Common Property Regimes (Regole) in the Veneto Region (Italy): institutional linkages with Municipalities in the integrated forest landscape management
Forest and pasture Commons are a shared trait of Alpine rural areas, with a total coverage of 1,668,851 hectares, i.e. almost 10% of the total agricultural area of the country (Istat, 2012).
Particularly in the Italian Eastern Alps, forest Common Properties have a long-lasting tradition. Mostly called `Regole´ (singular: `Regola´), these were relevant institutions in the past, superintending to all aspects of community life and acting as essential regulator of natural resources use.
Since 19th century the Italian common lands have come under relevant attack by central State authorities, that considered them an anachronistic remaining of a feudal past, and unable to promote technological and economic development in the agriculture and forest sectors. Only since mid of 20th century, various national legislative initiatives have progressively returned power to Common Properties. Taking cue from this new climate of supporting legislation, the Veneto Region (north-eastern Italy – i.e. the selected case study area for this thesis research) was first in line in the policy process of recognition of the collective role in managing the regional forest landscapes and in fostering the rural development of mountainous territories.
Indeed, Common Properties have a long-standing tradition in the Veneto Region and were tenacious opponents of the fascist attempts to dismantle them. In 2012, Veneto counted 53 Common Properties, almost all of them located in the mountainous province of Belluno. Moreover, 17 Common Properties have been re-constituted since 1996 (Gatto et al., 2012), i.e. since the enactment of a regional law in support of common property regime reconstitution. Where reconstitution processes were successful – or where they are likely to be completed in the near future – a radical change is on the way in the ownership structure of forest landscapes, with large forest and pasture assets shifting from public property regimes to common property regimes, with `close´ membership.
Most of the existing bibliographic resources dealing with the Italian common domain limit their analyses to the historical vicissitudes that common lands passed through, or analyse legal issues in technical terms, or debate about some internal Common Property governance and policy issues (e.g. gender balance, intergenerational renovation, need for statute renovation, etc.). Contrarily, very few published works assessed whether and how the internal Common Property dynamics also relate to and influence both the socio-economic and the institutional environments of the whole local mountain communities of residents, administratively identifiable with Municipalities, that Regole belong to.
Meaningfully, Municipalities still exert an overarching administrative control and planning functions over the lands comprised within their boundaries, common lands included. The ratio for such a prescription emerges out of the fact that Municipalities represent the entire resident population of communities, as the local residents include both members and non-members of local Common Properties. Then, municipal policy decisions should be informed by broad territorial vision that goes beyond sectorial interests, e.g. forest management, in order to ensure a territorial development as most comprehensive as possible.
Nevertheless, it seems that the recent, fast-paced process of re-constitution of Common Properties has the potential to create or increase institutional tensions at the local level, especially due to the new need to coordinate management rights and responsibilities between Common Properties and Municipalities. Florian (2004) reported that in some cases heavy legal disputes and institutional contrasts with local Municipalities were absorbing many available economic and administrative energies of the newly-reconstituted Common Properties. Carestiato (2008) pointed out a similar situation. Hampel (2012) implicitly suggested that nowadays a sort of `feeling of power and individual property´ over common resources by some right-holders might have negative consequences on the social environment that Regole are embedded within. Still nowadays, there are hints of disparate administrative and legal issues still pending among these institutions, insomuch to hinder remarkably the implementation or the achievement of integrated territorial development strategies.
For the reasons above, the Veneto Region represents an interesting case to assess the capacity for polycentric governance of forest resources between Municipalities and Common Properties. In the light of the new challenges and opportunities that Regole are called to face and cope with, among which the ongoing institutional reforms (Gatto et al., 2012) and deep societal and demographic changes (Steinicke et al., 2014), two main research objectives have been identified.
Firstly, the thesis aims to describe and assess the institutional patterns which the institutional relationships between Common Properties and Municipalities are based on, trying to evaluate their mutual degree of cooperation in their own and interdependent statutory competences.
The second objective corresponds to the evaluation of whether, and to what extent, the regional Common Properties give concrete answers to the aims and prescriptions that the Regional law entrusted them with, i.e. forest landscape management and protection and socio-economic development of rural mountain areas.
Research activities have been modulated in three different phases. A prevailing qualitative methodological approach has been knowingly selected.
After a broad literature review, in the first step of the field data collection, face-to-face interviews have been carried out among the institutional representatives (e.g. Majors, Aldermen, Councillors, etc.) of those Municipalities including Regole within their administrative boundaries. It has been made use of a simple but effective data collection procedure and instrument, i.e. a structured survey questionnaire containing both closed and open-ended responses, allowing for analysis across respondents from organizations of the same category at similar administrative levels. Respondents have been asked to provide information on the institutional communication patterns characterising their relationship with local Common Properties. They were also inquired so to reveal their own perception about the Common Property capability to effectively stimulate the socio-economic development of mountain areas and proactively pursue a sound forest management.
In the second phase, taking advantage of a secondary data analysis and through descriptive statistics techniques, the common and municipal attitude towards the active provision of environmental services have been compared. Particularly, a set of environmental services others than wood has been selected, i.e. biodiversity protection, carbon storage, soil protection and water quality regulation, tourism promotion and support to recreational activities. It has been assessed whether Common Properties and Municipalities explicitly considered such environmental services among their current multi-functional forest management practices. The assigned priority to the supply of the environmental services was also tested, analysing whether they consider such provision as a primary or secondary forest management objective. Finally, respondents declaring no or secondary commitment to the supply of one or more environmental services were asked to indicate under which conditions they would be potentially interested in strengthening such proactive provision.
In the third research step, a new set of interviews has been carried out to check and compare municipal representatives’ opinions with common representatives’ ones. So, face-to-face interviews have been carried out among common representatives of those Common Properties located in the same areas where the parallel survey had been conducted among Municipalities. Again, the collaborative mechanisms and the institutional linkages horizontally linking Common Properties with Municipalities have been explored, along with their self-evaluation on their own management options and outputs.
An informed viewpoint is therefore discussed, disclosing whether cooperative institutional relationships among Common Properties and Municipalities prevail and their mutual institutional tensions can be considered sporadic, or deeper and chronic issues affect them. Prerequisites and conditions best facilitating the establishment of fruitful relationships between these two entities are also described. Moreover, it is discussed whether the ongoing regional attempts at reconciliation between public policies and collective strategies is likely to result in higher levels of synergies also through a socio-economic lens. Results suggest that Municipalities remain the primary institutional reference point for mountain territories, and they continue to play a central role in regulation of local-level socio-economic dynamics. Usually, institutional tensions occur when the presumption that Common Properties have nothing to do with Municipalities prevail (and vice versa), although both these institutions play a role in managing overlapping territories. From a social perspective, it seems also recommendable that right-holders conceive Common Properties more as essential tools to ensure the involvement of right-holders in the local policy processes, rather than as a mere legal acknowledgement of ancient property rights. Nowadays, an excessive closure could even threaten the same survival of some Common Properties, shifted from struggling against the so-called past `enclosure of Commons´ to the opposite situation, i.e. the risk to downgrade to `common enclosures´.
Informal relationships among municipal and common representatives have been found to play a relevant role in maintaining the institutional contacts between these bodies vital and properly working. Nonetheless, mechanisms to enforce stable, robust and enduring cooperation (e.g. joint declarations of interest, procedural and/or economic memoranda and agreements, etc.) are worthwhile. In this way, it would be possible also to overcome and prevent personal contrasts that negatively and heavily affect the institutional relationships.
Finally, it is comprehensively argued whether or not the outcomes of the re-assignment of former municipal forests to Common Properties can be considered positive in terms of improved forest management practices and environmental services supply. A general consensus has been found, that forest management has improved since Common Properties newly gained control over local forest resources, probably because it represents their statutory and vocational core business. Particularly, the re-establishment of `new´ Common Properties may reinforce the main provisioning services. However, the dichotomy `Common Properties focussed on market-based activities (i.e. wood harvesting) vs. Municipalities focussed on provision of environmental services´ does not seem appropriate
