Ecological compensation in spatial planning in Italy

Abstract

Ecological compensation or biodiversity offsets are increasingly recognized as a key element for environmental sustainability; however, more attention has been paid so far to compensation applied at the project level rather than to spatial planning. Meanwhile, there is a growing acknowledgement that extensive environmental depletion is being caused by the cumulative effects of small developments allowed by spatial/land use plans. This paper aims to collect empirical evidence on the requirements for ecological compensation at a strategic level of decision-making – spatial planning – in Italy. Results indicate that spatial plans are increasingly introducing offset requirements for residual impacts of new urban developments; however, methodological and operational aspects are not sufficiently addressed and enforcement mechanisms appear weak. The lack of legal frameworks and of established methods appears to be the main element currently hindering biodiversity offset implementation at the planning level. It is suggested that, in the Italian context, a way to foster better implementation is the design of environmental stewardship schemes involving farmers, developers and planning authorities.

Keywords:

• ecological compensation
• biodiversity offsets
• spatial planning
• Italy

Introduction

Ecological compensation, or biodiversity offsets (hereafter used synonymously), are increasingly recognized as a crucial element of environmental sustainability and are receiving attention from scholars from different disciplines, including conservation biology (Wissel and Wätzold 2010, Maron et al. 2012; Quétier and Lavorel, 2011), spatial planning (Wilding and Raemaekers 2000; Pileri 2007, Underwood, 2010) and environmental assessment (Hayes and Morrison-Saunders 2007; Brownlie and Botha 2009; Villaroya and Puig, 2010; Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013). Policy-makers and the private sector are also showing increasing interest, as testified by the recent biodiversity offset programme launched by the Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs of England (DEFRA, 2012), or the Business Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP, 2009).

From this body of research, some key principles of biodiversity offsets can be drawn. Firstly, biodiversity offsets are part of the so called mitigation hierarchy of avoidance–reduction– mitigation–offsets and should be considered the ‘last resort’ for residual impacts (Glasson et al. 2012). In turn, a hierarchy of compensation actions has been identified where the preferred order of methods is restoration, creation, enhancement and preservation (BBOP, 2009; Villarroya and Puig 2010). The main methodological and practical issues concerning the design, implementation and enforcement of compensation measures include their scope (which components of biodiversity are considered), location (on-site or off-site), timing (pre- or post-impact), duration of offsets, metric and methods to calculate ecological equivalence, and geographic scale (BBOP, 2009; Wissel and Wätzold 2010; Underwood 2011; Quétier and Lavorel, 2011). Offsets can also be considered a form of trade-off, as they involve substitutions of resources in time, place and kind: they should thus explicitly be considered throughout any decision-making process from the very earliest stages (Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013).

As a general principle, biodiversity offsets should achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity (BBOP, 2009). To this end, a ‘like-for-like’ approach should be used, meaning compensation for impacted ecological components by targeting the same components elsewhere (in-kind compensation), although a ‘like for better’ approach has also been advanced (Middle and Middle 2010), entailing the restoration/protection of more highly valued environmental assets to achieve greater ecological benefit. However, there is no single indicator that can be used to measure the ecological value of an area in its entirely, so different metrics have been proposed as surrogates, often based on scoring systems accounting for different ecological/biodiversity aspects (e.g. DEFRA, 2012). Uncertainties and time lags of ecological gains are also critical factors (Moilanen et al. 2009), and they are generally addressed by requiring positive compensation ratios (area compensated/area lost) >1 (BBOP, 2009). On the other hand, offsets have been criticized on the ground that emphasizing the potential benefits of compensations could lead developers to smooth over the mitigation hierarchy under the false impression that any impact can be compensated for (Quétier and Lavorel, 2011).

Notwithstanding an increasing availability of studies on ecological compensation and the existence of different legal frameworks worldwide (e.g. McKenney and Kiesecker, 2010), best practice regarding its implementation may be considered to be still in its infancy (BBOP, 2009) and concepts and methodologies need to be tested based on more practical experience and real-world implementation and subsequent monitoring (Quétier and Lavorel, 2011). Parallel to this there is a growing acknowledgement that significant environmental depletion is being caused by urbanization developments, which may in themselves be small enough to pass through the net of environmental impact assessment (EIA), but cumulatively represent one of the main cause of biodiversity loss worldwide (Wilding and Raemaekers 2000; EEA, 2006; McKinney 2006; Pauw and Louw 2012). There is thus a need to address compensation by looking at a strategic level of decision-making rather than only at the individual project level. Spatial/land use plans set the frame for future urban developments and consequent land take, thus representing a relevant field of application for ecological compensation.

The objective of this paper is to collect empirical evidence on offsetting requirements at a strategic level of decision-making – spatial planning – in a specific country, that is, Italy. To this end, a relevant sample of high-level spatial plans was examined to investigate the extent to which current ecological compensation for urban developments is required, and if/how the many methodological issues described above are addressed. The next section provides context information on the Italian planning and regulatory framework; then the research design is described, and findings are presented and discussed. The paper ends with some concluding remarks.

The Italian Planning Context and legal frameworks concerning offsets

Spatial planning in Italy is regulated at the national level through the ‘Urban planning law’ of 1942, amended in 1967. However, from the 1970s, planning competences were increasingly transferred to Regions. The Italian planning system consists of three-tiers, corresponding to the country's three administrative levels: Regions (20), Provinces (110) and municipalities (8094). Each level elaborates a spatial plan, with Regional and Provincial plans setting general objectives and regulatory frameworks, while detailed zoning is defined by municipal plans. Overall, the Italian planning system is highly fragmented, featuring a great differentiation of regulatory frameworks between Regions and a weak coordination agency at the national level (Rega 2007; Bonifazi et al. 2011). Traditionally, spatial planning in Italy has focused on the identification of high ecological value areas to be protected with poor consideration of the avoidance and mitigation/compensation of impacts occurring elsewhere, particularly on agricultural land (Magnaghi 2010).

Provincial Plans are the object of this study; their man aims are:

•	To identify the provincial ecological network, made up of core areas to be subjected to particular restrictions and safeguards in relation to their natural, ecological and landscape value, plus buffer zones and ecological corridors connecting them;
•	To define localization criteria for major infrastructures, industrial sites and public services;
•	To provide orientations and prescriptions for municipal plans, whose approval is subject to a compliance check with respect to higher Provincial Plans.

Provincial plans' policies may be in the form of prescriptions, directives or recommendations: prescriptions are binding norms that directly apply or that lower level plans must implement; directives are policies that municipal plans shall implement unless a reasoned justification is provided; recommendations are general orientations whose actual implementation is left to the discretion of single municipalities.

Unlike other European countries, no legal framework on ecological compensations at the planning level is in place in Italy, with two exceptions: (a) offsets of impacts affecting Natura 2000 areas, as this is required by European Directive 92/43/EC, transposed by national Decree no. 357/1997; and (b) reforestation in case of woodland clearance (National Decree no. 227/2001). Conservation of protected or high-value areas is provided for by Spatial Plans at Regional level,1 whose policies have to be implemented and detailed by Provincial Plans. General references to mitigation and compensation are provided for in the national laws transposing the European Directive of EIA and Strategic Environmental Assessment but no specific enforcement mechanism is provided for spatial plans, nor does any guidance issued by national environmental authorities exist on how to determine ecological equivalence. Law no. 443/2001 establishes particular procedures for the realization of identified major infrastructure projects of ‘national strategic relevance’, including a simplification of the EIA process, and requires that 3.5% of the total project budget be devoted to environmental offsets, but no further guidance is provided. No similar requirement is in place for ordinary projects subject to EIA.

Research design

The empirical investigation was conducted on a sample of provincial plans approved in Italy from 2003 to 2012.2 Provincial plans were selected as they set the regulatory frame for new urban developments and thus represent a more direct reference for municipal land use plans, for which actual implementation of offsets is necessary as they are the only ones affecting land property rights.

Overall, 35 plans were examined, including their environmental report pursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC. They were selected to cover different Italian regions and the main provinces in terms of population and areas. The sample represents one-third of all the Italian provinces, but at least 47% of all existing Provincial Plans as of 2012,3 accounting for 37% of total country area and 51% of the whole population (Table 1).

Table 1 list of examined plans and year of approval.

Plan number	Province	Approved in
1	Ancona	2003
2	Belluno	2010
3	Bologna	2004, amended in 2009
4	Cagliari	2004
5	Caserta	2012
6	Catanzaro	2012
7	Como	2006
8	Cosenza	2008
9	Cremona	2009
10	Cuneo	2009
11	Firenze	1998, amended in 2012
12	Foggia	2009
13	Forlì	2006
14	Lecce	2008
15	Lodi	2005
16	Mantova	2010
17	Milano	2003
18	Modena	2009
19	Monza	2011 (adopted)
20	Napoli	2009
21	Padova	2009
22	Parma	2008
23	Pistoia	2009
24	Reggio Calabria	2011
25	Reggio Emilia	2010
26	Roma	2010
27	Rovigo	2012
28	Salerno	2012
29	Sassari	2006
30	Siena	2011
31	Sondrio	2010
32	Torino	2011
33	Vercelli	2009
34	Verona	in process
35	Vicenza	2010

All of the examined plans define criteria and rules for the localization of new developments on greenfield areas, so in principle every plan allows for a certain level of residual impact to occur. The method adopted involved scrutinizing the plans through an analytical framework articulated in six main criteria (Box 1), which resembles previous studies regarding policies (Lee and Kirkpatrick 2006), plans and programmes (Lee et al. 1999; Fischer 2010), and projects (Wood 2003; Noble 2009).

Question 1 was intended to first identify those plan with no requirement for ecological compensation. For the remainder, the scope of offsets requirement was investigated (e.g. compensation required for any kind of residual impacts or only in specific cases/impacted areas) and the binding power of the norm – prescriptions, directives or recommendations. Each remaining case was then scored against criteria 2–6 using a similar approach to that of Noble (2009): criterion fully met; criterion partially met; criterion not met. ‘Partially’ means that some reference to the relative aspect was found, but the issue was not entirely addressed by plans' norms.

Box 1. Criteria used to analyse the plans

(Preliminary research question) Presence/scope of application and binding power of norms requiring ecological compensation is determined.

Methods and/or metrics to calculate the size and kind of compensation required are described.

Priority areas for offsets implementation are identified

The plan specifies when offsets are to be realized have to be implemented with respect to the impact generated.

The Plan establishes procedures for offsets implementation; in particular, it establishes:

∘ Which enforcement mechanisms are in place to secure offsets’ implementation;

∘ Who will be responsible for bearing the costs of long-term management of compensation areas.

The plan requires that the implementation of compensations be monitored.

Results: The use of ecological compensation in Italian Spatial planning

Table 2 reports the results concerning question 1, with a synthesis of the scope of application and binding power of the norms. Overall, 10 out of 35 plans (29%) did not have any requirement for ecological compensation; the majority (25 out of 35 or 71%) required offsets, but norms varied greatly. In many cases compensation was present in the plan in the form of directives or recommendations, more rarely as prescriptions. Only 12 (34%) plans required compensation for a wide range of residual impacts (the first 12 lines in Table 2), while the other 13(37%) prescribed or recommended offsets only in specific situations: in most cases, the requirement concerned some identified target areas that were impacted; in other cases the requirement instead concerned the driver of the impact. Following national requirements, the majority of offset prescriptions concerned woodland clearance. New developments in Natura 2000 sites are not allowed unless no other feasible alternative is possible, and in these cases compensation is also always prescribed. As for other areas of the ecological network, rules vary, but generally new developments are not allowed, and in these cases offsets are almost always required, even if sometimes as directives rather than prescriptions.

Table 2 requirements for ecological compensations in the examined plans with regard to scope of application and binding nature of the related norms.

Plan number and Province Name	Scope and binding power of offsets requirements
2 – Belluno	Prescription for all kinds of residual impacts of new developments; rules for implementation are left to single municipalities.
3 – Bologna	Directive for new developments on agricultural land and affecting the ecological network. Recommended for impacts of new roads, new industrial sites and new large retail structures
9 – Cremona	Prescription for residential developments realized aftera threshold of residents has been reached. Recommended in other cases.
12 – Foggia	Prescription: woodlands clearance and new developments on identified high-value natural areas; Recommended for impacts on river bands, woodlands, prairies, terracing and high-value landscape areas.
13 – Forli	Prescription for any development affecting woodlands or ecological network; new industrial sites wherever they are localized; new retail centers; Directive for any development affecting agricultural land
19 – Monza	Prescription for woodlands clearance and for any impact on the ecological network
20 – Napoli	Prescription for any new development on greenfield
25 – Reggio Emilia	Prescription for woodlands clearance, developments affecting the ecological network; major retail developments;
27 – Rovigo	Prescription for any intervention affecting the ecological network
32 – Torino	Directive for any kind of negative impact on any natural asset
34 – Verona	Prescription for new major public services affecting the ecological network; directive for all new urban developments, roads and industrial sites
35 – Vicenza	Prescription for impacts of infrastructure affecting the ecological network and woodlands; Directive for new developments on greenfield sites
5 – Caserta	Prescription only for impacts from new roads and woodlands clearance
15 – Lodi	Prescription for woodlands clearance and for developments occurring in specific identified rural areas adjacent to the urban fabric. Recommended in other cases
16 – Mantova	Prescription for major infrastructure affecting Natura 2000 sites. Recommended for any kind of impact affecting identified natural and traditional landscapes/high-value natural areas
17 – Milano	Prescription for: (1) impacts of new major roads and infrastructures affecting the ecological network; (2) waste facilities or quarries in river bands. Recommended for any action affecting the ecological network and/or deriving from new industrial developments
18 – Modena	Prescription for woodlands clearance and for any development on greenfield or affecting wetlands/Natura 2000 areas
21 – Padova	Recommended only for impact affecting Natura 2000 areas
22 – Parma	Prescription for woodlands clearance.
23 – Pistoia	Prescription to compensate for CO2 emissions of new developments
26 – Roma	Recommended as a general policy, but implementation is subject to specific regulations yet to be issued
33 – Vercelli	Prescription if impacts occur in river bands. Recommended in other cases

When attention is turned to the other criteria, the results are less promising (Table 3). As for criterion 2, no metrics or ratios were provided in 19 out of 35 cases (54%); some references were found in 10 cases (29%), but mainly concerning reforestation ratios for woodland clearance (1:1 ratio of like-for-like offset for woodland clearance from Plan nos 5, 12 and 18).

Table 3 synthesis of results for questions 2–6.

	Criteria
Case	2 methods/metrics	3 location of compensation areas	4 Timing	5 Procedures and responsibilities	6 Monitoring
Belluno	×	×	×	×	×
Bologna	×	≈	×	×	×
Caserta	≈	×	×	×	×
Cremona	✓	×	×	×	≈
Foggia	≈	×	×	×	×
Forli	≈	×	×	✓	×
Lodi	×	≈	×	≈	×
Mantova	✓	✓	≈	≈	≈
Milano	≈	×	×	×	×
Modena	≈	≈	×	×	×
Monza	✓	✓	×	≈	✓
Napoli	✓	✓	×	≈	×
Padova	×	×	×	×	×
Parma	×	≈	×	×	×
Pistoia	≈	≈	×	×	×
Reggio Emilia	✓	✓	×	✓	≈
Roma	×	×	×	×	×
Rovigo	✓	✓	✓	✓	×
Sassari	×	×	×	×	×
Siena	×	×	×	×	×
Torino	≈	✓	≈	≈	✓
Vercelli	×	✓	×	×	×
Verona	≈	≈	×	×	×
Vicenza	≈	≈	✓	≈	×
✓ Criterion met; ≈ criterion partially met; × criterion not met.

Only in six cases were offset ratios specified, with requirements varying greatly: Plan no. 19 established that a 1:1 ratio of offset area must be guaranteed for all impacts affecting agricultural areas, regional parks and protected areas. Ratios of 1:1 and 1:2 were required by plan nos 25 and 27, respectively. Plan no. 16 established a basic offset ratio of 1:10, increased to 1.5:10 for specific high-value areas. Alternatively, municipalities can use a more detailed ‘Land Biodiversity Index’ based on a score system associated with land covers as a metric to calculate compensation. Plan no. 9 required a 1:1 ratio for land take by new development or, alternatively, 1 linear km of trees planted for each hectare of soil sealed. Plan no. 20 required offsets to be realized within the new development perimeter: at least 30% of the new residential developments area had to be kept greenfield; Plan no. 32 did not establish specific ratios but explicitly required in-kind offsets whenever possible.

More detailed methodological guidance on how to realize offsets (containing examples and best practice) were found only in four cases (16, 17, 25 and 32)

In seven cases (20%) areas were identified only for offsets deriving from some kind of impacts, generally reforestation following woodland clearance. Only in another seven cases did plans explicitly identify suitable or priority areas for different kind of offsets. Plan nos 16, 20, 23 established that offsets should be realized within or near new developments, but only plan no. 16 provided an inventory of areas suitable for receiving offsets. Plan nos 19, 25 and 33 identified periurban agricultural areas with high agricultural potential as priority receiving areas. Plan no. 27 identified ‘areas of particular interest for ecological functionality’ but only for offsetting impacts of actions under provincial responsibilities, while in all other cases the identification of suitable areas was left to single municipalities.

Plans scored poorly against criteria 4–6. Plan nos 27 and 35 were the only ones explicitly requiring that offsets be realized prior to, or in parallel with, developments generating impacts. Plan no. 16 established that compensation could be realized prior to, during or post the impacting actions, but the Province could add specific requirements on offset timing during the local plan approval procedure. As for criterion no. 5, Plan no. 19 was the only one to explicitly address administrative and operational aspects, in particular property issues, by stating that compensation areas must be ceded by the developers to municipalities for free. Plan nos 13, 20, 25 and 27 ruled that private developers were responsible for bearing the costs of long-term management of compensation areas. Partial enforcement mechanisms were established only by plan nos 13, 15, 16, 19 and 27, requiring that an offset realization schedule be detailed in the masterplans of new developments that municipalities had to elaborate and send to the Province for approval. In no case, however, were specific control mechanisms established to verify ex-post the actual realization and maintenance of compensation actions. Linked to this, only three plans (nos 16, 19 and 32) provided indicators aimed at monitoring offsets' implementation in the environmental monitoring programme.4

Discussion

The described results are somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, they indicate that ecological compensation is beginning to be considered as feasible and desirable by planners and decision-makers at the provincial level in Italy. A positive trend over time can also be identified in that recent plans tend to have better scores in relation to the identified criteria. If, overall, these could be deemed as positive findings in the Italian context, it must be acknowledged that the evidence collected is less promising in relation to many aspects concerning compensation implementation and enforcement. Mandatory prescriptions are limited to specific impacts and targeted areas, which however are already largely safeguarded by Regional and Landscape plans and are not the main target areas for new developments. New development on agricultural land is the real issue at stake regarding offsets in Italy, but in such cases norms are less binding, usually in the form of directives, which traditionally may be downplayed by municipal plans in the Italian context.

Methodological and operational/administrative issues were poorly or not addressed by the majority of examined plans. Even in the most interesting cases, guidance provided to determine the kind and size of offsets was far from the level of detail used in other contexts (see for instance the German ‘Eingriffsregelung’ – Impact Mitigation Regulation; Wende et al. 2005; Darbi and Tausch 2010). Lack of clear and shared methods will probably hinder the diffusion of examples and case studies which, moreover, would be difficult to compare and translate to other planning contexts, even within the same Region, if the requirements of Provincial Plans differ. Finally, also in the case of established rules, the problem of finding suitable areas was not sufficiently addressed by most plans.

Overall, the results indicate that offset theory and practice in Italian spatial planning has ‘broken the ice’ but it is still in its infancy and has not taken into account key principles and lessons learned, lagging behind the current state of the art provided by international literature and already institutionalized in similar institutional/planning contexts. The findings of the empirical investigation conducted seems to point to two main critical elements:

1.

Lack of legal requirements – current national and regional laws on planning and environmental assessment procedures do not provide for binding rules linking the possibility of new development with the obligation to realize compensation measures. The establishment of a clear legal framework thus appears to be the most critical point in the Italian context. Developers are not used to considering compensationas an integral element in their projects and they will continue to ignore this unless legally obliged to do so.

2.

Lack of established methodologies – there is clearly an need for sound, but ‘ready-to-use’ methods and metrics to establish the amount and kind of compensation needed for different impacts. Although a straightforward methodology could be criticized on scientific grounds and be improved with practice, the lack of any established methods, which is the current situation, is the worst scenario.

It is acknowledged that these two points are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the effective implementation of offsets in the planning regime. Good legislation must be supported by effective enforcement mechanisms and increasing awareness among planners, environmental evaluators, technicians in the public administration and, obviously, policy-makers. The establishment of a ‘community of practice’ requires more than good laws, but also exchange of information and best practice showing the feasibility of offset schemes and the benefits that they can deliver. However, it is maintained that the two above mentioned points are the most urgent to be addressed by policy-makers and practitioners.

In the current national context, the establishment of offsets banking and/or pool Agencies would require major changes in the administrative context, which does not seem to be around the corner, although viewed as a desirable endpoint. In the meantime, the idea that ensues from this investigation, and which has been put forward also by other authors (e.g. Pileri 2007), is that farmers be directly involved in compensation schemes through agreements between them, the public authorities and developers. Agricultural land is in fact the main ‘pool’ of areas usable for compensation in a country like Italy, featuring a high population density and the absence of large residual ‘wild areas’. In this perspective, environmental stewardship mechanisms can be put in place resembling an already existing one, as farmers are already familiar with agri-environment schemes, along with monitoring and enforcement systems. The advantage in this case would be that farmers are already familiar with such arrangements, and that a legal basis is already provided for by national law 228/2001 (national framework law on agriculture) that, although not explicitly addressing biodiversity offsets, introduced a mechanism for farmers to reach agreements with public or private entities for the provision of environmental goods and services. The incorporation of such schemes within spatial planning would also allow consideration of offsets in synergy with broader landscape and ecological conservation policies to achieve greater environmental benefits (Underwood 2011). This proposal echoes similar ones recently advanced in the literature in the European context (Franks and Emery 2013).

Conclusions and further developments

This paper investigated the level of requirement regarding biodiversity offsets at a strategic level of decision making (Provincial Spatial planning) in Italy, a country with a weak legal framework concerning compensation and limited experience of implementation. Results indicate that, although more recent plans are increasingly incorporating ecological compensation requirements, methodological issues and administrative aspects regarding offsets design and implementation are still largely neglected. Enforcement mechanisms including monitoring provisions are also not established in the great majority of cases. The lack of a clear legal framework and of methods/metrics to be used by developers and planners seems to be the two main shortcomings in the current context. As far as the broader legal framework remains unchanged, it is proposed that, to foster offset implementation in spatial planning, environmental stewardship schemes involving farmers, who own the majority of suitable areas for offsets implementation in Italy, be designed within spatial plans at different levels. The establishment of clear rules and effective mechanisms would allow plan-makers and developers to incorporate compensation costs directly in budgets to make ecological compensation an ordinary element of spatial planning. Future research shall investigate the implementation of biodiversity offsets at a more detailed level, that is, municipal land use plans, to further identify practical and methodological issue, disseminate best practice and increase awareness and capacity building among key players.

Notes

^1. Traditionally, these are Regional Territorial Plans, defining the framework of territorial development and orientations for lower-tier spatial plans. From 2004, Regional Landscape Plans have been introduced to provide for specific rules for landscape (and in general ecological) preservation through the identification of valuable areas and ecological networks.

^2. Only two plans (nos 19 and 34) were not yet officially approved, but they were included as they had reached a definitive version at the time of writing.

^3. There are currently 110 Provinces in Italy, but not all of them have a Provincial Plan approved: as of 2010 there were 59 approved Plans; 16 Plans had been adopted (they had reached the first stage in the approval procedure), while the remainder were under elaboration. Updated figures as of 2012 were not available at the time of writing, but given the administrative approval procedures of Provincial Plans, it can be expected that all Plans adopted in 2010 would be approved by 2012. In this case, approved plans as of 2012 would be, at most, 75, the sample thus accounting for at least 47% of all approved Plans.

^4. Pursuant to article 10 of Directive 2001/42/EC.