Public Participation in Forest Landscape Management Planning (FLMP) in Italy

Abstract

In the early 1990s, public involvement in forest planning was recognized and implemented both at a political and technical level in Europe, whereas in Italy, the participatory approach in forest planning, particularly at landscape level, has become widespread over the last decade. Several actors have been involved and the need to consider the objectives and targets expressed by different stakeholders has progressively increased. More consideration has been given to the outcomes of this involvement for the decisionmaking process. In the first part of the article, the forest-planning framework in the Italian context is presented, illustrating the role of the different levels of planning: the National Forest Programme (NFP), the Forest Landscape Management Plan (FLMP), and the Forest Unit Management Plan (FUMP). In the second part, the public participation process model, developed by the authors in Italy for the landscape scale, is analyzed by underlining four key attributes: procedure, moment of participation, learning interaction, and delegation of power. Regarding procedure, the five stages of participation adopted-communication and information, stakeholder analysis, first consultation stage, synthesis and preparation of the scenarios, and second consultation stage-are presented in order 465 Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 23:37 02 October 2015 466 A. Paletto et al. to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the methodological approach.

Orchestrating Forest Policy in Italy: Mission Impossible?

“…In this framework, participatory policy processes are a necessity, because the definition of a forest-related policy must take into account a wide range of information related to various settings, involving local communities, adjusting and implementing decisions across different levels with a continuous interplay between top-down and bottom-up governance [18], promoting exchange of knowledge and collaborative learning about problems and their solutions [19], and approaching decisions that are both legitimate and sustainable [20]. Despite these fundamental characteristics, the specific aims of participation may differ according to historical period and the geographical and socioeconomic context [5]. Nevertheless until lately only a few national or regional contexts exist where the participation process for the development of forest policies followed a rigorous procedure and there is still no agreement on a unique, appropriate participation process [21].…”

“…The case studies analysis has been integrated through the direct knowledge of and observations by the paper's authors. Some of them have more than 30 years of direct experience with forest policy processes in the country, some are currently involved in forest policy reforms at national level, and others have published papers on participatory-oriented processes in forestry in Italy [3,5,38,[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. To promote the quality of companies and their products in timber and related sectors.…”

Legal Opportunities for Public Participation in Forest Management in the Republic of Korea

“…Referring to previous studies [9,32,33], the legal opportunities for public participation were investigated using four scales: information sharing; consultation; collaborative decision-making; and implementation. Information sharing is the first stage of the public participation process [26]. Consultation is conducted with social actors who present their different interests at stake.…”

“…Public participatory processes refer to formal procedures of public consultation about specific forest practices and projects [11] (p. 8). Consultation requires an in-depth discussion between the key stakeholders to be conducted by means of appropriate timing and methods [26]. The right to public comment reflects the principle of direct participation in democratic decisions and governance [23,27].…”

Balancing Economic Development and Environmental Conservation for a New Governance of Alpine Areas

“…Such a group should include, in addition to researchers and technicians, one or two local people who act as a point of reference, people who know local mechanisms of governance and the actors involved, and enjoy the trust of the community. This group has proved to be very useful in enabling the comprehension of social and economic assets and on-going dynamics, and to assess the role and responsibility of local stakeholders and decision makers, their power and capacity for interaction and networking [10,128]. The accompanying group can also be entrusted with the task of finding suitable methods to structure local actors' participation, in order to promote well informed, shared decisions.…”