Combining Multifunctionality and Ecosystem Services into a Win-Win Solution. The Case Study of the Serchio River Basin (Tuscany—Italy)

Abstract

Post-war development-characterized by intensive processes of urbanization, concentration of agriculture on the most fertile lands, and abandonment of mountainous and marginal areas-brought about negative environmental and socio-economic consequences. They have been particularly severe in terms of increase of hydrogeological risk, which is high in most Italian regions. Over time, there has been an increasing awareness of the multiple functions played by agriculture in terms of provision of Ecosystem Services (ES), which contribute fundamentally to human well-being. In particular, some ES provided by farmers may help to reduce the hydrogeological risk of territories prone to landslides and floods. In this framework, the paper presents as a case study the project "Farmers as Custodians of a Territory." This project was implemented in the Serchio River basin, Tuscany (Italy), and combines a multifunctional farm strategy of diversification with the provision of Ecosystem Services related to the hydraulic and hydrogeological protection of the river-basin territory. Although this case study should be read within the framework of the theories of agricultural multifunctionality and ES provision, it nevertheless took a very pragmatic and innovative approach, which differentiates it from most of the case studies given in the literature. Results of our analysis show that, by involving farmers as custodians of the territory, it is possible to reach a "win-win" solution characterized, on the one hand, by better services for the community at a lower cost for the Land Reclamation Consortia involved with hydrogeological risk prevention, thus improving the effectiveness and efficiency of ES provision; and on the other hand, by improving the economic situation and survival chances of local farms.

A Place-based Turn in Multifunctional Agriculture: The Case of Italy's Garfagnana Region

“…By the 1950s and 1960s, in part due to economic stimulus from the Marshall Plan 5 , new mining and metal industries developed in the regions of Tuscany south of Garfagnana, drawing a second wave of emigration out of the territory (I. Poli, personal communication, July, 2015). Since the 1960s, the population of Garfagnana has decreased 34% while the population of Tuscany as a whole has increased (I. Poli, personal communication, July, 2015; Rovai & Andreoli, 2016). This emigration corresponds closely to sharp decreases in the number of farms (72.9%) and amount of Utilized Agricultural Area (54.3%) in Garfagnana from 1982 to 2010, again at rates higher than the Tuscan average (Rovai & Andreoli, 2016).…”

“…1 Despite the general trend in Italy (and, more broadly, in Europe) of rural abandonment and agricultural concentration since the 1980s, much of the farming sector in Garfagnana continues to be oriented toward small-scale production. This development trajectory is a result (in part) of efforts by local farmers and institutions both to strengthen historically rooted agricultural practices and values and adapt these practices to new socio-economic and environmental dynamics in the territory 2 (Camilli & Pieroni, 2016;Rovai & Andreoli, 2016). With growing European socio-political recognition of the diverse social, environmental, cultural, and economic roles and functions that small-scale agriculture plays in rural communities, Garfagnana has been increasingly recognized for its family-farming sector and approach to community-oriented development as a potential model for other regions.…”

“…For further discussion see Cairol, Caudel, Nickel, Caron, and Kroger (2009). 3 For additional research on multifunctional agriculture in Garfagnana, see Camilli & Pieroni (2016); Mantino & Vanni (2018); Rovai & Andreoli (2016). different elements of place-based multifunctional agriculture in Garfagnana.…”

Ecosystem services and multifunctional agriculture: Unravelling informal stakeholders' perceptions and water governance in three European irrigation systems

“…However, the provision of goods and services in MFA is a direct result of agricultural activities, whereas in ES, it is a direct result of ecosystems that are influenced by farming activities(Rovai & Andreoli, 2016). For example, agricultural diversification and environmentally focused natural-rural management plans may benefit aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity without compromising farm incomes if society recognizes multifunctional role of farmers, similar to what occurs in the Muzza system and should be implemented in the Segarra-Garrigues system.…”

“…MFA and ES are both anthropogenic concepts that focus on human benefits and, in fact, many benefits provided by MFA can be considered as ES. However, the provision of goods and services in MFA is a direct result of agricultural activities, whereas in ES, it is a direct result of ecosystems that are influenced by farming activities(Rovai & Andreoli, 2016). This difference of interpretation has been evident in some stakeholders' interviews where it was difficult to know if the interlocutor was aware of this conceptual difference.…”