna[1l”6 ,d1r7i]v.erWs iolfs ofanrm[1-6le],veel. gm.,uslttirfeusnscetsiotnhaeliitmy ppaotrhtwanacyes of
socsiuaclha nasd scouclitaul rcaalp“itianlt,e franraml”erd’sr ievmerbseodfdfeadrnme-slse ivne lthme uloltciafulitnyc,t aiosn waeliltly aps aththe wroalye sosf ufacrhmaesrs’so caitatiltucadpeist al,
faramnedr ’isdeemntbiteyd, deetdc.n eInss tihnet hperelosecnaltietdy, acasswe eslltuadsyt,h ethreo leproofvfiasriomne ro’fs aEtSti tucodmesesa nfdroimde nat idtyi,reecttc .aInndt he
preosne-nptuerdpcoassee ascttiuvdityy, tmhaeinplryo vchisoisoenno fforE eSccoonmomesicf rroeamsoands i(ri.eec.,t taon idncornea-pseu frapromseera’sc tiinvciotymme)a. Hinolywcehvoers,e n
forfaercmoenrosm’ picerrseoansaol nbsel(iie.fes. ,atnodi nmcoretiavsaetiofanrsm liekre’lsy iinncfolumene)c.e Hthoe wacecvuerra,cfya rwmitehr sw’hpiecrhs othniasl abcetilvieitfys iasn d
performed. Further ES could be indirectly provided by farmers through a more sustainable
motivationslikelyinfluencetheaccuracywithwhichthisactivityisperformed. FurtherEScouldbe
management of their own land, promoted by the awareness of the impact of their actions on
indirectlyprovidedbyfarmersthroughamoresustainablemanagementoftheirownland,promoted
community well-being.
bytheawarenessoftheimpactoftheiractionsoncommunitywell-being.
According to Huang et al. [5] a multifunctional-agriculture approach has advantages for
AccordingtoHuangetal.[5]amultifunctional-agricultureapproachhasadvantagesforfarm-level
farm-level optimization analyses combining economic, social and environmental dimensions, while
optimizationanalysescombiningeconomic,socialandenvironmentaldimensions,whilefarm-level
farm-level models are less common in ES research. Following Wilson’s [16] definition of strong
modelsarelesscommoninESresearch. FollowingWilson’s[16]definitionofstrongmultifunctionality,
relationsbetweenthemicroandmesolevelsshouldbeinvestigated(i.e.,localembeddedness,etc.).
Agriculture2016,6,49 7of25
3.2.2. TheMeso-Level(RiverBasin)Analysis
TheESapproachusuallyneedstobecarriedoutatthemeso-level,sincetheanalysisofESasksfor
alargerterritorialscale,suchastheriverbasin(catchment)inthecaseofESreducinghydrogeological
risk. Severalgroupsofstakeholders(i.e.,publicadministrations,basinauthorities,residents,farmers,
other entrepreneurs, experts, etc.) who are interested in ES, either from the demand or from the
supplyside,areusuallypresentinabasin. TheprovisionandtheimportanceofregulatingESare
influencedbothbybiophysical(geological,morphologicalandhydrological)featuresofthebasinand
bysocio-economicfeatureslinkedtohumaninterests. Infact,humaninterestscanbeseeneitheras
drivers,whenanthropicactivitiesmodifythenaturallevelofrisk,orasrecipientsofhydrogeological
negativeeffects. Inasituationwheredevelopmentprocessestendtoincreasehydrogeologicalrisk,
farmersmayprovideESsuchasmonitoringandlightmaintenanceofthehydraulicnetworkable
todecreasetherisk,togetherwithothervaluableES.Amongthelatter,therearetherevitalization
ofruralareasandtheconservationofthelocalknowledgeonproperlandmanagement, atriskto
belostduetotheprocessesofurbanizationandculturalhomologation. AccordingtoGutman[38],
anewrural-urbancompactcouldbebasedonthesustainableprovisionofESbyruralareas,butit
requiressociety’sincreasedacknowledgementofthesustainableprovisionofESbyruralareasand
thewillingnesstopayforthem. Localinstitutionsandotherstakeholderscouldcontributetofinding
innovative and efficient solutions to the problems e.g., as in the case study described in Section 5,
byvaluinglocalresourcesintheframeworkoftheinstitutionalcontextdefinedatthemacro-level.
3.2.3. TheMacro-LevelAnalysis
The macro-level relates to the international, national and regional contexts that influence
agriculturalESprovisionthrough,e.g.,(a)thelawsdefiningagriculturalactivities,whichinfluence
farmers’incomeopportunities;(b)therulesregardingpublicprocurement,thatpublicinstitutions—the
LandReclamationConsortiaincluded—havetoapply;(c)theinternational,nationalandregionallaws
relatedtohydrogeologicalriskprevention;and(d)thepoliciesaimingtoavoidthenegativeeffectsof
farmingactivitiesorpromotingpositiveeffectsrepresentingpublicgoodsforwhichamarketfailure
exists. Consequently,thislevelinfluencestheothertwolevelsdiscussedabove.
InregardstothepromotionofanadequateprovisionofES,theroleplayedbyinstitutionscould
berelatedto:
(a) Thecreationofnewmarkets;
(b) The implementation of PES schemes or other adequate policies, when market creation is
notpossible.
Thecreationofmarketsusuallyimpliestheintroductionofpropertyrightsforgoodsandservices
inordertoattributethemrivalryandexcludabilityfeatures.
Intermsofthespecificproblemofhydrogeologicalriskprevention,itisimportanttostressthat
thepossibilitytoconsidernaturemanagementasanagriculturalmarketableactivityisinfluenced
bythelegalframework. AnanalysisofItalianlegalincentivesandlegalobstaclestodiversification
forfarmersmaybefoundinAlbisinni[39]. AccordingtoAlbisinni,theLegislativeDecree(Lgs.D)
228/2001on“GuidanceandModernisationoftheAgriculturalSector”wasissuedinordertoanswer
thechallengesofEuropeanandItalianlegislation. Thisdecree,forthefirsttime,included“activities
aimedtoprotectvaluesoflandandofruralandforestrypatrimony”withintheso-called“agricultural
connectedactivities”[39]. Bylaw,anactivitycouldbeconsideredasconnected(and,consequently,
asanagriculturalone)whenitiscarriedoutthroughtheprevalentuseofmeansorresourcesofthe
agriculturalholdingnormallyutilizedintheagriculturalactivityperformed[39].
The Italian Act 97 of 1994 on “New Regulations for Mountainous Areas,” by simplifying
procedures, aims to provide farm households with the chance of an additional source of income
since,duetolocationinareaswithnaturalconstraints,theirincomeisoftenlowandfarmsurvivalis
Agriculture2016,6,49 8of25
putatrisk. Indeed,Art. 17ofAct97/1994statesthatpublicbodiesmayawardprocurementcontracts
tofarmersforservicesinvolvingterritorialmanagement,waivingtheveryburdensomeadministrative
proceduresandrulesforpublicprocurement.Apublicprocurementcontractisacontractconcludedby
Publicauthoritiestoensurethesupplyofworksanddeliveryofservices. Thesecontracts,concluded
inexchangeforremunerationwithoneormoreoperators,arecalledpubliccontractsandrepresent
an important part of the EU’s GDP [40]. The services awarded under Art. 17 can, e.g., be related
to forest fire and hydrogeological risk prevention. Contracts can be awarded to farmers of family
holdings located in mountain municipalities under the condition that farmers use only their own
and their family’s labor and farm-owned machinery. Art. 15 of Lgs.D 228/2001 has extended the
possibilityofprocurementcontractsbetweenfarmersandpublicadministrationsregardingterritorial
management also outside mountainous areas. This has made it possible for farmers to access the
marketofservicesforpublicinstitutions,whichusuallyhasveryrestrictiveandspecificrules. Lastbut
notleast,itisinterestingtonotethat,accordingtoAlbisinni[39],theactivityoflandmanagementis
theonlyonewithapotentialconflictbetweenEuropeanandItalianlegislation. Infact,EURegulation
1782/2003,andsubsequentlyRegulation73/2009,includes“maintaininglandingoodagricultural
andenvironmentconditions”inthedefinitionofagriculturalactivity,whileArticle2135oftheItalian
CivilCode(asrewrittenbyLgs.D228/2001)considerstheseactivitiesasagriculturalonlywithinthe
connectedactivitiescategory,andnotasagriculturalactivitiesperse. Fromthispointofview,afurther
legislativeactionaimingtopromotetheseactivitiesinareaswithnaturalhandicaps,e.g.,byrelaxing
therulestobecompliedwithforconsideringthemasconnectedactivities,wouldbedesirable.
Asregardspoliciestobeimplementedwhenmarketcreationisnotpossible,basedonVedung[41],
vanZantenetal.[42]classifythemintothreedifferentgroups:(a)regulatoryinstruments;(b)incentives;
and(c)policiesaimingtopromotevoluntarism.
Regulatory instruments apply penalties or sanctions in case of non-compliance to prescribed
behavior. AnexampleofanEU-levelregulationistheWaterFrameworkDirectivewherecompliance
withthesetofnormsofwaterqualityislegallybinding. Regulationsusuallyconsistofcommand
and control policies, which are based on the definition of standards to be respected, e.g., in land
transformation.Theyrepresenta“polluterpays”approach,sincethecostofcomplyingwithastandard
weighsonwhoisboundbyit. AccordingtoTempesta[43],commandandcontrolinstrumentsonly
allow the negative impact of active and voluntary actions to be reduced, but they are ineffective
in opposing passive transformations caused by the abandonment of an activity. In the case of
abandonment of forestlands, e.g., the lack of proper management has negative effects, whereas,
ifproperlymanaged,forestlandswouldpositivelycontributetohydrogeologicalriskprevention.
Incentives(ordisincentives)encompasstaxes,paymentsandsubsidiesaswellastradingschemes
andownershiprights. Theyaresettingeitherpositive(economicaid)ornegative(taxes)incentivesto
marketparticipantstofollowanintendedbehavior.Agri-environmentalpaymentsrepresentimportant
examples. AsregardsPES,itisinterestingtonotethattheyimplytheshiftfromthe“polluterpays
principle”tothe“beneficiarypaysprinciple,”asstressedbySmithetal.[44]. Inthiscase,thecost
ofproducingEShastobebornebytheendbeneficiaries, eitherthroughvoluntaryorcompulsory
instruments. AccordingtoHuangetal.[5],theidentificationofbeneficiariesiscrucialforESvaluation,
becauseecologicalstructuresandprocessesarenottranslatedintoecosystemservicesuntildirectlyor
indirectlyconsumedbyhumans.
Policies promoting voluntarism include information instruments, which are classified into
(a)voluntaryagreements,bornfromintrinsicmotivation;and(b)suasoryinstruments.Suasoryinstruments
aim at moral suasion of objective information and subjective value patterns of single economic
decisionsbyindividualdecisionmakersby,forexample,informingaboutsocialcostsofbehavior,pleas
forethicalbehavior,non-monetarysocialsanctions,etc.[42]. Thuspoliciesrelatedtothepromotionof
aculturalchange,suchasthoseaimingtoincreasetheawarenessamongresidentsoftheimportantrole
playedbyfarmersorpromotinganopenattitudetowardscollaborationamongdifferentstakeholders,
canbeincludedinthisgroup. Boumaetal.[45]highlightthat“creatingmoreawareness,bysharing
Agriculture2016,6,49 9of25
experiences with various citizen groups, is also an effective mechanism to mobilize the political
arena( ... ). Innovationinsustainablemanagementofsoilsrequiresco-productionofknowledge
andtechnologiesinvolvingresearchscientists,policy-makersandlandmanagers.”Aswewillseein
Section5,thesameremarkscouldbeappliedtotheproblemofhydrogeologicalriskprevention.
While this last group of policies requires more time before giving results, in many authors’
opinions, thesepoliciesareabletobringaboutmoredurableeffects, wheretheprovisionofESor
theadoptionofenvironmentallysoundbehaviorstendtosurviveevenafterthedisappearanceof
constraintsandeconomicincentives[17]. Forananalysisofthetoolsthatcouldbeimplementedin
ordertocorrectmarketfailuresinthespecificcaseofservicesprovidedbymultifunctionalfarmsand
ruralterritories,seeAimoneetal.[46].
In the case of hydrogeological risk, the adoption of an environmentally friendly behavior by
farmersandthepopulaceisnotsufficienttocopewiththerisk,butthereisaneedtorealizespecific
projectsorinterventions(dams,floodingareas,etc.). Theseinterventionsfallundertheresponsibility
ofauthoritiesthatworkatbasinlevel. Thus,itisimportanttodescribethelegislationdealingwith
hydrogeologicalriskprevention,towhichthefollowingsub-subsectionisdedicated.
3.2.4. TheLegislationaboutHydrogeologicalRiskPreventionandLandReclamationConsortia
betweenMacro-andMeso-Levels
The legislation of water governance and land reclamation has a long history, beginning with
oldsectoraldisciplinesuchastheRoyalDecreeNo. 523/1905(ConsolidatedLawonwaterprojects)
andtheRoyalDecreeNo. 1775/1933,theso-calledSerpieri’sLaw,onIntegralLandReclamation[47].
In terms of hydrogeological risk prevention, although Italy has always had a long and dramatic
history of extreme events such as landslides, flooding, land degradation and drought [48], there
has nevertheless been a heavy delay in the issuing of laws making compulsory the inclusion of
natural risks, such as landslides and floods, in territorial and urban planning; a delay that lasted
untilLaw183/1989. TheonlyexceptionofthisistheRoyalDecreeNo. 3267/1923,whichfocused
on hydrological constraints, forestry management, and maintenance and improvement of forest
waterwaysandterrain. Law183/1989regulatingsoilandwaterprotectionintroducedafundamental
innovation, namely the establishment of the river basin as basic territorial reference [27], and yet
theinstitutionalframeworkdealingwithhydraulicandterritorialmanagementhasremainedquite
complex. Adetailedanalysisoftheauthoritiesinvolvedinhydraulicandwatermanagementfrom
thenationaltolocallevelsandoftheirroleisprovided,fortheareawherethecasestudyislocated,
by the Waterincore project [47]. Among authorities dealing with hydraulic risk prevention at the
local level, both Mountain Communities, which have been recently converted into Municipality
UnionsbyTuscanyLaw37/2008,andLandReclamationConsortia(ConsorzidiBonifica)arevery
important. LandReclamationConsortiahavebeenoperatingsincethebeginningofthelastcentury
andtheyareformedbyrealestateownersandlocalauthorities’delegatesoftherelevantterritory(e.g.,
someofthemayorsofthemunicipalitiesincludedintheareaundertheresponsibilityoftheLand
Reclamation Consortium). They coordinate public interventions and private activities concerning
hydraulic network maintenance and irrigation. The cost of ordinary maintenance, managing and
safeguarding of reclamation works is covered by the financial support of the real estate owners.
Onlyinthecaseofnewhydraulicprojectsandextraordinaryorexceptionalmaintenanceoftheold
ones,doestheTuscanyRegioncover70%ofthecostwhiletheremainingshareispaidbytheprivate
membersonthebasisofthebenefitthatprojectsandlandreclamationactivitiesprovidetoeachof
them. LandReclamationConsortiawereinitiallyfoundedbylandowners,mainlyfarmers,willing
to protect lowlands from floods and to face problems related to malaria, while urban settlements,
whichweremostlylocatedatahigheraltitude,werelessconcernedwiththeseproblems. Recently,the
importanceofdefendingurbanandindustrialsettlementsfromhydrogeologicalriskhasincreased,
whiletheprivatecomponentinmanagingLandReclamationConsortiahaslostmomentuminfavorof
thepubliccomponent. LandReclamationandIrrigationConsortiaareveryimportantbodiesinItaly,
Agriculture2016,6,49 10of25
becausetheycoordinatepublicactionsandprivateactivities,aimedatsafeguardingtheterritory,its
environmentalprotection,thehydraulicshelter,thedevelopmentofagriculture,andthemanagement
ofwater. FurtherinformationonConsortia,theevolutionoftherelativebodyoflawatnationaland
regionallevels,andtherelationshipbetweenparticipatoryirrigationmanagementandtheconsortia
canbefoundinBillietal.[49].
LandReclamationConsortiawereruledbytheTuscanyRegionalLaw34/1994on“RulesonLand
Reclamation”, under which the “Comprensorio di Bonifica n. 4—Media Valle” was created in 1996.
TheRegionalLaw79/2012on“NewregulationsonLandReclamationConsortia”hasrecentlyreorganized
thesepublicbodiesandtheComprensoriodiBonifican. 4hasbeenmergedtogetherwithotherthree
intheConsorziodiBonifica1—ToscanaNord(LandReclamationConsortium1—NorthernTuscany).
ThereorganizationinConsortiamanaginglargerterritorieswasmadeinordertoreacheconomiesof
scaleandrationalizeadministration. However,theoldorganizationbasedonMountainCommunities
andsmallLandReclamationConsortiawas,inouropinion,moresuitableforinvolvingtherealestate
ownersandforimplementingparticipativeandcollaborativeapproachestothemanagementofthe
hydraulicnetwork. Thusitisimportantthat,evenifthereorganizationisfunctionalfromthepointof
viewofcostreductionandofgainingawiderpictureofthehydrogeologicalproblemsofterritories,
therelationshipwithpeoplewholiveand/orworkintheareaisnotlost.
4. TheCase-StudyArea: MainFeaturesoftheSerchioRiverBasin,Tuscany(Italy)
AswehavepointedoutinSection3,TuscanyRegionhasthesecondhighestlevelofhydrogeological
riskinItaly. WithinTuscany,Serchiobasinpresentsparticularfeaturesofhydrogeologicalinstability,
seismic risk and water pollution, and for these reasons it has been constituted as a “pilot basin”
(seeArt.30) for Tuscany Region in the implementation of the Law 183/89 and also for WFD [48].
Recently,ithasbeencharacterizedbyimportantnegativeeventssuchasthefloodofSerchioRiverin
December2009andthatof“AltaLunigiana”inOctober2011. Theseeventshadaveryhighcostboth
onhumanlivesandeconomicresources. Whileanestimationofdamagesofthemostrecenteventsis
notavailable,the1996floodinAltaVersiliaandGarfagnanacaused15deathsand230millionEuro
wereneededforreconstructionandinordertomaketheareasafe[50]. Indeed,aproperpolicyof
preventionwouldverylikelycostlessthanrepairingdamagesafterfloods.
The natural hydrogeological features of the territory make this area very prone to floods
and landslides. Recently, this situation has worsened due to the effects of climate change and of
anunbalancedprocessofdevelopment. Tobetterunderstandthebasinsituation,ashortdescriptionof
itsnaturalandsocio-economicfeaturesisgivenbelow.
The area of the Serchio basin (Figure 2a) is located in the North-West of Tuscany. It includes,
partiallyortotally,37municipalities,28locatedinLuccaprovince,whiletheremainingarelocated
in the provinces of Pistoia (six municipalities) and Pisa (three municipalities). The basin area
(ca. 1565km2)presentsparticularfeaturesofhydrogeologicalinstability. Theupstreamarea,which
includesGarfagnana,MediaValleandValdiLima,accountsformorethan66%ofthebasinsurface.
However,thepopulationismainlyconcentrateddownstream,i.e.,PianadiLucca,VersiliaandPisa
coastalarea,whereca. 75%ofthebasin’stotalpopulationlives(Source: BasinAuthoritywebsite).
Themapofriskestimation(Figure2b)fortheSerchiobasinhasbeendrawnfortheimplementation
of the Flood Directive. Although the prevention of the hydrogeological risk made upstream is
paramountinreducingtherisk,theriskestimationmapshowsthatfloodsmainlyimpactdownstream
lowlandareas.