1. 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 Edmund Mach Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini - University of Urbino

2.  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 What about Italy?

3.  “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. 20 Regions ≈15.000 km 2 103 Provinces ≈ 3.000 km 2 8101 Municipalities ≈ 30 km 2

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

6. Assessment for 3 scales: -Province -Municipality -Catchment basin

7. Ferrara Ravenna ReggioEmilia Modena Ravenna Bologna ReggioEmilia At municipal, provincial and regional level: Departments of Urban Planning Departments of Environment Regional Environmental Agency

8. Regions Provinces Municipalities Principle of Subsidiarity Construction Industry Economic crises!

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

10. To incorporate ES into policy-making and institutions requires:  1. flexible institutions (scales)  2. aware policy-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.  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 Quantitative Qualitative  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)